Happy Atheist Forum

I'm 25, married, college educated, no kids, and I'm Catholic. I have faith, but I'm not a bible thumper, so no worries about hearing verses from me (unless you actually literally ask,"What does your bible say about...").

I'm here because I have questions, and I think that having an actual person clarify something for me is much more effective than just reading about it. I'm also here in case anyone needs help understanding what the heck is going on in the minds of Christians.

-BB

Heya.

Quote from: "Being_Brave"I'm also here in case anyone needs help understanding what the heck is going on in the minds of Christians.
-BB

You seem to be taking on a daunting task there BB.
Glad to have you here.  

Hi BB

Welcome aboard and do ask your questions, although you will still have to read my answers as that's the only option on a forum  

Regards
Chris

Hello there BB!
You have some questions? You came to one of the right places to do just that.

Hi BB - Welcome!

No bravery required.  Most folks here are very civil... and only a few bite ;-)

Cheers,
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"Hi BB - Welcome!

No bravery required.  Most folks here are very civil... and only a few bite ;-)

Cheers,
JoeActor

Personally I tend to nibble around the edges in a ticklish sort of way.  

Hi there.  Hope you enjoy it here.

Quote from: "joeactor"Most folks here are very civil... and only a few bite ;-)

Except when we´re ranting. When this happens, remember it has nothing to do with you  

Quote from: "Being_Brave"I'm 25, married, college educated, no kids, and I'm Catholic. I have faith, but I'm not a bible thumper, so no worries about hearing verses from me (unless you actually literally ask,"What does your bible say about...").

I'm here because I have questions, and I think that having an actual person clarify something for me is much more effective than just reading about it. I'm also here in case anyone needs help understanding what the heck is going on in the minds of Christians.

-BB

By "actual person", are you hinting that god may not be answering any of your questions...since he literally can't?

Welcome aboard.

Quote from: "DropLogic"By "actual person", are you hinting that god may not be answering any of your questions...since he literally can't?

No.
Read the entire sentence before you jump to conclusions.

Quotehaving an actual person clarify something for me is much more effective than just reading about it.

So, unless books about atheists are the same as the catholic god.......

No.

Quote from: "Tank"Personally I tend to nibble around the edges in a ticklish sort of way.  :P

Welcome.

Quote from: "Being_Brave"I'm here because I have questions, and I think that having an actual person clarify something for me is much more effective than just reading about it. I'm also here in case anyone needs help understanding what the heck is going on in the minds of Christians.

-BB

Welcome, BB, I think we could have some fun with this.

So...what's the first question you have?

Hi.

Welcome BB it's always good to have new posters and theists add new and sometimes needed points of view.

I think we scared her off  

It's only been about 30 hours give her time to come back. I don't post for days at a time and I'm a regular.

Quote from: "Tanker"It's only been about 30 hours give her time to come back. I don't post for days at a time and I'm a regular.

But I want instant gratification  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Tanker"It's only been about 30 hours give her time to come back. I don't post for days at a time and I'm a regular.

But I want instant gratification  

No.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Tanker"It's only been about 30 hours give her time to come back. I don't post for days at a time and I'm a regular.

But I want instant gratification  

I can suggest some alternative websites.

Quote from: "Velma"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Tanker"It's only been about 30 hours give her time to come back. I don't post for days at a time and I'm a regular.

But I want instant gratification  lol

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "Tank"But I want instant gratification  :pop:

I'm back :hmm:

Hi there,

I'm not an expert in human physiology, but I can tell you that parthenogenesis is not particularly unusual in nature. You probably know about whiptail lizards, some of which reproduce without sex. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense in the short run. Why combine your genes with another individual, when you could have an offspring (or even several) with one hundred percent of your genes?

The answer is disease. We're in a constant battle with our parasites. Sexual reproduction allows us to give the parasite a new puzzle to solve with every generation. If we just cloned ourselves, as the whiptail lizards do, eventually the parasites (who themselves keep trying new combinations through sexual reproduction) would hit on the perfect attack strategy, and we'd be defenseless to stop them.

But here's a deeper question, and please don't be offended. After all, you came here. Why does it matter? Think about it this way. If God really is omnipotent, then He could do anything. Why choose a birthing method so frought with the potential for shenanigans (literally)? Why not just pop into existence fully formed, or choose some other obviously miraculous way of appearing? Why make it look so much like you're just a guy with a story to tell?

Yesterday I was talking with someone about plate tectonics. It occurred to me that there's a great example of natural processes that could only (as far as I can imagine) be stopped through a miracle. Why not stop the continents? If miracles really are flying around the universe, waiting to land somewhere, why are they always so very close to parlor tricks, hearsay, and the stuff of dreams? Why not a great big sign in the sky that says, "I'm God. No, over here! Hiya!"?

To me, it's very much like the SETI argument. I have no idea if there are intelligences beyond the Earth. And that's the point. We can easily imagine a universe in which the presence of intelligence screams out at us, impossible to miss. At least in this part of the galaxy, that's not the case. But what's true of the Galactic Federation (apparently absent) is even more true of an all-powerful God. Why hide in XXY chromosomes and rare-but-not-impossible biological events?

I think that God would skip all of the parthenogenisis stuff and just create new genetic material right in the womb.

It should be noted that Pratt notes that the inducing of parthenogenesis in mammals must be accomplished by mechanical, chemical, or electrical means.  It doesn't "just happen".  Nor has it been brought about in humans.  The one study of it he cites has deep flaws.

I appreciate your take on the matter...But unfortunately, god does not survive the scientific method, not even close.

Let's say that virgin births are scientifically possible (I've read about it before online and remember not being very convinced)...wouldn't that be a reason to doubt the immaculate conception story and accordingly the Christ status of Jesus?

(Going to get a little religious here, but just to explain my thinking...not offended if someone disagrees, it's good for my ideas to be challenged ) Immaculate conception is being concieved without the stain of original sin, not necessarily the part about being born of a virgin. In Catholicism Jesus' mother was also immaculately concieved, but she had a mother and father. So if the person Jesus were born by parthenogenesis he could still be born without sin (and I think his particular chromosome makeup would make him a hermaphrodite or intersex?? IDK, but it would explain why he wouldn't have gotten married or had kids *shrug*)

The story goes that "In the beginning..." He made people, animals, earth, sky, etc.. It doesn't say anything about making the blood to fill the living things with, or the minerals he made rocks of, or ANY detail like that. It doesn't say he purposely put a moon close enough to make the tides- but if I'm to believe that he is the creator of everything I have to asume he did, whether the Bible mentions it or not. There are tons of things that we now know that the guys who penned the Bible didn't back then, but that wouldn't mean that they still didn't exist, just that they wouldn't understand how it worked anyways.

What I noticed about the "miracles" of the bible is that most of them can be explained away by natural occurances. Red tide, for example, and the plagues; scientists have been able to identify causes that aren't "supernatural". The problem I have is that I think, if I were a God, I would use all the natural possibilites that I'd already made to manifest my "miracles". So, if there was already a possibility for something like parthenogenesis, and it was a way for me to get a virgin pregnant, I'd do it.

I'm sure you guys have heard this before, but God was supposed to have created us in His image. That's not supposed to mean that we look just like him, but that we have the ability to understand and reason. That would mean that he created us knowing that we would one day understand how he manifested his miracles. If that were true it would be one way that, even though miracles like those in the Bible don't occur anymore, our "debunking" them with scientific research would serve as some kind of proof that they actually happened, and weren't magic done by a big invisible magician. I know that not every claim in the Bible can be explained, but at one time we thought none of them could, and now we know differently.

My big question about the stuff I found on the internet was is that actually possible? I guess I mean to ask how ligitimate is the claim of its possiblity? From what I keep reading I know that scientists haven't been able to recreate it, but then I read that there were women who were pregnant even though their tubes were completely blocked or the tissue was dammaged so badly that pregnancy shouldn't have been an option.

Thumpalumpacus: what flaws did you find, because that's the kind of thing I'm looking for- was it in the tests done, or in the way it's reported? (To be honest, knowing will help me understand any other kind of research I read, too.)

I think you're really reaching here. I understand your premise to be that God would make miracles look as non-miraculous as possible. But the natural world goes so much farther than just looking natural. It looks utterly unplanned - or, at least as unplanned as it could possibly be and still admit the existence of beings like us. If your idea is that modern science would reveal the presence of God, why is there not some clear sign, maybe the ten commandments written in tiny tablets inside every cell? That would convince me.

Don't you think your approach is dangerously close to self-delusion? You've posited a God who does everything possible to hide his existence. Doesn't it feel an awful lot to you like parents' stories to their kids about why Santa Claus is real, yet indetectable? Don't you think if you heard someone making similar arguments about Zeus or fairies or the Easter Bunny that you'd feel like they're stretching reality to encompass something they really, really want to believe?

I'm sorry to push, but you seem like someone who is on the verge of really seeing the world in a scientific way, and to me that means you're potentially on the verge of a great breakthrough in your life.

Hey BB,

If you don't mind, let's look at it from a hypothetical situation - it may make it a bit more clear.

Let's say there is a story in a book with a miracle that has a full-grown elephant sprouting from a pumpkin seed.

Now, looking at this from the outside, your first question would probably be:

Did this event actually happen?

It might be a story to illustrate a point, or to explain the unknown at the time, or just a fable told to children.
Without some kind of other historical evidence that the event happened, it's a bit fruitless trying to explain *how* it happened.

Now, *if* you are able to determine that said elephant appeared to sprout full-grown from a pumpkin seed, your next question might be:

Are the observers reliable?

It may have been a magic trick, or some other optical illusion, drug-induced state, etc.

Next, you might research a plausible scientific hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
Then come up with methods to test or replicate the event (or parts of the event).

So... First things first.

Did this event *actually* happen?

(p.s. I also agree with the others - if all miraculous events can be explained in scientific terms, they cease to be miracles)

Quote from: "Being_Brave"I read that there were women who were pregnant even though their tubes were completely blocked or the tissue was dammaged so badly that pregnancy shouldn't have been an option.

If  parthenogenesis is basically the self fertilization of an egg by just the woman then tubes being tied or tissues being damage wouldn't point to  parthenogenesis as the only option.  In fact, if a woman's tubes are blocked either an egg slipped through and she got pregnant the old fashion way or she had IVF (in vitro) would be much more likely than an egg slipped through (ie not actually blocked) and then  parthenogenesis happened.  With damage tissue same thing only the egg managed to stick to a wall of tissue the doctors previously thought was too damaged to nurture an embryo.

The only time you could positively confirm  parthenogenesis is if a person who has a completely blocked vaginal opening becomes pregnant.  And even then I swear that when I was researching this phenomena I came across a case where a rape victim had a vaginal defect which caused it to be sealed but became pregnant because she was stabbed in the abdomen and sperm got in through the wound (sorry for mental pictures, I tried to keep it as nongraphic as possible).

Quote from: "Whitney"And even then I swear that when I was researching this phenomena I came across a case where a rape victim had a vaginal defect which caused it to be sealed but became pregnant because she was stabbed in the abdomen and sperm got in through the wound (sorry for mental pictures, I tried to keep it as nongraphic as possible).

Jeez..those are some motivated sperm.  Happens though...I got my wife pregnant when we were 19...through a condom, and birth control.  Go figure.

Quote from: "Being_Brave"(Going to get a little religious here, but just to explain my thinking...not offended if someone disagrees, it's good for my ideas to be challenged Google, but a burning bush, so I'm told.

QuoteMy big question about the stuff I found on the internet was is that actually possible? I guess I mean to ask how ligitimate is the claim of its possiblity? From what I keep reading I know that scientists haven't been able to recreate it, but then I read that there were women who were pregnant even though their tubes were completely blocked or the tissue was dammaged so badly that pregnancy shouldn't have been an option.

If parthenogenesis gives rise to messiahs,then there are billions of messiahs -- all of them insects.

QuoteThumpalumpacus: what flaws did you find, because that's the kind of thing I'm looking for- was it in the tests done, or in the way it's reported? (To be honest, knowing will help me understand any other kind of research I read, too.)

Small sample size, in the main.  Further, preconceived notions, and credibility unwisely extended.  Finally, the idea that if indeed parthenogenesis is shown in mammals, the extension of this idea that it explains the Virgin Birth, which, to be fair, is your idea, and not his.

Whitney, what you've said makes total sense to me. It would have to be a complete blockage of the cervix AND absolutely no intercourse in order for it to be a "proven" case. Since I can't find any kind of research on them, I have to assume it's a dead end, not valid.  I'll keep looking, but for now I'm back to "it's just a remote possibility", not actual fact.

ablprop: I actually might be delusional ;) ), it doesn't matter so much to me if someone wants to say that it's missing details on atoms. I won't pretend to know, but I'll tell you what I think, about why it doesn't mention some things. When it came to which information was recorded in the Bible, it was likely that the men were getting a condensed account of what happened (so if the actual "beginning" took more than 6 days, who is to say that evolution wasn't part of it? The original word that was translated into "days" was yom, which also means "a long period of time", so it really could have been just 6 long periods of time...but considering that the point of the Bible isn't really to put a time limit on things, it wouldn't have been explained.)

Quote from: "Being_Brave"ablprop: I actually might be delusional . I know it takes a certain amount of crazy to just believe in something, but it's like when you feel like someone is looking at you, no real reason for it, just a gut feeling that tells you something is up. I think the big thing that kept me from continuing living agnostically is that I can't convince myself that everything really is unplanned.

Being_Brave:

Thanks for that answer. I'm in a transition in my own life right now, which is part of the reason I'm here. Two weeks ago, I would have avoided this conversation like a disease, because I felt it was not my place to question your beliefs. Now, having lost a friend to religion for the second time in my life, I'm feeling something myself, something that tells me religious belief really does close one off to a precious experience of life. Ignore me if you wish, but I can't not speak to this.

If you believe that the universe is planned, you must accept some terrible things. Consider this. When a male lion takes over a tribe, the first thing it does is kill all the baby lions. This makes perfect sense, because those babies are the progeny of the lion just deposed, and their presence keeps their mothers from being available to make babies for the new lion. This is natural selection. It is ugly, wasteful, full of misery and pain, and utterly, inescapably true.

If you want a human example, consider that most northern Europeans have a genetic mutation that allows them to consume milk in adulthood. This gene spread through the population because it was advantageous to survival. But think about what that means. Just because the gene was advantageous didn't mean it suddenly started appearing more in babies, at least not right away. No, what had to happen was, those without the mutation died, or at the least were unable to reproduce. Evolution works like a knife, paring and cutting and removing all that doesn't compete as well as the victor.

It is unfathomable to me that a religious person can claim this horrendous (and true) process as the way God wanted it done.

I once discussed this topic with a human anthropology professor. He claimed that the reason the genus homo outcompeted their australopithecine neighbors was that homo learned better how to work together. He cited as evidence of this communal fire pits and the like. I looked deeper into his argument. One of the remains found in these communal fire pits was the charred finger bones of australopithecines! So yes, they learned to work together, to exterminate their neighbors. That is natural selection.

There is great beauty in the natural world, but it is stark beauty, cruel beauty, beauty that doesn't care one whit about us and our feelings and desires. If there is triumph in the rise of humanity (and I believe there is), it is in our rejection of natural selection as an organizing principle for society. We allow the lactose-intolerant child to live. We help each other instead of taking advantage (which is the genetically sensible practice). We teach and nurture other peoples' children. We spend time writing books, creating art, discovering the world out of pure curiosity. We find joy. In short, we tell our selfish genes to go jump in a lake. This is the great victory that we humans have made over nature. In my view, we did it on our own, without help from any outside diety, and that makes the victory so much sweeter.

So my question to you is, if you believe this world really is planned, what does the plan tell you of the planner?

Quote from: "Being_Brave"joeactor: Thank you for putting it that way,(if miracles can be proven they aren't miraculous anymore), I get what you guys are saying now. I don't think I agree with it, though. It's like saying, "We don't believe it because there is no proof that it's possible, and we don't believe it because there is proof that it happened." (I guess you could flip that around in a way and say it about theists, too. )

... not exactly...

It's more like saying "We don't believe because there is no reliable source of evidence outside of one religious book comprised of a collection of often unreliable and contradictory stories"

It would be difficult enough to prove a virgin birth today, much less an account of one that happened 2,000 years ago.
Now THAT's a cold case file!

Ok, I'm a theist, so I have some leeway to speak on the distinction between faith and science.

With faith, you start with a conclusion (ie. a virgin birth happened), then try to find evidence to support that conclusion.
If you find evidence that contradicts your conclusion, you are likely to discard the evidence and continue the search... often accepting less-than-reliable sources to support your position on the issue.

With science, you start with a hypothesis, then try to find evidence to support it (similar, yes?).
The difference is: when you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that means the hypothesis is flawed (not the evidence).
The hypothesis must be altered or discarded in this case.
A hypothesis that is supported by unreliable evidence will be undermined in time by peer-review, testing, contradictory evidence, etc.

Faith also has the "god" wild-card.  If something doesn't make sense or fit the facts, you can fall back on "god did it" and move forward.
Science has no such luxury.

... and yet, I still believe.  I'm just not saying in what ;-)
JoeActor

That's just crazy to me that someone would walk away from a friend over religion. My best friends are Baptists, and I've heard people tell them it's not good to listen to a Catholic, but when it comes down to it whether or not they stick around depends on what they personally decide to do. I just don't understand why people drop a friend over different opinions like that.

If someone chooses to believe in a religion like Christianity they have to face the reality that both the good and bad have to be attributed to God. I wish more Christians understood that!! There's this misconception that God is only in charge of the fun, warm-fuzzies. When it comes to natural selection (including animals like the lions and lactose-intolerance, and disease, virus, bacteria, etc.) I usually come back to the same idea: without those things we would not have the healthiest animals to eat, we would not be as advanced medically, and we would have simply accepted life without asking "why did that happen?" A believer can still say "God did it" because of how it helped advance life. If God wanted us to become advanced, he would have made sure that we had to encounter those things so that it would happen.

When disease, famine, natural disaster, death, etc.. happen, I wonder if having nobody to "blame" it on acutally helps people heal faster? I can see that the anger towards a god would add to the emotional baggage, so I really am curious if it affects an athiest differently?

When I'm faced with a hard situation I don't really get angry at God, I just assume it happened for a reason and try to figure out what good the event could possibly have done me. When my cat died, I cried, and thought it was the end of the world. Then a few months later my dog was hit by a car, and it hurt, but I knew it wasn't the end of the world. When my Granny passed 6 months later, I really felt like the people around me were crumbling, but I knew from experience that someone elses death didn't mean my life was over. I worked through it by reconnecting with my father and helping him cope. Three months later (to the day!) my father passed. If I hadn't slowly experienced how to deal with death, that year would have destroyed me. I could chalk it up to good coping mechanisms, but in my family the best coping skill tends to be depression and alcohol, so where would I have learned it? Not saying my family sucks, but if I didn't have the mindset of,"It happened for a reason," I really would probably have joined in the misery. Do I thank God for death? No. Do I attribute my effective coping skills to life lessons? Yes. If I am to believe that God is to blame for both good and bad things, then I have to believe He put the bad things there so that I could learn the good things. (There are many BAD situations that I haven't had to go through, and my opinion isn't meant to negate them.)

I hear those ideas a lot, but I just don't see how tragedy positively shapes people, except that it helps to relate to other people that have experienced the same things.  We do require emotional release, but I can feel the same emotions by reading a well written book, and then I can safely return to reality, where those events do not affect me.

I also do not think that you have to experience the bad in order to experience the good.

My standing theory is that if there is a god, this world is, to it, something like the falling sand game (http://fallingsandgame.com/sand/).  You set up a system and see how long it can sustain itself and what changes it makes over time. Reproduction and destruction of subsystems is an integral part of this.

You interfere every once in a while, but for the most part you're just watching to see how it pans out....unless you're in a "build n' destroy" kind of mood.

Being Brave:

You asked how atheists deal with disasters when they have no one to blame. I can only speak for one atheist, of course.

I believe we are party crashers. We weren't invited to this crazy party called the universe, and yet here we are. The universe went along just swimmingly for 13.7 billion years before we showed up, with our crazy ideas of morality and justice and fairness. But it is just those ideas, which we created for ourselves, that make us special, that make our lives worth living.

The world is unfair. Death is stupid. Ridiculous things happen for absolutely no "reason" at all. What we have is each other, fellow moral agents in this sea of unreason.

When we try to find meaning and reason and purpose in the world, it is a misfiring. Reason and meaning and purpose do exist - they exist in our fellow human beings. That's where these searches are properly directed, not at the hurricane or the disease or the horror of predation.

If a human had designed the system of the universe, we would consider that person incompetent at best, a psychopath at worst. A thousand sea turtles scramble down the beach. Nine hundred ninety-nine will die before they ever grow up. Asteroids fly about willy-nilly. Every once in a while, one smashes into a planet, spreading horrors. Nearby stars go supernova and flood surrounding solar systems with deadly gamma rays, killing every single thing in their path. This is the best God could do?

Instead, atheists (OK, I) look out at the universe and accept the evidence I see. The universe looks completely unplanned. Let's live our lives as if that is true. We are lucky, amazingly lucky, to be here at all. There's no one out there to take care of us. So what do we do? Huddle in a corner and wait for the inevitable end? NO! We (humanity) take care of ourselves.

That's how I see things. So far, so good.

@ablprop

Good post. You can make that at least 2 atheists, the and me!

"Tanks!"  

BB

I feel that the human animal has evolved to see cause and infer effect. It's a hugely advantageous survival trait. I see a predator, it will eat me unless I do xyz, I see a prey animal, if I go this way it will go that way so if I go the other way I'll get to catch it. Note: to do the latter (the prey case) we have to imagine what the prey animal will do, we imagine the effect. Now, given we automatically process cause to effect we also do the reverse predict cause from effect. When we can't predict cause from effect we get stressed. Think about it yourself. You come home and there is post on the floor, one immediately sees the unexpected item (the post on the floor) and know that the post was delivered while you were out. Now think what you would do if you came in and there was a brick on the floor, far too big to get through the letter box. Think how confused and frustrated you would be, you may even be concerned and worried. What you have been faced with is knowledge (there is a brick on the floor) without understanding (why is there a brick on the floor), this dichotomy is really stressful, I would contend intolerably so.

Imagine you are a human ancestor on the cusp of becoming aware of abstract concerns 'Why does the Sun rise?' I contend that the creature that could dismiss this concern or through imagination substitute a cause would suffer less stress and thus have a better survival potential. I think superstition was a seriously important positive survival trait that helped humans get through the period where they had knowledge but not understanding. We now know more than we ever have and in a lot (most) cases we know enough to understand what is really happening thus when the Sun rises we know it's because we are on a large round rock orbiting 92 million miles from a huge round globe of fissionable gas. Thus the dichotomy our ancestors faced is less of a problem for us, but we still have our evolved propensity to defensive superstition and anthropomorphism thus we now have institutionalised superstition and we call it religion.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards
Chris

Quote from: "Being_Brave"That's just crazy to me that someone would walk away from a friend over religion. My best friends are Baptists, and I've heard people tell them it's not good to listen to a Catholic, but when it comes down to it whether or not they stick around depends on what they personally decide to do. I just don't understand why people drop a friend over different opinions like that.

It happens.  Twice it's happened to me as well, both times as a result of a "born-again" experience.  It's sad to lose the friend, but I don't do ultimata very well.

QuoteIf someone chooses to believe in a religion like Christianity they have to face the reality that both the good and bad have to be attributed to God. I wish more Christians understood that!! There's this misconception that God is only in charge of the fun, warm-fuzzies. When it comes to natural selection (including animals like the lions and lactose-intolerance, and disease, virus, bacteria, etc.) I usually come back to the same idea: without those things we would not have the healthiest animals to eat, we would not be as advanced medically, and we would have simply accepted life without asking "why did that happen?" A believer can still say "God did it" because of how it helped advance life. If God wanted us to become advanced, he would have made sure that we had to encounter those things so that it would happen.

The obvious logical conclusion is that, at best, God is amoral, and at worst, he is immoral, assuming a Christian conception of him.

QuoteWhen disease, famine, natural disaster, death, etc.. happen, I wonder if having nobody to "blame" it on acutally helps people heal faster? I can see that the anger towards a god would add to the emotional baggage, so I really am curious if it affects an athiest differently?

Not necessarily.  I think making your peace with the evils of this world comes to each person at their own speed, no matter their theism of lack thereof.

QuoteYes. If I am to believe that God is to blame for both good and bad things, then I have to believe He put the bad things there so that I could learn the good things. (There are many BAD situations that I haven't had to go through, and my opinion isn't meant to negate them.)

Certainly an omnipotent god could devise a less-cruel method of education.  Unless he didn't want to.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteYes. If I am to believe that God is to blame for both good and bad things, then I have to believe He put the bad things there so that I could learn the good things. (There are many BAD situations that I haven't had to go through, and my opinion isn't meant to negate them.)

Certainly an omnipotent god could devise a less-cruel method of education.  Unless he didn't want to.

...perhaps this actually is the best possible way of life, though.

We can hypothesise about better worlds, but we can't actually test them and see if they're better.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteYes. If I am to believe that God is to blame for both good and bad things, then I have to believe He put the bad things there so that I could learn the good things. (There are many BAD situations that I haven't had to go through, and my opinion isn't meant to negate them.)

Certainly an omnipotent god could devise a less-cruel method of education.  Unless he didn't want to.

...perhaps this actually is the best possible way of life, though.

We can hypothesise about better worlds, but we can't actually test them and see if they're better.

This is entirely possible, but it undercuts the possibility of an omnipotent god.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This is entirely possible, but it undercuts the possibility of an omnipotent god.

I don't see how...

Quote from: "ablprop"Being Brave:

You asked how atheists deal with disasters when they have no one to blame. I can only speak for one atheist, of course.

I believe we are party crashers. We weren't invited to this crazy party called the universe, and yet here we are. The universe went along just swimmingly for 13.7 billion years before we showed up, with our crazy ideas of morality and justice and fairness. But it is just those ideas, which we created for ourselves, that make us special, that make our lives worth living.

The world is unfair. Death is stupid. Ridiculous things happen for absolutely no "reason" at all. What we have is each other, fellow moral agents in this sea of unreason.

When we try to find meaning and reason and purpose in the world, it is a misfiring. Reason and meaning and purpose do exist - they exist in our fellow human beings. That's where these searches are properly directed, not at the hurricane or the disease or the horror of predation.

If a human had designed the system of the universe, we would consider that person incompetent at best, a psychopath at worst. A thousand sea turtles scramble down the beach. Nine hundred ninety-nine will die before they ever grow up. Asteroids fly about willy-nilly. Every once in a while, one smashes into a planet, spreading horrors. Nearby stars go supernova and flood surrounding solar systems with deadly gamma rays, killing every single thing in their path. This is the best God could do?

Instead, atheists (OK, I) look out at the universe and accept the evidence I see. The universe looks completely unplanned. Let's live our lives as if that is true. We are lucky, amazingly lucky, to be here at all. There's no one out there to take care of us. So what do we do? Huddle in a corner and wait for the inevitable end? NO! We (humanity) take care of ourselves.

That's how I see things. So far, so good.

Wow, that's the first time anyone has taken the time to explain it like that. Thank you!!

Quote from: "Tank"BB

I feel that the human animal has evolved to see cause and infer effect. It's a hugely advantageous survival trait. I see a predator, it will eat me unless I do xyz, I see a prey animal, if I go this way it will go that way so if I go the other way I'll get to catch it. Note: to do the latter (the prey case) we have to imagine what the prey animal will do, we imagine the effect. Now, given we automatically process cause to effect we also do the reverse predict cause from effect. When we can't predict cause from effect we get stressed. Think about it yourself. You come home and there is post on the floor, one immediately sees the unexpected item (the post on the floor) and know that the post was delivered while you were out. Now think what you would do if you came in and there was a brick on the floor, far too big to get through the letter box. Think how confused and frustrated you would be, you may even be concerned and worried. What you have been faced with is knowledge (there is a brick on the floor) without understanding (why is there a brick on the floor), this dichotomy is really stressful, I would contend intolerably so.

Imagine you are a human ancestor on the cusp of becoming aware of abstract concerns 'Why does the Sun rise?' I contend that the creature that could dismiss this concern or through imagination substitute a cause would suffer less stress and thus have a better survival potential. I think superstition was a seriously important positive survival trait that helped humans get through the period where they had knowledge but not understanding. We now know more than we ever have and in a lot (most) cases we know enough to understand what is really happening thus when the Sun rises we know it's because we are on a large round rock orbiting 92 million miles from a huge round globe of fissionable gas. Thus the dichotomy our ancestors faced is less of a problem for us, but we still have our evolved propensity to defensive superstition and anthropomorphism thus we now have institutionalised superstition and we call it religion.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards
Chris

Yes, it does make sense. Thank you

My next question then, is about the universal superstitions that humans have. The way I understand it civilizations from the beginning have always had a "higher power" of some kind. Religious folk will say it's because there is a natural "calling" to know God. Similarly, civilizations have always had irrational (or rational..whatever) fears of things like snakes, darkness, death, angering the gods, etc. Am I just lumping religion in with the other superstitions or does that make sense? I mean, we can see snakes, darkness, and die, but they used to think we could hear gods (thunder, wind) and see them (storms, lightening)...so would it be the same?

I used to work with an athiest who got livid if a broom crossed her feet because it was "bad luck", and was afraid of black cats. That makes me think (but I'm not sure so I'm going to ask) that some atheists do buy into some superstitions, is that right?

Quote from: "Being_Brave"My next question then, is about the universal superstitions that humans have. The way I understand it civilizations from the beginning have always had a "higher power" of some kind. Religious folk will say it's because there is a natural "calling" to know God. Similarly, civilizations have always had irrational (or rational..whatever) fears of things like snakes, darkness, death, angering the gods, etc. Am I just lumping religion in with the other superstitions or does that make sense? I mean, we can see snakes, darkness, and die, but they used to think we could hear gods (thunder, wind) and see them (storms, lightening)...so would it be the same?

I used to work with an athiest who got livid if a broom crossed her feet because it was "bad luck", and was afraid of black cats. That makes me think (but I'm not sure so I'm going to ask) that some atheists do buy into some superstitions, is that right?

In my experience and vicarious observation (TV programmes, books etc) superstition is universal when there is nothing to realistically replace it as a world view. Consider a dream. What is it? Is it a memory, message or hallucination? Consider the noises one can hear in the jungle at night. What makes those noses and why? Consider the wish fulfilment of eternal life and the emotional links with ancestors amplified by the fear of death. The Chinese are particularly well know for their worship and veneration of ancestors. Consider also the effect writing had on folk superstitions. People could attempt to create a common interpretation of their superstitions which they could pass on and reinforce with each generation. Most isolated tribal societies appear to have a pantheistic and animist view of the supernatural where lots of little spirits each have a little bit to do with how the world works. They are not a 'higher power' as such, just an explanation for the day to day coincidences our minds view as cause and effect (our perpetual pattern matching mind).

Mix tribalism, politics and alpha-male power play  with superstition and one has all the ingredients for selfish (at the personal and group level) behaviour. If a group can delude itself that they are right and justified in their actions because they have a divine authority to support them that group can justify any behaviour they want. When God is on your side nothing, absolutly nothing, inhibits the behaviour of the individual within the group.  So institutionalised superstition becomes the norm and childhood respect for adult authority binds the generations to the dogma of the particular belief. Orthopraxy (dogma of behaviour) defines the group (all men have beards all ladies a vail) and becomes the norm and thus defines the 'us' and the 'them'.

Superstition has been universal in human history and when institutionalised into religion. However there is another human trait, curiosity, which is the antithesis of superstition. It is the drive to discover, to explore and to learn about what is really going on. I would contend that science is institutionalised curiosity. Knowledge always trumps superstition in the end, it might take a while to do to as it's quick, cheap and easy to say 'goddidiit' while it is slow, expensive and hard work to discover the Earth orbits the Sun. Superstition has always been the glib easy answer in my opinion.

So are some atheists superstitious? I would think so simply because we are each unique and a mix of ideas and motivations. Would I expect an atheist to be less superstitious than a theist? Probably I would because the vast majority of atheists I have met online and in real life are not superstitious, in fact the only superstitious atheist I know is my wife! She still has a residual enjoyment of the superstitious and visits mediums and watches John Edwards. She reads tarot cards as well.

I hope that rambling post had something useful in it!

Thanks Tank.

welcome.

it's very good that you are fair and open minded

i must commend you for that

Welcome and first question!

What is your stance on homosexuality?

Quote from: "Islador"Welcome and first question!

What is your stance on homosexuality?

That is an odd first question.

For balance, what is your stance on heterosexuality?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Islador"Welcome and first question!

What is your stance on homosexuality?

That is an odd first question.

For balance, what is your stance on heterosexuality?

I do not consider other peoples sexual orientation to be any of my business and neither do I hold any prejudice against those of any given sexual orientation, heterosexuality included. I only ask because you mentioned you were Catholic and I was wondering if you allow your religion to dictate your stance on issues or not?

Quote from: "Islador"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Islador"Welcome and first question!

What is your stance on homosexuality?

That is an odd first question.

For balance, what is your stance on heterosexuality?

I do not consider other peoples sexual orientation to be any of my business and neither do I hold any prejudice against those of any given sexual orientation, heterosexuality included. I only ask because you mentioned you were Catholic and I was wondering if you allow your religion to dictate your stance on issues or not?

I have three "best" friends: my sister, a "BFF" (Baptist children's minister), and a gay man.

I like to think the three of them keep me generally as balanced as I can be. Personally, I don't care if someone is attracted to the same gender or not, and I don't feel like it's a "choice". I think you're just born how you're born, and the only choice you have is to have sex or not. When my friend first came out he told me that if he had a choice he would be attracted to women and he'd tried, but that they grossed him out. I'm straight, so I can certainly see the attraction to men . Our relationship is solid because we know where we stand with each other on the topic, and we just leave it at that. We respect each other enough not to put the other down for what we feel is right or wrong. He knows that I'll always love him because he is a good, kind person, but that I don't like the idea of him with a man. Vice-versa, I know that he'll always be there for me, and that it's not my place to tell him how or what to do.

The actual teaching of the CC isn't that homosexuals are evil, but I have a feeling the "official" teaching may have the same response anyways:

QuoteHomosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

QuoteThe number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "

...but also teaches that the act of homosexual sex is a sin and can not be approved. I.e. "Love the sinner not the sin."

((When I was in college I read a study in a sociology class of twin boys, one of whose circumcision was botched so badly that his entire penis was cut off. His parents chose to raise him as female (with horrible guidance from their doctors). Eventually their "girl" came out as lesbian to them...that study proved to me that sexual attraction is something that can not be "helped". Because of the emotional and mental trauma caused by "therapy" and family pressure, both twins committed suicide. If that's not a story that PROVES the negative impact of trying to change a person I don't know what is.))