Happy Atheist Forum

This was taken from Richard Dawkins site:

QuoteIt seems like a reasonable statement that we atheists would change our minds about the existence of God if presented with the right kind of evidence. I'm going to propose that this position is actually not reasonable at all.

First, It's useful to consider what God, this thing that evidence is supposed to be able to reveal, isn't.

God isn't like a mythical beast. God isn't a dragon, a unicorn, a hippogriff. Such a beast could potentially be seen, examined, and proclaimed real. Its mythical status lost, the biologists could get to work. They would be surprised, but would have something to deal with. They would have evidence: scales, wings and flames do indeed mean dragon. That's clear enough.

God isn't an alien. Arthur C Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” What he did not say is that such technology actually is magic. What Clarke said has great power, as it implies that we are almost certainly unable to recognise magic, as we have no understanding of the limits of technology. And now we start to see the problem: with such ignorance, what evidence could there be that we are seeing the supernatural and not the unknown natural?

But for now, back to God. The words used to describe the deity seem at first sight to make sense. He (for it's almost always “he”) is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing. He is the source of morality, and will punish the wicked and reward the deserving for all eternity.

However, when unpacked, these phrases have no more meaning than Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky. An all-knowing deity has no freedom, and therefore can't be all-powerful. Like Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's novel Dune, God would be trapped within his own prophecy. A God that is all-knowing (especially one supposedly outside of time) can't help but know his own future actions. God can do no more than gyre and gimble in the wabe, and he has no freedom to do otherwise.

The words are said, they are believed, because of how they make people feel. God has to be perfect, loving, all-powerful, because any lack of these characteristics would make God fragile, and that would never do, at least not for the Abrahamic religions.

Gods weren't always so perfect. The Greek/Roman gods were remarkably (or perhaps not remarkably) human. But they were still isolated from the mundane world, looking down from the tops of mountains (it's quite amusing to see how the domain of the gods hasshifted from high altitudes to some invisible place “outside of time and space” or “beneath the quantum”. Truly the gods are shy).

Knowing the meaninglessness of the words, knowing the inconsistencies, there is a trick that some believers play: it is to put God beyond logic. Why should theists concern themselves with inconsistencies when God can bend the rules? But how can we non-believers accept something as evidence when that “evidence” is supposed to point to something which is beyond logic, beyond rules? What does “evidence” even mean in such a situation?

I've long considered "God" to be an incoherent nonconcept. I've seen this attitude (for changing minds if evidence supports it) in the forms of presuppositionalism, transcendentalism, and postmodernist theology. It's always irritating and always a complete inappropriate use of language. And...you have to abandon logic in order to identify something as beyond comprehension and then claim to have specific knowledge of its will. Although God, it is sometimes said, to be beyond comprehension, if it actually did or do something in this universe, that effect can be studied. The effect is in principle within our comprehension.

Reminds me of when someone says that God cannot reasonably be said to exist, because if God exists, that means that God is subject to Being. If that were the best defense of theism, I'd be an atheist (oh wait - I am!). So far, we have not found any such effect. Therefore, the only sort of "God" that we can reasonably expect to exist is one that doesn't do anything at all in the universe. As such, there's not really much to talk about. Of course, I wouldn't partake of any religion that needs to posit a being outside of time or logic anyway. And it doesn't make much sense to have created the universe (which includes time) if you're already in it. No one has any idea what God being outside time means.

In the end, all apologetics plummet to God moves in a mysterious way…and that just ain't good enough for me.

Thoughts?

For me there is no "evidence" strong enough. If there is such a god, and he were to "send us a sign", that sign would have to manifest itself in some physical way in order for us to perceive it and any physical manifestation can be explained away. For example, to get "Jesus" to "float down from the heavens", all you need is some anti-gravity technology ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MwxVAZuFOs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MwxVAZuFOs) ). In the context of such technology, "levitation" is a real physical possibility - like when magicians do the floating trick and they use hoolahoops to "prove" there are no strings attached.

I'm easy to convert in theory.

Present solid scientific bases for your god and all the properties you assign to it, and, if it holds water, I will accept it. That does ot mean, however, that I will worship that thing as I don't feel the need for worshipping something or someone just because it or (s)he appears greater than me. Scratching my egocentristic back, however, can make one worshipped a little  :pop:

Quote from: "Asmodean"I'm easy to convert in theory.

Present solid scientific bases for your god and all the properties you assign to it, and, if it holds water, I will accept it. That does ot mean, however, that I will worship that thing as I don't feel the need for worshipping something or someone just because it or (s)he appears greater than me. Scratching my egocentristic back, however, can make one worshipped a little  :pop:

And I would not allow you to worship any one else but me  

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I'm easy to convert in theory.

Present solid scientific bases for your god and all the properties you assign to it, and, if it holds water, I will accept it. That does ot mean, however, that I will worship that thing as I don't feel the need for worshipping something or someone just because it or (s)he appears greater than me. Scratching my egocentristic back, however, can make one worshipped a little  :pop:

And I would not allow you to worship any one else but me  :)

What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

One plea before you reply: this topic drew an avalanche of snarky responses on the ol' Dawkins site.  Some gems:
- "He'd have to come into my English lit class and create a rock so big he couldn't carry it!  Mwa ha ha!"
- "Hmmm, I don't know, maybe go back through history and undo all the PAIN he let happen???"
- "NOTHING could convince me, so scram troll!!!!  Blwalalaaaaa!!!"
I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.  

If, instead, we came this time at the question with a calm, rational, respectful approach, what would your answer be?  Thanks in advance!

Quote from: "bandit4god"What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

One plea before you reply: this topic drew an avalanche of snarky responses on the ol' Dawkins site.  Some gems:
- "He'd have to come into my English lit class and create a rock so big he couldn't carry it!  Mwa ha ha!"
- "Hmmm, I don't know, maybe go back through history and undo all the PAIN he let happen???"
- "NOTHING could convince me, so scram troll!!!!  Blwalalaaaaa!!!"
I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.  

If, instead, we came this time at the question with a calm, rational, respectful approach, what would your answer be?  Thanks in advance!

How about this instead. Don't post new threads before at least trying to find out whether or not there is already an existing thread for the same topic? In this case, there is, and it has been heavily discussed. I suggest you read it first, and then comment on it.

Yuck, that's what long-standing moderators like you are around for.  Direct me to the thread and I'll gladly shift over to it--until then, this m&m-cookie-eating-dude is going to exploit the wondrous ease of making new topics!

Quote from: "bandit4god"Yuck, that's what long-standing moderators like you are around for.  Direct me to the thread and I'll gladly shift over to it--until then, this m&m-cookie-eating-dude is going to exploit the wondrous ease of making new topics!

Until then, no you won't. Use the search function.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E)

Thanks, Will, these are the items I took away:
- Prophesies fulfilled
- Scientific knowledge in holy books
- Miraculous occurances, especially brought about by prayer
- Direct manifestation of the divine
- Aliens who believe in the exact same religion
- Flawless and consistent holy book
- Religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

Do you agree with the video producer that any one of these would provide sufficient evidence in the existence of God?

Quote from: "bandit4god"Thanks, Will, these are the items I took away:
- Prophesies fulfilled
- Scientific knowledge in holy books
- Miraculous occurances, especially brought about by prayer
- Direct manifestation of the divine
- Aliens who believe in the exact same religion
- Flawless and consistent holy book
- Religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

Do you agree with the video producer that any one of these would provide sufficient evidence in the existence of God?

I believe it was Carl Sagan that said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The evidence would have to be as astounding as the claim, but if such evidence existed and could be verified beyond doubt, sure. Several of these are already out for all known religions, though, such as prophesies fulfilled and a flawless and consistent holy book. The Torah, Bible, and Qur'an are all internally contradictory and all of them make prophesies which have not come to pass in the time provided by the prophesy.

To believe in Yahweh? Evolution would necessarily had to have been false, prayers would have to proved to be beneficial, God would have to be intervening in the universe still today  and "all things" would have to be "possible through God", meaning pious amputees could get new limbs. Also there would have had to be an overwhelming amount of historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his miracles, and the Bible would have to had been contradiction free. Yes I am speaking in paste tense because it is too late. Religion failed.

Actually, there is one thing that would convince me of the existence of the divine:

Nothing!

No, I really mean that. Show me nothing, and I'll be convinced. All I need to see is absolutely nothing, in a stable and unchanging state, and I will believe that your god exists. Of course, I'll still be an atheist, but there you go. I have no god, regardless of the actual existence of deities. Whatever god exists, it isn't mine, and I have no want or need of it.

Still, I'd be interested in seeing nothing, because that would really be something.

Peace....


How certain of a thing should one be before they cross the threshold of uncertainty and become a believer?  

If everyone sitting at a blackjack table in Vegas was dealt 21 at the same time in every Casino,  would there be any room to doubt that was an explanation beside chance?  Of course mathematically it is probable that such an event could occur, however would this probabilty alone justify rejecting the idea there MUST be another explanation...?

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"How certain of a thing should one be before they cross the threshold of uncertainty and become a believer?

A believer in what?  The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author?  No event would make that hypothesis suddenly falsifiable, so unconsidered it must remain.

QuoteIf everyone sitting at a blackjack table in Vegas was dealt 21 at the same time in every Casino,  would there be any room to doubt that was an explanation beside chance?  Of course mathematically it is probable that such an event could occur, however would this probabilty alone justify rejecting the idea there MUST be another explanation...?

Hypotheses to consider, in descending order of plausibility:

1. The casinos were staging a publicity stunt.
2. The dealers were staging some sort of labor action.
3. The mob was publicly taking over and this was their grand opening celebration.
4. The super-hero known as the Flash is real and switched all the cards faster than the eye could follow.

The accuracy of the proposition that there exists a non-empirical source of empirical causation can never be highly probable.  Propositions must either be assessed by logical empiricism or by logic alone.  The two approaches are mutually exclusive.  Logical empiricism can assess empirical causation but can't assess non-empirical anything.  Logic alone can assess non-empirical propositions but logic alone, strictly speaking, cannot assess empirical causation.  Nor is it possible to simultaneously employ logic alone and logical empiricism, as that would be contradictory.  We're left with no way to assess the probable accuracy of the God proposition.  That which cannot be assessed, must remain unconsidered.

Excellently put.

Thanks droid. Very well said. You said just what I was going to, only, you said it better.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"How certain of a thing should one be before they cross the threshold of uncertainty and become a believer?  

It becomes a personal choice. The threat of eternal damnation changes the threshold for some no doubt.

I have some children's books which have a strategically placed hole in each page. When you look through the hole you see an orange fish, as clear as day, but when you turn the page and reveal the whole page underneath it turns out to be something quite different.

These books should be recommended reading for game hunters and people considering taking up a faith.

Quote from: "bandit4god"What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

Gullibility.


Maybe a frontal lobotomy would do it.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "bandit4god"What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

Gullibility.


Maybe a frontal lobotomy would do it.

Extreme drug or alcohol addiction, or prison also seems to help most of the time. Seems to be a great breeding ground for the religious.

If you're talking about a God like that of the Bible, then nothing could make me believe again. Short of brain damage.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Actually, there is one thing that would convince me of the existence of the divine:

Nothing!

No, I really mean that. Show me nothing, and I'll be convinced. All I need to see is absolutely nothing, in a stable and unchanging state, and I will believe that your god exists. Of course, I'll still be an atheist, but there you go. I have no god, regardless of the actual existence of deities. Whatever god exists, it isn't mine, and I have no want or need of it.

Still, I'd be interested in seeing nothing, because that would really be something.

If god exists, it is your god. You have no say in the matter. If there's a god and it created you, it's not down to you to negate that. You don't have to like it but you can't change that fact (again, assuming god exists). You seem to be saying "I don't believe god exists, but if I did, I would resent that god", which begs the question, how do you define this god, which, if it existed, you would resent? In other words, who is your (as yet not conclusively known) nonexistent god?

Quote from: "ElizabethPeart"If you're talking about a God like that of the Bible, then nothing could make me believe again. Short of brain damage.

I already have that; apparently a lot more of it would be required. And it would have to be of a sort that would ultimately make me agree to anything, no matter how preposterous. I would have to become as impressionable and uncritical of any suggestion as, say, someone of about two years of age or younger - or whatever age I was when my religious indoctrination was started.

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"If god exists, it is your god. You have no say in the matter. If there's a god and it created you, it's not down to you to negate that. You don't have to like it but you can't change that fact (again, assuming god exists). You seem to be saying "I don't believe god exists, but if I did, I would resent that god", which begs the question, how do you define this god, which, if it existed, you would resent? In other words, who is your (as yet not conclusively known) nonexistent god?

Who the fuck said anything about resentment? It isn't my god. You can keep it. I have no use for it whatsoever. What do you do with one anyway? Wheel it out as a conversation starter at parties? I have no god.

Edit: As for being created, I wasn't. I was born. No mysteries there.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"If god exists, it is your god. You have no say in the matter. If there's a god and it created you, it's not down to you to negate that. You don't have to like it but you can't change that fact (again, assuming god exists). You seem to be saying "I don't believe god exists, but if I did, I would resent that god", which begs the question, how do you define this god, which, if it existed, you would resent? In other words, who is your (as yet not conclusively known) nonexistent god?

Who the fuck said anything about resentment? It isn't my god. You can keep it. I have no use for it whatsoever. What do you do with one anyway? Wheel it out as a conversation starter at parties? I have no god.

You said that even if there was a god, you'd still be an atheist, you would be without a god. Now you're saying that this is not down to resentment of said god. Ok then. What is it down to? If god exists and let's say you became aware of this / believed it, on what grounds would you still claim to be able to say that you're without god? If this god is your creator, and you believe that, you're in no position to say that you are without that god, since it is the very source of your existence. Simples.

I never said anything about resentment, I said I have no want or need of such an entity. It isn't mine, and I don't want it. And as I have said, I wasn't created, so this entity, if it exists, is not my creator, or my anything else, for that matter. Do try to keep up. It would also be useful if you learned to read simple English, as you seem to be seeing words that aren't there.

Peace.....

QuoteA believer in what? The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author? No event would make that hypothesis suddenly falsifiable, so unconsidered it must remain.

Au contraire, it is not only well considered, it is the crux of the preeminent cosmological theory of our time.  It should be understood that Big Bang models predict a pre-existant agent which gave rise to nature.  The first natural activity from this perspective was the appearance and violent expansion of the singularity.  Without such an agent the theory must assert that without cause or opportunity something came from nothing at all.  Even if this was the prevailing idea, it would still by necessity demand that the first activity or behaviour was an unnatural sort.  

Logical necessity demands that "The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author?" is a true statement.

Quote1. The casinos were staging a publicity stunt.

Agreed..This would be the most plausible explanation

Quote2. The dealers were staging some sort of labor action.

Dangerous..but alright...

Quote3. The mob was publicly taking over and this was their grand opening celebration.

Ahhh c'mon we all know the Mob is an urban legend...They don't really exist...

Quote4. The super-hero known as the Flash is real and switched all the cards faster than the eye could follow.

 

Well lets say this happened after the death of Barry Allen

And uh...What happened to #5?   You know where you say that despite the staggering improbability of such an occurance it could happen by chance alone?  

But thats lunacy isnt it?  We would rather believe first that  the Flash did it, or maybe Quicksilver, or the vampires from Cirque Du Freak while they were flitting...But we would all absolutely reject randomness as the explanation. It is absurd.

QuoteThe accuracy of the proposition that there exists a non-empirical source of empirical causation can never be highly probable. Propositions must either be assessed by logical empiricism or by logic alone. The two approaches are mutually exclusive. Logical empiricism can assess empirical causation but can't assess non-empirical anything. Logic alone can assess non-empirical propositions but logic alone, strictly speaking, cannot assess empirical causation. Nor is it possible to simultaneously employ logic alone and logical empiricism, as that would be contradictory. We're left with no way to assess the probable accuracy of the God proposition. That which cannot be assessed, must remain unconsidered

Tell that to the universe.  Despite the seeming contradicton and vulgarity of the notion, the universe may not behave in a manner which is consistent with a any limited set of logical imperatives.

Our inability to assess the conditions which caused the springing forth of the Universe does nothing to change the fact that it is here.  If natural process came with the Universe then there is only one possible way to look at this...If Gravity,electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces didn't do it...and there was no time or material...What else do you have to work with?


I am not leaping all the way into saying it must be God...Lets start with saying it could not be Nature-meaning physical processes of the classical sort..




Whirling Moat

Quote from: "hackenslash"I never said anything about resentment, I said I have no want or need of such an entity. It isn't mine, and I don't want it. And as I have said, I wasn't created, so this entity, if it exists, is not my creator, or my anything else, for that matter. Do try to keep up. It would also be useful if you learned to read simple English, as you seem to be seeing words that aren't there.

So if god existed, and if it wasn't the creator of anything, what would it be, if it existed? Define what you think god would be, if it did exist.

By the way english isn't my first language, but I'm fascinated by languages. Do you know any, other than english?

A ridiculous request, since I don't believe that any of the many tens of thousands of deity concept exist.

Quote from: "hackenslash"A ridiculous request, since I don't believe that any of the many tens of thousands of deity concept exist.

Do you know any other languages?

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Au contraire, it is not only well considered, it is the crux of the preeminent cosmological theory of our time.  It should be understood that Big Bang models predict a pre-existant agent which gave rise to nature.

Err, no, and you clearly don't know anything about cosmology. The Big Bang model says absolutely nothing about anything before the Planck time, which is not the beginning. Indeed, it can say nothing about before that time, because to do so requires a unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which has not yet been achieved.

QuoteThe first natural activity from this perspective was the appearance and violent expansion of the singularity.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. The singularity has not been established, and indeed the above indicates that you don't actually understand what a singularity is. It is certainly possible that the singularity is a point-like region, but in reality what a singularity is is an event at which our theories yield only infinities as results. In other words, the proper scientific definition of a singularity is a point at which our theories break and become useless.

QuoteWithout such an agent the theory must assert that without cause or opportunity something came from nothing at all.

Wrong again. Aside from any other considerations, the entire idea of 'nothing' has been falisified as a concept and demonstrated to be impossible by the Uncertainty Principle.

QuoteEven if this was the prevailing idea, it would still by necessity demand that the first activity or behaviour was an unnatural sort.  

I epect you to support that statement with something other than blind assertion if you wish to be taken seriously.

QuoteLogical necessity demands that "The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author?" is a true statement.

Again, you merely assert this. What is your justification for doing so?

QuoteAnd uh...What happened to #5?   You know where you say that despite the staggering improbability of such an occurance it could happen by chance alone?  

But thats lunacy isnt it?  We would rather believe first that  the Flash did it, or maybe Quicksilver, or the vampires from Cirque Du Freak while they were flitting...But we would all absolutely reject randomness as the explanation. It is absurd.

Define 'random'.

QuoteTell that to the universe.  Despite the seeming contradicton and vulgarity of the notion, the universe may not behave in a manner which is consistent with a any limited set of logical imperatives.

And yet logical absolutes are absolute, and no violation of them can be found.

QuoteOur inability to assess the conditions which caused the springing forth of the Universe does nothing to change the fact that it is here.  If natural process came with the Universe then there is only one possible way to look at this...If Gravity,electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces didn't do it...and there was no time or material...What else do you have to work with?

Define 'universe', because I have a sneaking suspicion that you have no idea of what actually constitutes the universe. It certainly can't be defined as 'that which arose from the big bang'.

QuoteI am not leaping all the way into saying it must be God...Lets start with saying it could not be Nature-meaning physical processes of the classical sort..

Why not? What justification do you have for such sweeping assertions, other than in support of your preposterous celestial peeping-tom?

A small smattering of a couple, but I'm not exactly proficient in any other than English. My understanding of English, though, constitutes a serious dedication to linguistic excellence.

Quote from: "hackenslash"A small smattering of a couple, but I'm not exactly proficient in any other than English. My understanding of English, though, constitutes a serious dedication to linguistic excellence.

Mine constitutes a lighthearted casual effort at linguistic adequacy. Bada boom.

I like this one. Can we keep him?

Quote from: "hackenslash"I like this one. Can we keep him? :eek:

Peace...

QuoteErr, no, and you clearly don't know anything about cosmology. The Big Bang model says absolutely nothing about anything before the Planck time, which is not the beginning. Indeed, it can say nothing about before that time, because to do so requires a unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which has not yet been achieved.

Okay...I hate when Message Board discussions get to this point of having to go to other sites to prove people wrong but here we go..If this discussion turns to a battle of links..that would be unfortunate..

But since you say this "The Big Bang model says absolutely nothing about anything before the Planck time" ...I went to the second site on :crazy:


 

Quoteepect you to support that statement with something other than blind assertion if you wish to be taken seriously.

No...It is you who will not be taken seriously...

QuoteDefine 'random.'

It is sorta like the past tense of running from dumbness...

QuoteDefine 'universe', because I have a sneaking suspicion that you have no idea of what actually constitutes the universe. It certainly can't be defined as 'that which arose from the big bang'.

No.

QuoteWhy not? What justification do you have for such sweeping assertions, other than in support of your preposterous celestial peeping-tom?

I bet you got that from somebody else....




Whirling Moat

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"

Quote from: "hackenslash"I like this one. Can we keep him? :eek:

They're pretty comparable to cute furry little kittens. So adorable, and not worth much, but oh so fun to punt across the room when they get annoying while playing with your socks  

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Okay...I hate when Message Board discussions get to this point of having to go to other sites to prove people wrong

Can't wait till you begin to prove me wrong. That will be a joyous day indeed, but this day is not that day.

Quotebut here we go..If this discussion turns to a battle of links..that would be unfortunate..

It may be unfortunate, but you will have to work very hard to support your nonsense here, as this is one of my areas of special interest, and I can promise you that I know a good deal more about it than you do.

QuoteBut since you say this "The Big Bang model says absolutely nothing about anything before the Planck time" ...I went to the second site on :crazy:

And what is the implication of this? Is this the usual cheap ad hominem tactic so beloved of supernaturalists that have had their woeful lack of understanding of scientific principles exposed for all to see?

QuoteNo...It is you who will not be taken seriously...

Oh, really?

QuoteIt is sorta like the past tense of running from dumbness...

Ah, so it is the ad hominem, then, rather than actually addressing the valid science or the requests for clarification of your position. I take it then that you do not possess a rigorous definition of 'random'?

QuoteNo.

My, what a brilliant riposte! I wish I could construct such excellent rebuttals to arguments as you have here.

QuoteI bet you got that from somebody else....[sic]

Nope. All my own work. I have many more descriptions of cosmic curtain-twitchers as well.

Now, do you actually have anything of substance to present?

Not really sure what it would take.  However, clear, unambiguous writing in the sky about what this supposed god wants would be a start - but only a start.   Anyway, if this being does exist, he/she/it knows exactly what it would take to convince me, and everyone else.

Peace...

QuoteThey're pretty comparable to cute furry little kittens. So adorable, and not worth much, but oh so fun to punt across the room when they get annoying while playing with your socks

Atheists punt kittens and it is okay....(Note to self)

Seriously, while most atheist probably believe that the evidence would have to be very compelling, I think something very basic would do the trick such as a voice coming from the clouds or a theophany in the house...I think a few would fold by receiving a message in Alphabet cereal which read " I am God and I exist"  Even while it is completely possible that the letters were arranged that way by chance.  

Atheism is the ultimate rebellion from authority and as such it may seem kinda hip...However in the end, when our last moments are upon us I bet we all hope for something more than an eternity of nonexistence and the absolute annihilation of consciousness.  

Whirling Moat

Quote from: "whirling meat"Atheists punt kittens and it is okay....(Note to self)

We also eat babies. I thought this was common knowledge?

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Atheism is the ultimate rebellion from authority and as such it may seem kinda hip...

That's what drew me in; I wasn't "hip" enough.  :pop:

Peace....

QuoteYou're on.

So let me get this straight...You are okay with never being touched again, never being warm again, never having sight, or an interestng thought..Never knowing love again..Never satisfying thirst again, or sensing the beating of your own heart, knowing that you will ultimately be forgotten and that all remembrance of you will be  lost in the oblivion of those things which will never be retrieved ...Never seeing another child, or trees, never enjoying another sunrise, or light, music, colors, the aroma of the ocean...A good book, or the excitement of learning? Never having your questions answered..  No more you..Forever...Nothing.  

You are cool with that?  When the time comes will you be prepared to say goodbye to so much?



Whirling Moat

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Peace....

QuoteYou're on.

So let me get this straight...You are okay with never being touched again, never being warm again, never having sight, or an interestng thought..Never knowing love again..Never satisfying thirst again, or sensing the beating of your own heart, knowing that you will ultimately be forgotten and that all remembrance of you will be  lost in the oblivion of those things which will never be retrieved ...Never seeing another child, or trees, never enjoying another sunrise, or light, music, colors, the aroma of the ocean...A good book, or the excitement of learning? Never having your questions answered..  No more you..Forever...Nothing.  

You are cool with that?  When the time comes will you be prepared to say goodbye to so much?
Whirling Moat

Of course. That's life, that's death. No fairy tales, no fictions. Being dead will essentially be the same as it was before I was born, or conceived. Why is that so scary, or difficult to handle?

Every living thing ceases to live at some point. Whether we are prepared for it or not, and whether we like it or not is completely irrelevant. It's just the way it is.

Thinking any other way about it is just a way to lie to one's self in order to keep from being frightened. But it's still lying.

Peace....

QuoteOf course. That's life, that's death. No fairy tales, no fictions. Being dead will essentially be the same as it was before I was born, or conceived. Why is that so scary, or difficult to handle?

I think it is a rather selfish concept.  


What of an atheist mother who has lost her child to a depraved pedophile and while frantically searching for answers and the remains of her young and innocent child, discovers that she is dying herself?

Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?  Can this dying atheist believe that there is justice inherent in nature when she has lost her child and will never know where the remains are, what circumstances lead to the childs death, or maybe if the child is still alive and continues to suffer? Or whether the person responsible will ever be caught, exposed, and brought to justice? Should this person go into the permanence of death thinking "Oh well, in a second I won't feel a thing and I won't have to worry about that anymore"?

More importantly how do you console the living in circumstances such as this?  What of the atheist husband who has to suffer knowing that while he may find answers someday his beloved wife suffered in her remaining days and ultimately died in anguish and utter despair? And how will this be equalized? Should he not seek to hunt this man down, and torture him mercilessly since imprisoning him and allowing him to enjoy even the most subtle benefits of living could not be just, and killing him quickly will do nothing but place him comfortably where he was before he was born?  

It seems that only by protracted punishment would the score be settled? Perhaps torturing him will not be enough since he may have caused the death of other children and he has definitely caused great suffering to atleast two the child and the mother...Perhaps other pedophiles should share in the fate of this man?

For the sake of clarifying where this slippery slope is leading to, if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyoine that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.  Social order breaks down thereafter.  

Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

 Personally I think there is more to the afterlife than nothingness... and there are too many people of sound character and too many trained professionals who can attest to Near Death experiences where people were able to return and give details of things they could not have known while they were unconscious.  But that is an entirely different discussion.  



Whirling Moat

What it would take is empirical evidence, just like everything else I accept as true.

Peace....

Quote from: "Davin"What it would take is empirical evidence, just like everything else I accept as true.

10 +x-20   What is the value of x?  Would you not accept that x=10 even if there were nothing more than reason to bring you to this conclusion?

Or what of things like " there are two people in the room" One person is named John, the other is named Lucius..Lucius leaves the room, which leaves one person in the room, without looking, what is the name of the person inside?

Most people rationalize beliefs and accept empirically substantiated beliefs...God has to be proven using reasoning since the universe was not designed to leave room for a Miccro Manager in the heavens. It pretty much runs itself.  It is humanity which needs the management..since if left unattended we could actually destroy this world and who knows in enough time we may even figure out how to destroy an entire galaxy or more...Humans are very unique in this regard which is why we get the extra attention.  


Whirling Moat

Peace....


I would like to continue this discussion, however, without the flame baiting and unnecessary insults.  I am willing to have a go at it..

I will say this very clearly. It is not a new revelation that Cosmologists and physicists suggest that all known theories break down at the singularity and that peeking behind the quantum occurance of the first singularity is not possible due not some limit of information, but rather a limit to science itself, since it is postulated that during this first instances science itself was being created.  So the tools of measurement can only lead us back so far.

If this is well understood we can go further...


Whirling Moat

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more [than annihilation at death - Droid]...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?

No.  So long as it remains hope and makes no pretentions at knowledge or insight and presents no one and nothing as an authority on the subject.

Quoteif we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyone that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I am quite proud of the fact that my atheism, or, more precisely, my epistemology, forces me to seek justice on Earth or else let go of my anger; forces me to fear prison, because if I have only one life, spending the rest of it in prison would be tragic; forces me to fear getting myself killed, as I have more I'd like to do before I die.  My epistemology leads to the great virtues of caution, and stoicism*, and, when the first two cannot constrain it, heroism**.  

* Stoicism is accepting what I cannot, or choose not to, change or counterbalance.  It is peace in reality and peace in choice.

** Heroism is choosing to do my best to change or counterbalance what I cannot accept.  It is only folly if what I cannot accept is a law of nature, or if caution is overridden for the sake of something less valuable to me than what I'm risking, or if my methods are incompetent.

QuoteSocial order breaks down thereafter.

Why?

QuotePerhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

Then they are necessary evils, for self-deceit is a great evil.  But I dispute the necessity.  All that's needed for social stability is legislation and enforcement.  All that's needed for happiness is achievable goals.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Peace....

Quote from: "Davin"What it would take is empirical evidence, just like everything else I accept as true.

10 +x-20   What is the value of x?  Would you not accept that x=10 even if there were nothing more than reason to bring you to this conclusion?

No.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Or what of things like " there are two people in the room" One person is named John, the other is named Lucius..Lucius leaves the room, which leaves one person in the room, without looking, what is the name of the person inside?

The people can be empirically observed to exist, the room as well. As well as testing for whether a person can escape said room without being noticed.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Most people rationalize beliefs and accept empirically substantiated beliefs...God has to be proven using reasoning since the universe was not designed to leave room for a Miccro Manager in the heavens. It pretty much runs itself.  It is humanity which needs the management..since if left unattended we could actually destroy this world and who knows in enough time we may even figure out how to destroy an entire galaxy or more...Humans are very unique in this regard which is why we get the extra attention.

There is no reason to accept anything as true without empirical evidence. There are lots of reasons to not accept things without empirical evidence.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote10 +x-20   What is the value of x?  Would you not accept that x=10 even if there were nothing more than reason to bring you to this conclusion?

No.

Are you saying you don't accept x = 10 in this context or are you saying there's something more than reason that causes you to accept x = 10?

My own epistemology has three parts, logical empiricism, math, and formal logic.  This allows me to accept x = 10 in this context without having to postulate some empirical reason why I should.  My perspective can be described as distinguishing between synthetic propositions and analytic ones.   Synthetic propositions are derived via logical empiricism; analytic ones, via math or formal logic.

None of the above supports Islam in any way, as neither logical empiricism, nor math, nor formal logic will lead us to the Quran, nor anywhere else with respect to theism except the rejection thereof.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"God has to be proven using reasoning since the universe was not designed to leave room for a Micro Manager in the heavens.

Here I'm addressing Whirling Moat:

Reasoning alone will never get us to God, if, by God, you mean Allah, or anything like him.  If you mean Allah, by the way, I for one would welcome you naming him, since then I would be clearer on what you were talking about.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Au contraire, it is not only well considered, it is the crux of the preeminent cosmological theory of our time.  It should be understood that Big Bang models predict a pre-existant agent which gave rise to nature.

I saw all the back and forth on this discussion point.  Let me just say that today, December 2010, among physicists currently at work, the answer to the question as to what was going on before the Big Bang will be an immediate unanimous shrug.  

But let's pretend otherwise.  Let's pretend we knew for sure that before the Big Bang there was a period of nothingness, and then suddenly, bang.  Would this suggest the existence of God?  No.  Because God would still be, as postulated, a non-empirical source of empirical causation, and that proposition is impossible to assess.  Empirical causation can only be assessed by logical empiricism, which cannot assess non-empirical propositions; meanwhile, non-empirical propositions can only be assessed by logic alone, which cannot assess empirical causation; and the two modalities cannot be brought together to assess a single proposition, because that would negate logic alone as a modality.

If we decide to define God as the empirical source of empirical causation, then at most what we're saying is that God is whatever existed before the Big Bang, and the question of what that was is already being investigated, to the extent it can be, by the only people qualified to investigate it, namely, physicists and astronomers.  Alternatively, we might be saying that God is the laws of nature - not their author, but literally them and nothing more.

If we decide to define God as the non-empirical source of non-empirical causation, then we're saying God is the axioms of mathematics and the rules of logic.

We could say God is threefold; I.e., the laws of nature, the axioms of mathematics, and the rules of logic; which would make God the universe's impersonal governing order.  Let's make it an acronym.  God will be the UIGO.

The UIGO is not only real but is being investigated by the people qualified to do so, namely, scientists, mathematicians, and logicians.

QuoteWell lets say this happened after the death of Barry Allen

OK, now I know you're all right.  Anybody who can name Barry Allen gets a high five, which we'll imagine this fellow to be doing.

QuoteTell that to the universe.  Despite the seeming contradicton and vulgarity of the notion, the universe may not behave in a manner which is consistent with a any limited set of logical imperatives.

If the imperatives are validly logical then they will describe what must be true, and they will be correct always, to the extent our premises are complete and accurate.  Error as to what must be true is impossible, given complete and accurate data and valid logic.  The only reason scientists debate scientific questions is this: data at the current time is incomplete.

QuoteOur inability to assess the conditions which caused the springing forth of the Universe does nothing to change the fact that it is here.  If natural process came with the Universe then there is only one possible way to look at this...If Gravity,electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces didn't do it...and there was no time or material...What else do you have to work with?

Mystery.  In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Peace....

QuoteOf course. That's life, that's death. No fairy tales, no fictions. Being dead will essentially be the same as it was before I was born, or conceived. Why is that so scary, or difficult to handle?

I think it is a rather selfish concept.  


What of an atheist mother who has lost her child to a depraved pedophile and while frantically searching for answers and the remains of her young and innocent child, discovers that she is dying herself?

Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?  Can this dying atheist believe that there is justice inherent in nature when she has lost her child and will never know where the remains are, what circumstances lead to the childs death, or maybe if the child is still alive and continues to suffer? Or whether the person responsible will ever be caught, exposed, and brought to justice? Should this person go into the permanence of death thinking "Oh well, in a second I won't feel a thing and I won't have to worry about that anymore"?

More importantly how do you console the living in circumstances such as this?  What of the atheist husband who has to suffer knowing that while he may find answers someday his beloved wife suffered in her remaining days and ultimately died in anguish and utter despair? And how will this be equalized? Should he not seek to hunt this man down, and torture him mercilessly since imprisoning him and allowing him to enjoy even the most subtle benefits of living could not be just, and killing him quickly will do nothing but place him comfortably where he was before he was born?  

It seems that only by protracted punishment would the score be settled? Perhaps torturing him will not be enough since he may have caused the death of other children and he has definitely caused great suffering to atleast two the child and the mother...Perhaps other pedophiles should share in the fate of this man?

For the sake of clarifying where this slippery slope is leading to, if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyoine that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.  Social order breaks down thereafter.  

Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

 Personally I think there is more to the afterlife than nothingness... and there are too many people of sound character and too many trained professionals who can attest to Near Death experiences where people were able to return and give details of things they could not have known while they were unconscious.  But that is an entirely different discussion.  



Whirling Moat

You have to accept that injustices will not always be addressed.  Even religion doesn't promise that - according to christian thought, a man who tortures, rapes, and murders little girls can still go to heaven even if he is never caught by the authorities.  All he has to do is accept Jesus as his savior and he gets to go to heaven, despite the fact that he caused huge amounts of suffering in this life.  I don't see where that idea has brought about disorder.  The afterlife is no guarantee of perfect justice.  Besides, if that is supposed to keep people in line, then it is not doing a very good job - even after adjusting for the percentage of believers vs the percentage of atheists in a given population, believers are still more likely to wind up being charged with a crime.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Peace....


I think it is a rather selfish concept.  

Ok, you have the right to think that. I disagree and think it is not. It is simply the acknowledgement of reality. It also causes me to appreciate this one and only life we have far more than I ever did as a Christian. Nothing selfish about that. What I believe to be selfish is lying for the purpose of giving others false hopes and beliefs. It is also unethical and cruel.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"What of an atheist mother who has lost her child to a depraved pedophile and while frantically searching for answers and the remains of her young and innocent child, discovers that she is dying herself?

What of it? What of the Christian mother who experiences the same thing? Both live with terrible heartache and loss, granted. But one might choose to add to that grief a lie of utmost cruelty while the other chooses not to, instead acknowledging the fundamental truth that life is unfair. You need to broaden your worldview to recall that the human race has been here a long time, and for the vast majority of that time life has been (to paraphrase) nasty, brutish, and short.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?  Can this dying atheist believe that there is justice inherent in nature when she has lost her child and will never know where the remains are, what circumstances lead to the childs death, or maybe if the child is still alive and continues to suffer? Or whether the person responsible will ever be caught, exposed, and brought to justice? Should this person go into the permanence of death thinking "Oh well, in a second I won't feel a thing and I won't have to worry about that anymore"?

Not irrational to hope, but irrational to believe it. Next, justice is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. We have changed the meaning of justice as society has changed over the millennia as well. The justice you hope for is not the same as the justice that preindustrial societies lived with. Again, you cannot impose human concepts on nature, so you can only impose them on the society you live in, or in the case of historical revisionists, on previous societies.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"More importantly how do you console the living in circumstances such as this?  What of the atheist husband who has to suffer knowing that while he may find answers someday his beloved wife suffered in her remaining days and ultimately died in anguish and utter despair? And how will this be equalized? Should he not seek to hunt this man down, and torture him mercilessly since imprisoning him and allowing him to enjoy even the most subtle benefits of living could not be just, and killing him quickly will do nothing but place him comfortably where he was before he was born?  

Me? How do I? Or how do others who don't believe in life after death? Can't answer for others. And you also inserted another what if into this that doesn't necessarily go along with that question, so I'll do my best to answer.
I don't swamp the living with useless platitudes about their dead, for one. I find the idiotic things people say during funerals to be just that. Idiotic. They are the words of people who don't know what to say, and have no concept of how much more the truth is helpful than the lies they repeat mindlessly. "Oh, Mary is in a better place, and you'll see her again someday."

Total garbage. They say something they don't even really believe, can't explain, and certainly can't know for sure, yet they say it as if they are the ultimate arbiters of our deaths. Cruel, stupid, thoughtless words.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"It seems that only by protracted punishment would the score be settled? Perhaps torturing him will not be enough since he may have caused the death of other children and he has definitely caused great suffering to atleast two the child and the mother...Perhaps other pedophiles should share in the fate of this man?

What the believers do here in this case is by far the most ridiculous, unsupported, and damning perpetration of lies. You ask for protracted punishment. Believers give you hell. An imaginary place of ultimate suffering for all eternity. I propose no such thing. Since I believe our laws must be in accordance with social contract theory, we develop laws based on our best and most thoughtful knowledge of humanity. We continue to refine and improve laws to deal with our society and conditions. No make believe eternal punishment.

To add to this, the believers' ideas of punishment are stuck with some nagging issues of their own. For instance, the nasty pedophile you propose. In your scenario he might go to hell, right? But he might not. He may, in fact, be offered eternal glory with his lord and master, jesus christ. If your pedophile is a Christian, he's not going to hell, he's going to heaven. For eternity. To be rewarded.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"For the sake of clarifying where this slippery slope is leading to, if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyoine that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.  Social order breaks down thereafter.  

Of course it does not. Social order increases with increasing knowledge of humanity and as humans learn more about what biological issues lead to things like mental illness, behavioral anomalies, and what social issues lead to similar things. In short, knowledge gains us the tools we need to provide justice.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

Of course they are not, as I believe I have demonstrated. They are exactly the opposite, as they are the cruelest kind of lies.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Personally I think there is more to the afterlife than nothingness... and there are too many people of sound character and too many trained professionals who can attest to Near Death experiences where people were able to return and give details of things they could not have known while they were unconscious.  But that is an entirely different discussion.  

Ok, I have no problem with you thinking that there is more to the afterlife. I disagree with not only your conclusion, but also how you arrive at it. But that's ok. We simply disagree on this subject. By the way, you just made an assertion that is not supported by facts. No peer reviewed, clinical studies, or even review papers, have shown NDEs to be anything supernatural. And yes, you are right, it is an entirely different discussion.

I hope I have been clear in putting down my thoughts here. I typed this on an iPad in a noisy coffee shop, and it might have some errors of grammar and type in it.

And cheers to Velma, who said as much as I did in about a tenth of the space!

I just combined 2 other recent topics into this one because they are all about what it would take to believe.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"

QuoteYou're on.

So let me get this straight...You are okay with never being touched again, never being warm again, never having sight, or an interestng thought..Never knowing love again..Never satisfying thirst again, or sensing the beating of your own heart, knowing that you will ultimately be forgotten and that all remembrance of you will be  lost in the oblivion of those things which will never be retrieved ...Never seeing another child, or trees, never enjoying another sunrise, or light, music, colors, the aroma of the ocean...A good book, or the excitement of learning? Never having your questions answered..  No more you..Forever...Nothing.  

You are cool with that?  When the time comes will you be prepared to say goodbye to so much?

To be fair, I've had more practice at it than most.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "bandit4god"Thanks, Will, these are the items I took away:
- Prophesies fulfilled
- Scientific knowledge in holy books
- Miraculous occurances, especially brought about by prayer
- Direct manifestation of the divine
- Aliens who believe in the exact same religion
- Flawless and consistent holy book
- Religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

Do you agree with the video producer that any one of these would provide sufficient evidence in the existence of God?

I believe it was Carl Sagan that said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The evidence would have to be as astounding as the claim, but if such evidence existed and could be verified beyond doubt, sure. Several of these are already out for all known religions, though, such as prophesies fulfilled and a flawless and consistent holy book. The Torah, Bible, and Qur'an are all internally contradictory and all of them make prophesies which have not come to pass in the time provided by the prophesy.

1) Prophesies fulfilled:
Matthew 27:1-9 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”  â€œWhat is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”  So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.  Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

Quote from: "bandit4god"(1) Prophesies fulfilled:
Matthew 27:1-9 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”  â€œWhat is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”  So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.  Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

The author obviously was aware of the prophesy, since he cites it.  He might have constructed his story in such a way as to ensure certain prophesies were portrayed as fulfilled.  Since the same author elsewhere portrays magic as fact, we have to take his every word as dubious.

When discussing reality with the scientifically minded, the bible is useless as a supporting reference.  Science is too, for your side of the discussion, since it argues against you unceasingly.  Your only available course, if you want to change the mind of someone who takes science as primary truth source, is to try to convince the person to stop taking science as primary truth source.  It's doubtful you'll succeed, but at least you'll be aiming at the right target.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"When discussing reality with the scientifically minded, the bible is useless as a supporting reference

Why is it improper to consider the books of Jeremiah and Matthew as independent texts when assessing prophesies?  Herodotus and Levy are hardly the same text, even if they are published in the same book?

Quote from: "bandit4god"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"When discussing reality with the scientifically minded, the bible is useless as a supporting reference

Why is it improper to consider the books of Jeremiah and Matthew as independent texts when assessing prophesies?  Herodotus and Levy are hardly the same text, even if they are published in the same book?

Because Matthew is most coherently interpreted as a book of lies, given the fact that he portrays magic as fact in numerous spots.  To accept Matthew as a reference, one must first consider Matthew reliable, and no one but the faithful consider him reliable.

I would add that another reason to not place much trust in the books of the bible is because they were all written by normal people.  These people could collaborate their stories, they could make things up, they could remember incorrectly (they weren't writing this stuff down as it happened...the first books are dated till no sooner than 60ad).

And you ask why would they make something up...I don't know, ask one of our modern cult leaders.

Quote from: "Whitney"I would add that another reason to not place much trust in the books of the bible is because they were all written by normal people.

This is a miracle.  A real one.  

A normal person in the first century AD could not read or write, knew nothing of philosophy or art, and had enough headache trying to survive from meal to meal without trying to gin up a new religious sect whose innovation for the best way to expand was to get stoned while praying for the ones stoning you.  Herodotus, rich and one of the political/academic elite of his time, wrote a halting, self-oriented, tacky book that generated a cool movie starring Gerard Butler.  John, an ignorant fisherman, wrote five books of the bible.

"The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.  He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.  He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.  Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

A fisherman who couldn't read or write.

Quote from: "bandit4god"

Quote from: "Whitney"I would add that another reason to not place much trust in the books of the bible is because they were all written by normal people.

This is a miracle.  A real one... John, an ignorant fisherman, wrote five books of the bible.

A fisherman who couldn't read or write.

You have chosen to believe this, but It would be very interesting if you could produce any evidence to back up your belief.  The majority of biblical scholars would disagree with your position, absent such evidence.

The following is a quote from a writer who would apparently agrees with your belief.  The reason I'm quoting it however, is to give evidence to show that the majority of biblical scholars don't agree with your position.

QuoteFrom Joyful Papist (http://joyfulpapist.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/what-i-can-and-cannot-learn-from-modern-biblical-scholarship/):

But, in any case, I don’t accept that biblical scholars have proved their case regarding provenance, misattribution and so on, because I question on of their base assumptions.

This assumption is a late dating for the books of the New Testament â€" that is, the idea that the books were largely written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. Below, I give five reasons for believing that the majority opinion on this is wrong.

(Emphasis mine)

QuoteFrom Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304610/Gospel-According-to-John):

Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, “the beloved disciple” of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, in about ad 100 for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background.

While it's common for Christians and their pastors to attribute the books of John to the apostle John, that does not mean that that attribution is based on any real evidence.

Peace....

QuoteNo.  So long as it remains hope and makes no pretentions at knowledge or insight and presents no one and nothing as an authority on the subject.

Very well....

Would you say the same about positive thinking where there is no overwhelming evidence to support a positive outcome?

QuoteYou say that like it's a bad thing.  I am quite proud of the fact that my atheism, or, more precisely, my epistemology, forces me to seek justice on Earth or else let go of my anger; forces me to fear prison, because if I have only one life, spending the rest of it in prison would be tragic; forces me to fear getting myself killed, as I have more I'd like to do before I die.  My epistemology leads to the great virtues of caution, and stoicism*, and, when the first two cannot constrain it, heroism**.  

* Stoicism is accepting what I cannot, or choose not to, change or counterbalance.  It is peace in reality and peace in choice.

** Heroism is choosing to do my best to change or counterbalance what I cannot accept.  It is only folly if what I cannot accept is a law of nature, or if caution is overridden for the sake of something less valuable to me than what I'm risking, or if my methods are incompetent.

Why are you forced to let go of anger?

Why not hold onto it and let it dissipate along with the remainder of your consciousness?

Finally, how do you explain to those who will survive to continue to suffer the sting of the injustice committed against you, that they should not pick up the mantle and continue the fight since it no longer matters to you?

While your sentiment seems noble, I think you are waxing philosophic...Practically speaking, I think your position is untenable.  

QuoteWhy?

Why would social order break down if people did not believe in a post life judgement?  Because revenge is a human compulsion which is most often tempered by the belief that a higher power, or arbiter will make right those injustices committed on Earth.  This is why religion and the thought of heaven has consistently been fed to the profane masses by those it power...It softens the blow of misery and contempt.  Many people are satisfied with the notion that they will recieve Heaven for their suffering and that those who are responsible for the suffering will be punished.  

Revolutions are incited when groups decide to take matters into their own hands....

Karl Marx was correct when he said "religion is the opiate of the masses" ...It is what keeps them at bay...

If takes no more than to look at Slavery in America for the point to be demonstrated.  When slave rebellions began to become more sophisticated, and frequent, the Bible and Christianity was implemented by the slave holders.  The same is true if the history if England is examined.  

QuoteThen they are necessary evils, for self-deceit is a great evil.  But I dispute the necessity.  All that's needed for social stability is legislation and enforcement.  All that's needed for happiness is achievable goals.

Heres the thing...I am not as passionate about lying to people as I let on, nor do I believe that folks should wait till the afterlife for justice..

I put that out there to raise another question which I will present later.




Whirling Moat

Peace....

QuoteThere is no reason to accept anything as true without empirical evidence. There are lots of reasons to not accept things without empirical evidence.

So can you or anyone prove empirically  that a black hole has an interior deeper than 1cm? Or that Dark Matter exists?

Both of these determinations are the result of reasoning and mathematics coupled with empirical data. No one has actually seen or tested either of the two.





Whirling Moat

Peace....

QuoteI saw all the back and forth on this discussion point. Let me just say that today, December 2010, among physicists currently at work, the answer to the question as to what was going on before the Big Bang will be an immediate unanimous shrug.

Of course...Because part of the idea is that physics break down at the singularity..There is no such meaningful concept as before since the advent of time resulted with the Big Bang.

What occured was beyond Nature as we understand it..The Shrug of physicists will persist unless they completely discard the model.  Which wouldn't surprise me because while it is elegant..it becomes very troublesome at the end.  The funny thing is that reductionist thinking cannot escape the idea that the solution may be outside of physical explanation.  

QuoteBut let's pretend otherwise. Let's pretend we knew for sure that before the Big Bang there was a period of nothingness, and then suddenly, bang. Would this suggest the existence of God? No. Because God would still be, as postulated, a non-empirical source of empirical causation, and that proposition is impossible to assess. Empirical causation can only be assessed by logical empiricism, which cannot assess non-empirical propositions; meanwhile, non-empirical propositions can only be assessed by logic alone, which cannot assess empirical causation; and the two modalities cannot be brought together to assess a single proposition, because that would negate logic alone as a modality

How would God be non empirical?

QuoteIf we decide to define God as the empirical source of empirical causation, then at most what we're saying is that God is whatever existed before the Big Bang, and the question of what that was is already being investigated, to the extent it can be, by the only people qualified to investigate it, namely, physicists and astronomers. Alternatively, we might be saying that God is the laws of nature - not their author, but literally them and nothing more.

So can't we reduce your statement above to Physicists and Astronomers are investigating God?

QuoteOK, now I know you're all right. Anybody who can name Barry Allen gets a high five, which we'll imagine this fellow to be doing.

If i ever want to find my Comic Book Kin I go to atheist boards or science forums...But I have to admit I am more of a Marvel kinda guy...

QuoteIf the imperatives are validly logical then they will describe what must be true, and they will be correct always, to the extent our premises are complete and accurate. Error as to what must be true is impossible, given complete and accurate data and valid logic. The only reason scientists debate scientific questions is this: data at the current time is incomplete.

Droid...I know this seems correct but it isn't.  Logic and mathematics is simply our way of explaining the order of the past...There is nothing that we know of stopping 4+ 5 = french fries.  Or, " All cars are purple" Jim drives a car..Jim's car is green."  Yes it would defy logic, but not necessarily reality.  Reality is what it has been, however there is nothing we know of preventing it from changing. All of our rules apply to the future if the systems of mathematics and science remain consistent.  There are many physicists who will agree that the universe could run backwards where effects happen prior to the cause.  

My point is that Creation is evidence of this, the rules only apply to creation once it is present and orderly...Where there are different rules, possibilities shift and events may occur like they happen in our dreams...Dreams don't have to make sense.  

QuoteIn the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Always do science, however science without theology is lame, and is one ugly bastard.



Whirling Moat

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Always do science, however science without theology is lame, and is one ugly bastard.

There's where you are wrong.  Science WITH theology is blind, deaf, and lame because theology doesn't want science to investigate anything that might contradict theology.  Theology only hinders progress.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Peace....

You're back!  Excellent.  I think you might be the only Muslim currently active on this board.  You're the first I've noticed, any way.  It's fun to have you here.

Quote

QuoteNo.  So long as it remains hope and makes no pretentions at knowledge or insight and presents no one and nothing as an authority on the subject.

Very well....

Would you say the same about positive thinking where there is no overwhelming evidence to support a positive outcome?

Yes.  But I think I'm missing your point.  Positive thinking is a success strategy.  Are you saying Islam is a success strategy?

Quote

QuoteYou say that like it's a bad thing.  I am quite proud of the fact that my atheism, or, more precisely, my epistemology, forces me to seek justice on Earth or else let go of my anger; forces me to fear prison, because if I have only one life, spending the rest of it in prison would be tragic; forces me to fear getting myself killed, as I have more I'd like to do before I die.  My epistemology leads to the great virtues of caution, and stoicism*, and, when the first two cannot constrain it, heroism**.

Why are you forced to let go of anger?

Why not hold onto it and let it dissipate along with the remainder of your consciousness?

Hmm.  OK.  I guess there are three choices, one of which is a poor one:
1. Seek justice.
2. Let go of anger.
3. Hold onto anger but do nothing with it, so that it merely seethes.

I was rejecting the third choice out of hand because it's self-destructive.

As for your comment about dissipating consciousness, are you making the point that nothing matters if death is final?  If so, I would argue the exact opposite.  If I only have forty years to live, or forty days, or forty minutes, what I do with that time takes on a mighty significance to me personally and perhaps to others, depending on what I do.  My life is part of a greater life, that of humanity.  In the face of death, and given my will to meaning, it is in my interest to do things that make humanity's continued survival more likely, and to make humanity's future in some way a carrier for my own hopes.

QuoteFinally, how do you explain to those who will survive to continue to suffer the sting of the injustice committed against you, that they should not pick up the mantle and continue the fight since it no longer matters to you?

My loved ones are free to hold onto their anger if such makes sense to them.  I would only counsel them, then, to seek justice.  Either seek justice or let go of anger.  Don't merely seethe.

QuoteWhile your sentiment seems noble, I think you are waxing philosophic...Practically speaking, I think your position is untenable.

What position and in what way untenable?

You seem to be saying that since the finality of death is undesirable, it must be false.  How is it that desire dictates truth?  

Nevertheless, I am free to hope for an afterlife.  It is merely when I pretend knowledge or insight, or claim someone or something as an authority, that I err, for no one has knowledge or insight about any afterlife, and no one and nothing on Earth can be an authority on the subject, since to become such, one first must die and stay dead.  Given the honesty to acknowledge what we know and what we don't, by all means let us hope for an afterlife, if doing so makes sense to us.

QuoteWhy would social order break down if people did not believe in a post life judgement?  Because revenge is a human compulsion which is most often tempered by the belief that a higher power, or arbiter will make right those injustices committed on Earth.  This is why religion and the thought of heaven has consistently been fed to the profane masses by those in power...It softens the blow of misery and contempt.  Many people are satisfied with the notion that they will recieve Heaven for their suffering and that those who are responsible for the suffering will be punished.

Yet many others aren't satisfied, and some of these believe in an afterlife, and even in a divine judge.  They merely convince themselves that they are the agents of that judge here on Earth, and then they take matters into their own hands.  

I agree that revenge is a human compulsion.  I go further, in that I don't condemn or denigrate revenge.  I condemn and denigrate only excess.  Risking too much, or inflicting too much of a penalty, or hitting too wide a target, or devoting too much of one's life, or causing reverberations that will continue for too long.  These quantities can only be assessed in terms of values, and values are subjective, so this is less a calculus and more a musical composition, its harmonies having to be judged by an ear that is sensitive to the tone and pitch of life.
   
We don't need to teach children a myth.  What we need to do is teach them how to consider personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness; and how to weigh these things in light of complete and accurate data and valid logic; and how to put these things into balance; and how to negotiate and compromise with those who want a different pitch and tone but who at least agree with the pursuit of music.

QuoteKarl Marx was correct when he said "religion is the opiate of the masses" ...It is what keeps them at bay...

Then we need a new humanity, one that doesn't have masses, but only individuals seeking wisdom.  What's needed is education, both academic and practical.

QuoteIf takes no more than to look at Slavery in America for the point to be demonstrated.  When slave rebellions began to become more sophisticated, and frequent, the Bible and Christianity was implemented by the slave holders.  The same is true if the history if England is examined.

It intrigues me that you, a Muslim, seem to be arguing for religion as a necessary evil.  I, for my part, reject all evil, and dispute its necessity.  Why sink when we can rise instead?  Instead of opiates, let's offer humanity ideas, opportunities, creative challenges, and the promise of Earthly reward for those who learn to think and then act.

QuoteHeres the thing...I am not as passionate about lying to people as I let on, nor do I believe that folks should wait till the afterlife for justice..

I suspected you weren't and didn't.  

QuoteI put that out there to raise another question which I will present later.

I look forward to discovering what is next from you, Whirling Moat.

Peace....

QuoteOk, you have the right to think that. I disagree and think it is not. It is simply the acknowledgement of reality. It also causes me to appreciate this one and only life we have far more than I ever did as a Christian. Nothing selfish about that. What I believe to be selfish is lying for the purpose of giving others false hopes and beliefs. It is also unethical and cruel.

I still don't get it McQ...Yeah, lying is bad..but I am saying that from a different set of values..I don't see how you would maintain this same idea however..I mean from where you stand it seems to be without merit.  What difference does it make if a person embraces death with the expectation of something else and then they just stop existing..who was hurt?

I hear many people say things in funerals like  "We lost a daughter, but we gained an angel.."  Now I agree that this may not be the reality, however once again I have my reasons for disapproving of this, what are yours? Should we remind everyone after the funeral that we have no peer reviewed test which proves unequivocally that a departed person becomes anything but a carcass?

QuoteWhat of it? What of the Christian mother who experiences the same thing? Both live with terrible heartache and loss, granted. But one might choose to add to that grief a lie of utmost cruelty while the other chooses not to, instead acknowledging the fundamental truth that life is unfair. You need to broaden your worldview to recall that the human race has been here a long time, and for the vast majority of that time life has been (to paraphrase) nasty, brutish, and short.

And how does this realization help the person?

It is like sobering someone up just because....Do you find yourself at Nightclubs trying to sober up drunk people?
Or how about people on pain meds...Should they embrace the fact that it hurts?   "Hand over the anesthetics Brian, you shouldn't take them they are just keeping you away from reality.."  

QuoteNot irrational to hope, but irrational to believe it. Next, justice is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. We have changed the meaning of justice as society has changed over the millennia as well. The justice you hope for is not the same as the justice that preindustrial societies lived with. Again, you cannot impose human concepts on nature, so you can only impose them on the society you live in, or in the case of historical revisionists, on previous societies.

I think my point simply reflects the age old idea of revenge.  

QuoteMe? How do I? Or how do others who don't believe in life after death? Can't answer for others. And you also inserted another what if into this that doesn't necessarily go along with that question, so I'll do my best to answer.
I don't swamp the living with useless platitudes about their dead, for one. I find the idiotic things people say during funerals to be just that. Idiotic. They are the words of people who don't know what to say, and have no concept of how much more the truth is helpful than the lies they repeat mindlessly. "Oh, Mary is in a better place, and you'll see her again someday."

Total garbage. They say something they don't even really believe, can't explain, and certainly can't know for sure, yet they say it as if they are the ultimate arbiters of our deaths. Cruel, stupid, thoughtless words.

it is stupid and many othOher expletives...but once again...how does it hurt anybody?
It isn't like they are gonna get somewhere and find out that it was all a lie...

QuoteTo add to this, the believers' ideas of punishment are stuck with some nagging issues of their own. For instance, the nasty pedophile you propose. In your scenario he might go to hell, right? But he might not. He may, in fact, be offered eternal glory with his lord and master, jesus christ. If your pedophile is a Christian, he's not going to hell, he's going to heaven. For eternity. To be rewarded

.

I know I never did get this..

I am not a Christian...

I think most Christians would be fine providing certain evil doers with a rather painful send off even if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior...

I think both ideas are harmful to a stable social structure. Atheism and certain religious concepts relating to justice.  

I am not really done with this post but I have to leave the computer for awhile...I will finish later..



Whirling Moat

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"

QuoteThere is no reason to accept anything as true without empirical evidence. There are lots of reasons to not accept things without empirical evidence.

So can you or anyone prove empirically  that a black hole has an interior deeper than 1cm? Or that Dark Matter exists?

Both of these determinations are the result of reasoning and mathematics coupled with empirical data. No one has actually seen or tested either of the two.

I cannot, is there a reason for me to accept this as true?

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"I still don't get it McQ...Yeah, lying is bad..but I am saying that from a different set of values..I don't see how you would maintain this same idea however..I mean from where you stand it seems to be without merit.  What difference does it make if a person embraces death with the expectation of something else and then they just stop existing..who was hurt?

I'm not McQ but what the heck, I'm home from work today, so I'll join in.

First, let's be clear that I reject morality as readily and for the same reason that I reject theology.  Neither of them can have any place in my epistemology.

The above doesn't mean that I reject any discussion of what is good or what is evil.  I merely require that we speak of what is good or evil in its effect on me, or he/she/it/them, or us, or you.  Not the moral sort of good or evil, but the practical sort.

In assessing the evil of pretending we know there's an afterlife, or even merely believe it on strong evidence, since even that is false, I look at two things:
1. The effect of the lie itself
2. The effect of the implied epistemology

The effect of the lie itself is its insidious tendency to turn a person's attention from the only world we know for sure exists and matters, which is this one.  Survival, success, and satisfaction are all rendered more likely the more we focus on what is real and significant, and less likely the more we don't.  Otherworldliness is anti-survival, anti-success, and anti-satisfaction.

The effect of the implied epistemology is its despicable tendency to partition off logical empiricism, mathematics, and logic, as being only a subset of the valid approaches to objective truth, when in fact they are the whole set.  If faith - which is believing something because we want to - can be trusted on the question of what happens after death; if intution can be trusted on this question, or if emotion can; then these approaches might be construed as being trustworthy for answering other questions, and they most emphatically are not.  Faith is what happens when desire invades and usurps control of our epistemology.  Nothing could be less trustworthy.  Intuition is a powerful tool for generating hypotheses but those hypotheses must be tested by one of the three genuine approaches to objective truth.  Emotion gives us information about ourselves but only ourselves.  Anyone who tries to navigate the real world by faith, or by untested intuition, or by emotion, is going to get lost, and perhaps worse than lost, as they may wander unsuspectingly onto hazardous terrain.
 
There was an old TV show titled, Lou Grant.  In one episode the young rebel reporter, Joe Rossi, a skeptic and a cynic, had this to say, and I never forgot it: "I don't believe many things in this world, but this I believe.  In the battle between good and evil, if truth is on the field, good will win the day."  (That may not be verbatim but it's very close.)

QuoteShould we remind everyone after the funeral that we have no peer reviewed test which proves unequivocally that a departed person becomes anything but a carcass?

In such crass terms, no.  But we should acknowledge that as far as we know, our loss of a loved one is real.  The hole in our lives is real.  The clench in our stomachs, the choke in our throats, the sting in our eyes, are all in reaction to something real.  

It is quite possible to have an openly atheist funeral ceremony, and to find catharsis therefrom.  Not necessarily comfort, perhaps, but in our mourning it isn't always comfort that we want.  There can be a deeper need.  Up and down our spines a hot liquid can churn, demanding release.  This can drive us first to face the emptiness, and then, in response, to face the fullness of the life that was lived, to grab hold of the past, of the memory, of the meaning of that life, and to decide with quiet fury that what that life meant, other lives can carry forward, each in unique ways, perhaps only in piecemeal, surely never as the original life would have carried it all forward - but forward at least some of it can proceed nevertheless, and by all that is sacred to the mind and heart of man, so shall it proceed.  And under the tread of its foot, the Earth will be moved.

Thanks, Recusant.  Joyful Papist?  Really?  Anyway, I'm glad that Encyclopedia Britannica is still alive and kicking--they must have gone through no small crisis of confidence when came on the scene.

Quote from: "Recusant"The following is a quote from a writer who would apparently agrees with your belief.  The reason I'm quoting it however, is to give evidence to show that the majority of biblical scholars don't agree with your position

The majority opinion (referenced a couple of paragraphs later by JP) is that most of the NT books were written between 50-100 AD.  Jesus died ~34 AD.  I'd feel pretty confident writing a short book on the rise and fall of Vanilla Ice right now, ~20 years after the events occurred, and I'll probably still feel the same way thirty years from now.  "Stop.  Collaborate and listen..."  Love that guy.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"Peace....

QuoteOk, you have the right to think that. I disagree and think it is not. It is simply the acknowledgement of reality. It also causes me to appreciate this one and only life we have far more than I ever did as a Christian. Nothing selfish about that. What I believe to be selfish is lying for the purpose of giving others false hopes and beliefs. It is also unethical and cruel.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"I still don't get it McQ...Yeah, lying is bad..but I am saying that from a different set of values..I don't see how you would maintain this same idea however..I mean from where you stand it seems to be without merit.  What difference does it make if a person embraces death with the expectation of something else and then they just stop existing..who was hurt?

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you here. We both think lying is bad, if I'm reading you correctly. I believe that telling someone there is a heaven they will go to after death is a lie, and therefore, I don't like it. I think it gives a person a false belief. In other words, I would be actively feeding someone what I consider the ultimate false hope: life after death.
Where I think it makes a difference is that they, in turn, may perpetuate the same myth, and so it goes, until we are in a world where nearly everyone believes it (our current situation). To my way of thinking, this actually cheapens the value of life, because it allows people to act in ways that make it ok to waste their time on Earth, or to then extrapolate their heavenly beliefs to a god or gods, and use that ultimate trump card to control the lives of others, or to fight wars, and wage atrocities on humanity (also our current situation). Of course, not all evil is done in the name of belief in god or gods, but it would be dishonest to say that throughout human history many of the atrocities haven't been due to that.

I skipped a few steps in the process of that progression from belief in heaven to atrocities, but I don't have the skill or time to write all of human history in this thread. ;-)

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"I hear many people say things in funerals like  "We lost a daughter, but we gained an angel.."  Now I agree that this may not be the reality, however once again I have my reasons for disapproving of this, what are yours? Should we remind everyone after the funeral that we have no peer reviewed test which proves unequivocally that a departed person becomes anything but a carcass?

Just to be clear, I don't go around at funerals calling people out for saying things. However I simply don't say those same things. Again, to me, it is active dishonesty in the worst way: planting false hope in vulnerable people. I'm not some robot who says we need peer reviewed studies in the middle of a funeral. I care for those who are suffering at the loss of someone they loved.

I think you may have been a bit tongue in cheek there, but wanted to be sure.

QuoteWhat of it? What of the Christian mother who experiences the same thing? Both live with terrible heartache and loss, granted. But one might choose to add to that grief a lie of utmost cruelty while the other chooses not to, instead acknowledging the fundamental truth that life is unfair. You need to broaden your worldview to recall that the human race has been here a long time, and for the vast majority of that time life has been (to paraphrase) nasty, brutish, and short.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"And how does this realization help the person?

It is like sobering someone up just because....Do you find yourself at Nightclubs trying to sober up drunk people?
Or how about people on pain meds...Should they embrace the fact that it hurts?   "Hand over the anesthetics Brian, you shouldn't take them they are just keeping you away from reality.."  

Again, I think, and hope, that you are being tongue in cheek here. For one, this is a poor analogy. It doesn't match at all to what we are talking about. So of course I don't believe in keeping people from pain meds. Pain is real. It is measurable. I also don't go to nightclubs. I also don't get drunk. I do try to prevent others from drinking too much and becoming drunk. Of course, again, this is nowhere near analogous to what we are discussing.

QuoteNot irrational to hope, but irrational to believe it. Next, justice is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. We have changed the meaning of justice as society has changed over the millennia as well. The justice you hope for is not the same as the justice that preindustrial societies lived with. Again, you cannot impose human concepts on nature, so you can only impose them on the society you live in, or in the case of historical revisionists, on previous societies.

I think my point simply reflects the age old idea of revenge.  Oops! This is Whirling Moats, sentence, not mine. I effed up the quotes feature!

QuoteMe? How do I? Or how do others who don't believe in life after death? Can't answer for others. And you also inserted another what if into this that doesn't necessarily go along with that question, so I'll do my best to answer.
I don't swamp the living with useless platitudes about their dead, for one. I find the idiotic things people say during funerals to be just that. Idiotic. They are the words of people who don't know what to say, and have no concept of how much more the truth is helpful than the lies they repeat mindlessly. "Oh, Mary is in a better place, and you'll see her again someday."

Total garbage. They say something they don't even really believe, can't explain, and certainly can't know for sure, yet they say it as if they are the ultimate arbiters of our deaths. Cruel, stupid, thoughtless words.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"it is stupid and many othOher expletives...but once again...how does it hurt anybody?
It isn't like they are gonna get somewhere and find out that it was all a lie...

I'll use the venerable South Park to answer this, in paraphrase, because it is absolutely accurate. If you haven't seen it, here's the scoop. John Edward, famous fake psychic (of course all psychics are fake) says that his ability to talk with the souls of the dead for their living friends and relatives is challenged by Stan, a fourth grader, who believes that this is harmful to society.

JE: Look, what I do doesn't hurt anybody. I give people closure and help them cope with life.
STAN: No, you give them false hope and a belief in something that isn't real.
JE: But I'm a psychic!
STAN: No, you're a douche.
JE: I am not a douche! What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?
STAN: Then you're a stupid douche.

....and in a later conversation which picks up where this left off...

JE: Everything I tell people is positive and gives them hope! How does that make me a douche?
STAN: Because the big questions in life are tough: Why are we here? Where are we from? Where are we going? But if people believe in asshole douchey liars like you, we're never gonna find the real answers to those questions. You aren't just lying, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind, you douche!

QuoteTo add to this, the believers' ideas of punishment are stuck with some nagging issues of their own. For instance, the nasty pedophile you propose. In your scenario he might go to hell, right? But he might not. He may, in fact, be offered eternal glory with his lord and master, jesus christ. If your pedophile is a Christian, he's not going to hell, he's going to heaven. For eternity. To be rewarded

.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"I know I never did get this..

I am not a Christian...

Yeah, doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's what they believe. I used Christian beliefs because I'm unfamiliar with Muslim beliefs on this.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"I think most Christians would be fine providing certain evil doers with a rather painful send off even if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior...

Perhaps many would, but it doesn't negate the fact that, according to their beliefs, this asshole will still spend eternity in glorious reward. A couple of moments of suffering at the hands of Christians doesn't change that.

Quote from: "Whirling Moat"I think both ideas are harmful to a stable social structure. Atheism and certain religious concepts relating to justice.  

I am not really done with this post but I have to leave the computer for awhile...I will finish later..[

Keep in mind that atheism is not a social construct relating to the running or governing of societies any more than a-Santa Claus-ism is. Or a-Easter Bunny-ism.

No sweat on getting back to me on this. My workload for the remainder of the year just picked up massively, and this might be the last time for a couple weeks or months that I have time to devote to the topic. Ultimately, I am ok with agreeing to disagree, and live peacefully so. But it is a nice discussion.

And lastly, please do your best to overlook typos and errors. I did this on my iPad while in a huge hurry to get it done before my next appointment. Not the best time to try to do this! :)

And I've just re-re-read this, and must say I'll never again try to type this much so fast, while using an ipad or iphone. What a freaking disaster! My apologies to anyone who tried to slog through it. WTF was I thinking when I attempted this?

Although I don't have anything to add to this topic, I'm rather enjoying the read.
 

So far, I've seen nothing in this thread that would make me want to change my mind on the existence of any god.

Let's take a simple example. Take a sample of radioactive thorium in a cloud chamber. This is a demo I set up often in my work at a science museum. Every time, without fail, alpha particles come flying off, making amazing tracks in the ethanol atmosphere.

Make it not work.

Now, I will of course exhaust all the possible explanations. First, I'll find out if I forgot to squirt in the ethanol. Next, I'll check to see if I forgot to fill up the cooler under the cart with ice water. Maybe the water pump isn't working. Maybe the field-clearing device is not clearing the field, so that the chamber is saturated with positive charge.

Once I've gotten past all that, then I will be forced to believe that some supernatural entity suddenly made the thorium, with a 10 billion year plus half-life, suddenly become stable. Also, I will win the Nobel Prize.

So do that.

By the way, I still won't worship. Belief and worship are two different things. I believe in Bill Gates, but do not worship him.

Quote from: "Will"The Torah, Bible, and Qur'an are all internally contradictory and all of them make prophesies which have not come to pass in the time provided by the prophesy.

And which have in some cases been contradicted -- Tyre, for instance.