Should We Treat All Religions With Respect?

[David Sklansky]

Let me first say that I got on this latest kick because of something that txaq and a few others wrote regarding the hypothetical fellow who loved Christianity and all it stood for. The guy who followed all its precepts and couldn't imagine doing anything else. The guy who thought life is meaningless if Jesus is not the son of God. And yes, the guy who thought life might in fact be meaningless because it might well be true that those who doubted the Jesus resurrection story were technically correct. But then again they might not be. So he was going to assume they were wrong and continue doing what Christians do. Praying, repenting, feeding the poor, etc.

And txaq basically said that unless this fellow changed his thoughts it was a SLAM DUNK he was going to hell. Because the bible said so. Period.

Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect. (You should still respect people's RIGHT to any belief as long as it doesn't impinge on you, but that is something different.)

The fact is that such religions are despicable. EVEN IF THEY ARE TRUE. Maybe not by God's standards of despicability but certainly by human standards. Those religions are not worthy of respect for a few reasons, not the least of which is that their practitioners don't respect your beliefs. How could they if they are sure those beliefs are not only incorrect but also guarantee eternity in hell? No matter how good a person you are.

Atheists don't believe practioners of these religions will go to hell. Jews don't believe it unless those practioner's actions dictate it. But the opposite is not true. It is not symetrical.

Jews repect Catholic belief, and many other religions, thinking they are basically incorrect and silly but well meaning enough that their practioners will go to heaven if they live morally. They feel the same way about atheists. Some types of Christians have the same type of thoughts about Jews and maybe atheists as well.

But once you start talking about people who are sure you are going to hell if you don't change your stance, and furthermore believe that God is just for doing that to you because you believe that Jesus stayed dead or Mohammed didn't ride a horse into the sky, how can you be expected to respect them? Yes you should vigorously defend their right to believe that stuff but you have no obligation not to consider them lunatics or morons. They consider you worse.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that such religions are despicable. EVEN IF THEY ARE TRUE. Maybe not by God's standards of despicability but certainly by human standards. Those religions are not worthy of respect for a few reasons, not the least of which is that their practitioners don't respect your beliefs. How could they if they are sure those beliefs are not only incorrect but also guarantee eternity in hell? No matter how good a person you are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Respect is a strange idea but in the more common venacular if these religons accurately reflect what god wants us to believe it means that god isn't benevolent (or some clever trick where there's deceit involved).

If as is most likely (by your intelligent persons theorem), these religons have nothing to do with god then these types of religous beliefs reflect the non-benevolence of humans.

In conclusion fundementalists aren't very nice people - quel surprise.

chez

[Nielsio]

Correct. People who hold that you should be killed (because of their statist or religious beliefs) are psychopaths.

"A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse."


Pointing out this gun in the room to them usually ends the conversation (which it should, ofcourse, because there is no real conversation when one of the involved parties holds that the other should be killed if he doesn't conform).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that such religions are despicable. EVEN IF THEY ARE TRUE. Maybe not by God's standards of despicability but certainly by human standards. Those religions are not worthy of respect for a few reasons, not the least of which is that their practitioners don't respect your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such religions are despicable, yet, I don't think their practioners will burn in hell for all eternity or go to heaven, for that matter /images/graemlins/smile.gif , but, like everyone else, they will have lived their short lifes full of hate, or at least condescension or shadenfreund, for those that don't share their beliefs.

[Darryl_P]

Sounds reasonable.

[David Sklansky]

"In conclusion fundementalists aren't very nice people - quel surprise."

Our usual roles are reversed here because I will be more charitable. Their religion isn't nice but they well be nice people. Except that I think many of them have some sort of skeleton in their closet, or a loved one has a skeleton in their closet such that a more rational God would be hard pressed to forgive.

In other words they are forced into human non benevolance not because it is in their nature, but rather because it is required for the the logical consistency of a religion that will absolve them.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
And txaq basically said that unless this fellow changed his thoughts it was a SLAM DUNK he was going to hell. Because the bible said so. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't exactly say it like that! I said that according to the Bible, your eternal destination depends upon what you believe and not on what you do, save confessing and repenting of your sins and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus for your sins. But that's open to everyone. Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

Everyone, regardless of what they believe, should be respected. Everyone was created by God. Christianity is about love. We love everyone.

(Yeah, yeah. Point out the fanatics. Someone can claim the name of Christ and still not be a christian. Those people are acting outside of Biblical commands. The Bible doesn't teach that stuff about bombing abortion clinics or killing infidels or whatever. It teaches love your enemy.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight out lie! Think about it!

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that I think many of them have some sort of skeleton in their closet, or a loved one has a skeleton in their closet such that a more rational God would be hard pressed to forgive.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd go a step further and say that, given that skeleton (combined with limited intelligence), the realistic possibilities for them living their lives are very horrible, horrible, and slightly horrible, the last one representing their fundamentalist beliefs. Given that they are choosing the best among their realistic possibilities, I think God will reward them for that.

God rewards you for being the best you can be, not for being the best on any comparative scale IMO, although there is a high correlation between the two.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight out lie! Think about it!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming you are talking about those who have never heard the name of Jesus when they die. The Bible doesn't say what happens to them, but I believe God judges each heart fairly.

Here's the deal, though:
1. You have heard the name of Jesus.

and

2. If you are concerned about those people, you can help them: www.imb.org (http://www.imb.org)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the deal, though:
1. You have heard the name of Jesus.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard it so often in different contexts, associated with so many differing beliefs, that I don't think anyone would know what they are talking about when they mention the name.

[ QUOTE ]

2. If you are concerned about those people, you can help them: www.imb.org (http://www.imb.org)

[/ QUOTE ]

I assure you there are many, many, better ways of helping people than polluting their minds with what is in yours!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"In conclusion fundementalists aren't very nice people - quel surprise."

Our usual roles are reversed here because I will be more charitable. Their religion isn't nice but they well be nice people. Except that I think many of them have some sort of skeleton in their closet, or a loved one has a skeleton in their closet such that a more rational God would be hard pressed to forgive.

In other words they are forced into human non benevolance not because it is in their nature, but rather because it is required for the the logical consistency of a religion that will absolve them.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe but there's enough room for interpretation within all mainstream religons to maintain consistency without damning everyone else. There's a split between the fundamentalists and the rest that isn't forced by logic, some are indoctinated (not so much not nice as unwillful) but the rest just aren't nice people.

Also your best argument against religon applies. Plenty of people with religous convictions recognise that there beliefs are no more well-founded than other peoples. Logically it could be no other way and 'nice' logical people don't go around killing people on such weak foundations as religous beliefs.

chez

[David Sklansky]

Just want to make sure that you realize that the "logic" I am speaking about stems from their premise that all humans deserve to go to hell. Which means that someone who sins a lot is in the same boat as someone who sins a little. Therefore "belief" is all that matters since it gets you an undeserved pardon(unless your sin was that blaspheming the holy spirit bit.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Just want to make sure that you realize that the "logic" I am speaking about stems from their premise that all humans deserve to go to hell. Which means that someone who sins a lot is in the same boat as someone who sins a little. Therefore "belief" is all that matters since it gets you an undeserved pardon(unless your sin was that blaspheming the holy spirit bit.)

[/ QUOTE ]
but its not the only premise. A logical person must recognise the validity of your best argument, so a need for logic consistency won't get them to justifying killing on religous grounds.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that such religions are despicable. EVEN IF THEY ARE TRUE. Maybe not by God's standards of despicability but certainly by human standards. Those religions are not worthy of respect for a few reasons, not the least of which is that their practitioners don't respect your beliefs. How could they if they are sure those beliefs are not only incorrect but also guarantee eternity in hell? No matter how good a person you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is flawed from a human point of view. Christianity views humans as flawed and they need to be saved from themselves. This is the silliness, especially for logical thinkers.

[ QUOTE ]
People who hold that you should be killed (because of their statist or religious beliefs) are psychopaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

A psychopath, at his very core, is simply someone devoid of conscience and has a weak emotional breadth, and is too broad a definition for such. Narcissism or antisocial personality disorder would be a more apt description. Semantic, perhaps, but psychopathy almost never applies to religious fundamentalists.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that such religions are despicable. EVEN IF THEY ARE TRUE. Maybe not by God's standards of despicability but certainly by human standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying then that human standards are more accurate than God's (who would be the origin of those) standards? Or that standards are merely a subjective preference?


[ QUOTE ]
Those religions are not worthy of respect for a few reasons, not the least of which is that their practitioners don't respect your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is like saying that we should outlaw alcohol because some people drive drunk. I will grant that religious people often do not respect your beliefs, but that is not common to all religion. I believe that someone brought Amish beliefs before, stating that they do not proselytize. Yet I would certainly consider Amish beliefs to be religious. They are two separate issues.


[ QUOTE ]
In other words they are forced into human non benevolance not because it is in their nature, but rather because it is required for the the logical consistency of a religion that will absolve them.

[/ QUOTE ]
That really depends on a the religion and should not be used as a blanket statement. The new testament of the Bible repeatedly encourages benevolence to friends and enemies alike, while the Koran (from what I understand) encourages the murder unbelievers, and the Amish (which I believe to be a sect of christianity) are fine as long as every one leaves them alone. How cant this be an accurate generality when each religion is different?

[SNOWBALL]

Step 1: Establish a criterion to hate large groups of people
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Profit?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
But once you start talking about people who are sure you are going to hell if you don't change your stance, and furthermore believe that God is just for doing that to you because you believe that Jesus stayed dead or Mohammed didn't ride a horse into the sky, how can you be expected to respect them? Yes you should vigorously defend their right to believe that stuff but you have no obligation not to consider them lunatics or morons. They consider you worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is correct, but I don't think we do respect this, there's a missing ingredient here which is crucial in how religiosity is impacting politics at the moment. Most people, certainly liberals, talk about respecting religious beliefs because they don't actually think these people really believe this stuff.

We don't criticize Islam in the West Bank for example, because we've decided that religion is not to blame, rather that religion is some kind of symptomatic expression with socio-economic reasons the real cause. Which in turn makes us think these people are just crazy - a Palestinian mother celebrating joyously that her son died in a suicide attack makes perfect sense if she truly believes he's gone to paradise, but makes her nuts if the poverty explanation is correct. That's a specific example, but this attitude that religion is a harmless expression of something more fundamental permeates discussion and debate at every level of society.

There is a failure to hold religion up to rational scrutiny because of this notion that religion is expressive and not causal. That's the real reason we afford respect to religious beliefs, and it's a massive mistake. The irony is that the fundamentalists know this, which is why they blame each other's faiths for conflict. They know this because they understand what it means to truly believe this stuff - us atheists/liberals etc. don't so we look for other explanations and miss the point completely.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a failure to hold religion up to rational scrutiny because of this notion that religion is expressive and not causal. That's the real reason we afford respect to religious beliefs, and it's a massive mistake. The irony is that the fundamentalists know this, which is why they blame each other's faiths for conflict. They know this because they understand what it means to truly believe this stuff - us atheists/liberals etc. don't so we look for other explanations and miss the point completely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Other way round. Religons are given respect because people think they really believe that stuff and its a huge mistake. Some believe it some don't, some are nasty loonys others aren't, the correlation between the two is tenuous. Respect (if we have to use that strange idea) should be given to everyone to the degree they are not nasty loonys.

chez

[KUJustin]

David, if there's such a thing as truth in this area then your entire post beomes meaningless.

If one thing is true the others are false and it's not despicable to call them that.

Are you despicable for believing that my faith is a waste of time/emotion/mental faculty/etc (assuming you do think that. if you don't, then would you be despicable if you did?).

[guesswest]

I disagree. I think most people, certainly including religious moderates, can't wrap their heads around believing in that stuff in the same way you believe there's a table in front of you. I think, in the back of their minds, there's always a slight doubt as to whether the subject believes it deep down, as to whether they mean it semi-figuratively, something like that - because they themselves don't believe in this way.

[She]

"There is more faith in honest doubt. Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[Piers]

I think it is usually best to be polite to people you meet, a side effect of this is to give some respect to any religious belief they may have, even to the extent of taking their religion as a working hypothesis for constructing short term dialog options.

Self-delusion is an important part of the human psyche; I always admire people who are more skilful at it than me.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight out lie! Think about it!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming you are talking about those who have never heard the name of Jesus when they die. The Bible doesn't say what happens to them, but I believe God judges each heart fairly.

Here's the deal, though:
1. You have heard the name of Jesus.

and

2. If you are concerned about those people, you can help them: www.imb.org (http://www.imb.org)

[/ QUOTE ]

just because someone has heard the name Jesus, that doesn't mean that they were given the same opportunity as you were

it seems like you are saying that it is just a coincidence that most people born into muslims families become muslims and most people born into christian families become christians...

otherwise, how can you honestly argue this..

[ QUOTE ]
Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

or is it just a coincidence that most people who wouldn't accept christ were born into nonchristian families?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight out lie! Think about it!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming you are talking about those who have never heard the name of Jesus when they die. The Bible doesn't say what happens to them, but I believe God judges each heart fairly.

Here's the deal, though:
1. You have heard the name of Jesus.

and

2. If you are concerned about those people, you can help them: www.imb.org (http://www.imb.org)

[/ QUOTE ]

just because someone has heard the name Jesus, that doesn't mean that they were given the same opportunity as you were

it seems like you are saying that it is just a coincidence that most people born into muslims families become muslims and most people born into christian families become christians...

otherwise, how can you honestly argue this..

[ QUOTE ]
Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

or is it just a coincidence that most people who wouldn't accept christ were born into nonchristian families?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've never said anything of the sort.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've never said anything of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've never said anything of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

i remember that conversation. you're thinking of notready.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've never said anything of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to give your actual opinion then?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've never said anything of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

i remember that conversation. you're thinking of notready.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I definitely apologize, txag. I wasn't doing it maliciously.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He would (and has before) say that its not a coincidence at all, and that God knew he was more likely to accept Christianity and so put him into a Christian society, and the Muslim kid was less likely to accept it. What this says about free will I'll leave to txag to struggle with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've never said anything of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

i remember that conversation. you're thinking of notready.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I definitely apologize, txag. I wasn't doing it maliciously.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.



i remember that conversation. you're thinking of notready.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't remember saying this but I don't disagree necessarily with the idea. God may work it that way. I don't think we can be dogmatic about it from Scripture. Udontknowmickey would probably say it with more certainty than me.

[David Sklansky]

" God may work it that way. I don't think we can be dogmatic about it from Scripture"

God would be a lot happier if you used this line more often.
He'd prefer you spend your time talking about things like ultimate morality and ultimate chance.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

God would be a lot happier if you used this line more often.
He'd prefer you spend your time talking about things like ultimate morality and ultimate chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of what?

[samsonite2100]

I am wholly disinterested in and disrespectful of any religion that requires a belief in Hell, full stop.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think most people, certainly including religious moderates, can't wrap their heads around believing in that stuff in the same way you believe there's a table in front of you. I think, in the back of their minds, there's always a slight doubt as to whether the subject believes it deep down, as to whether they mean it semi-figuratively, something like that - because they themselves don't believe in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure there's some doubt, there's doubt about all sorts of beliefs about other people beliefs: DS find it hard to believe that I had a reason not to stop at the red light, I find it hard to believe that he believes his not a philosopher. Still the liberal reason to respect other people beliefs is founded on the idea that they do hold those belief, however hard we find it to empathise with them. Where us skeptical folk struggle is we can't do the choosing of beliefs to suit our ends bit, but we still accept that other people are more credulous and can.

but the point I'm floundering at getting across is that logical consistency can be acheived two ways; start from beliefs and reach conclusions, or start with conclusions and then choose the beliefs that support the conclusions. I claim it's not unpleasant religons that cause unpleasantness in willful people, rather its the nasty sods who assume the nasty religous beliefs.

The terrible irony is that because we tend to blame the religon not the people, we play straight into the hands of the nasty fundementalists by giving the moderates nowhere else to go.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The terrible irony is that because we tend to blame the religon not the people, we play straight into the hands of the nasty fundementalists by giving the moderates nowhere else to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite. But what proposed solutions would there be anyway? People have an inherent need to be social and to belong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The terrible irony is that because we tend to blame the religon not the people, we play straight into the hands of the nasty fundementalists by giving the moderates nowhere else to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite. But what proposed solutions would there be anyway? People have an inherent need to be social and to belong.

[/ QUOTE ]
The proposed solution is to work to provide an advantage to the moderates to stay moderate. Destroying the infrastrucure of a country to punish the fundementalists is generally a bad plan, working to provide a more stable wealthy society for the masses is a good plan.

None of this can happen if we make the mistake of thinking its someones religon or nationality that dictates their morality.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The proposed solution is to work to provide an advantage to the moderates to stay moderate. Destroying the infrastrucure of a country to punish the fundementalists is generally a bad plan, working to provide a more stable wealthy society for the masses is a good plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit slow though, and made slower by the conscious hindrance of fundamentalists, be it ideological or religious. The biggest threats to the EU's attempt to implement the ideal system that allows for nationalistic identity and retainment of cultural values, which is old as Julian Rome...

Racism. Terrorism. The absorption of relationally poorer countries with different religious values, namely Turkey.

One looks to Germany and reunification. The country seems to run well these days. However, there is still a disparity between the old West and the old East, not only in economics, but the bearing of the people. It takes an awfully long time in relation to one human lifespan to see these changes through.

And people, especially those newly in power, notoriously implement changes that favor their ideologies or personal biases. Even democracy becomes too top-heavy and the superclass gets entrenched, which is certainly the case in America.

There probably isn't a human solution that would work in principle. Every human is all born with pretty much with the same starting skill set, and the advantages emerge through intellectual development and class advantages.

Socialist states go broke from overspending. Democracy's prone to being taken over by fundamentalists. Dictatorships hold too much power in one small base. Communism assumes a greater total wealth to distribute than there will always be.

That's not to say the first steps, or retaking these steps shouldn't be done. They should. The eventual global state will not be perfect, but people will be better off.

Utopia doesn't exist. We simply do not have the resources or infrastructure and may not for centuries. What we can do is build a unshakable foundation that can and should be built on.

[ QUOTE ]
None of this can happen if we make the mistake of thinking its someones religon or nationality that dictates their morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Moderates, unfortunately, are not the majority and they cannot carry the majority without discarding the attitude of the moderate. The way is to engender Machiavellian change behind the scenes. Pull the strings.

And that's depressing at times to realize.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The proposed solution is to work to provide an advantage to the moderates to stay moderate. Destroying the infrastrucure of a country to punish the fundementalists is generally a bad plan, working to provide a more stable wealthy society for the masses is a good plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit slow though, and made slower by the conscious hindrance of fundamentalists, be it ideological or religious. The biggest threats to the EU's attempt to implement the ideal system that allows for nationalistic identity and retainment of cultural values, which is old as Julian Rome...

Racism. Terrorism. The absorption of relationally poorer countries with different religious values, namely Turkey.

One looks to Germany and reunification. The country seems to run well these days. However, there is still a disparity between the old West and the old East, not only in economics, but the bearing of the people. It takes an awfully long time in relation to one human lifespan to see these changes through.

And people, especially those newly in power, notoriously implement changes that favor their ideologies or personal biases. Even democracy becomes too top-heavy and the superclass gets entrenched, which is certainly the case in America.

There probably isn't a human solution that would work in principle. Every human is all born with pretty much with the same starting skill set, and the advantages emerge through intellectual development and class advantages.

Socialist states go broke from overspending. Democracy's prone to being taken over by fundamentalists. Dictatorships hold too much power in one small base. Communism assumes a greater total wealth to distribute than there will always be.

That's not to say the first steps, or retaking these steps shouldn't be done. They should. The eventual global state will not be perfect, but people will be better off.

Utopia doesn't exist. We simply do not have the resources or infrastructure and may not for centuries. What we can do is build a unshakable foundation that can and should be built on.

[ QUOTE ]
None of this can happen if we make the mistake of thinking its someones religon or nationality that dictates their morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Moderates, unfortunately, are not the majority and they cannot carry the majority without discarding the attitude of the moderate. The way is to engender Machiavellian change behind the scenes. Pull the strings.

And that's depressing at times to realize.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depressing and essentially wrong, there are generally relatively few fundementalists but we exagerate their significance and respond in a manner that creates more and allows them to thrive, its a very silly mistake and all grounded in the mistaken premise.

I'm not suggesting the alternative is utopia or anything close.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

They have better media funding.

Yeah, I realize that you're not proposing Utopia.

Attacking a multi-headed monster, which can be how to perceive the major religions as one unit, can give it strength through propaganda.

People need to believe and to be herded.

Perhaps I could have said One way, instead of The way...

I'm still learning the subtleties, though.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Our usual roles are reversed here ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing - that your OP sounded very Chezish.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our usual roles are reversed here ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing - that your OP sounded very Chezish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agreed with the OP. DS has been making good progress recently /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our usual roles are reversed here ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing - that your OP sounded very Chezish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agreed with the OP. DS has been making good progress recently /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So much so in this OP that I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop :-)

luckyme

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.



i remember that conversation. you're thinking of notready.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't remember saying this but I don't disagree necessarily with the idea. God may work it that way. I don't think we can be dogmatic about it from Scripture. Udontknowmickey would probably say it with more certainty than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe you actually said something like "it wasn't a coincidence that i was born where i was" in response to the suggestion that if your parents hadn't been christians chances are you wouldn't be either, even if your "mind/heart" were the same.

actually i tracked it down.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you at least agree that, had you been born and raised in Iraq, you would almost certainly have "heard" Allah's voice, and would likely be a Muslim right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many in the West who are not Christians, and some throughout the world who are, including Muslim countries. God controls all the circumstances of the universe. That I was born here and eventually became a Christian is not an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

"The Bible . . . teaches love your enemy"

The Old Testament too? Yahweh may talk a good game, but his actions are those of a murderous lunatic.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Bible . . . teaches love your enemy"

The Old Testament too? Yahweh may talk a good game, but his actions are those of a murderous lunatic.

[/ QUOTE ]
On a personal level, yes, love your enemy. The story of Joseph comes to mind.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And txaq basically said that unless this fellow changed his thoughts it was a SLAM DUNK he was going to hell. Because the bible said so. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't exactly say it like that! I said that according to the Bible, your eternal destination depends upon what you believe and not on what you do, save confessing and repenting of your sins and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus for your sins. But that's open to everyone. Every person on this planet has that opportunity; just as you are.

Everyone, regardless of what they believe, should be respected. Everyone was created by God. Christianity is about love. We love everyone.

(Yeah, yeah. Point out the fanatics. Someone can claim the name of Christ and still not be a christian. Those people are acting outside of Biblical commands. The Bible doesn't teach that stuff about bombing abortion clinics or killing infidels or whatever. It teaches love your enemy.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This was essentially how I broke free from by kinda religious upbringing when I was ~18. This thought went through my head: "Why should 'believing' be the absolute most important thing? Why is that such a great feature? Hmm, it would be really useful to have 'believing' be the most important thing if this and all religions were just a bunch of BS..."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It wasnt you? Are you sure? I could have sworn you said something to the effect of "God knows which souls are more likely to accept Christianity and places them accordingly" or some such thing. I apologize if I put words in your mouth.



i remember that conversation. you're thinking of notready.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't remember saying this but I don't disagree necessarily with the idea. God may work it that way. I don't think we can be dogmatic about it from Scripture. Udontknowmickey would probably say it with more certainty than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...so if God DID work it that way, how does that impact free will? How much is God allowed to tinker in your life before you are allowed to claim you aren't REALLY free to act? Sure, I can go eat that chocolate donut instead of the vanilla one, but every time I take a bite out of it God gives me a nasty electrical shock. And I mean every time, and it HURTS. Am I really making a free choice between donuts?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
This was essentially how I broke free from by kinda religious upbringing when I was ~18. This thought went through my head: "Why should 'believing' be the absolute most important thing? Why is that such a great feature? Hmm, it would be really useful to have 'believing' be the most important thing if this and all religions were just a bunch of BS..."

[/ QUOTE ]
It would also be the most important thing if the whole reason you were created was for a relationship with God.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Bible . . . teaches love your enemy"

The Old Testament too? Yahweh may talk a good game, but his actions are those of a murderous lunatic.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how does that impact free will?


[/ QUOTE ]

An Arminian would say God foresees how someone will decide. So if He knows Joe will reject Him, He causes Joe to be born in a place that is never evangelized. Joe has no complaint because he would have rejected anyway. A Reformer would agree with this except the part about foresight. Joe is a sinner, guilty and derserving condemnation, and God decides to pass over him, for His good and just reasons, i.e., He doesn't elect Joe. I believe both describe something of the truth from different angles. The paradoxes that arise can't be solved in this lifetime, as far as I can see.

As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was essentially how I broke free from by kinda religious upbringing when I was ~18. This thought went through my head: "Why should 'believing' be the absolute most important thing? Why is that such a great feature? Hmm, it would be really useful to have 'believing' be the most important thing if this and all religions were just a bunch of BS..."

[/ QUOTE ]
It would also be the most important thing if the whole reason you were created was for a relationship with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true then the most important thing would be your relationship with him/her/it. Sigh, I shouldn't have replied because I'm just gonna go where everyone's been before... I feel like I'm trapped because I now *have* to reply, it's too aggravating not to - so here goes:

*Believing* implies that you have NO evidence for its existence but you're going to assume it exists anyway. This makes god a completely arbitrary concept and I refuse to just believe in him/her/it just because other people (who also have NO evidence) say I should.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
*Believing* implies that you have NO evidence for its existence but you're going to assume it exists anyway. This makes god a completely arbitrary concept and I refuse to just believe in him/her/it just because other people (who also have NO evidence) say I should.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith may imply that, but I believe in gravity and have plenty of evidence for it.

I am not going to believe anything just because I am "supposed to" or "told that I should." On the contrary, I prefer to have evidence for what I believe, but still think that it is belief even though I have evidence for it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how does that impact free will?


[/ QUOTE ]

An Arminian would say God foresees how someone will decide. So if He knows Joe will reject Him, He causes Joe to be born in a place that is never evangelized. Joe has no complaint because he would have rejected anyway. A Reformer would agree with this except the part about foresight. Joe is a sinner, guilty and derserving condemnation, and God decides to pass over him, for His good and just reasons, i.e., He doesn't elect Joe. I believe both describe something of the truth from different angles. The paradoxes that arise can't be solved in this lifetime, as far as I can see.

As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but he might NOT reject if he were put into the greatest possible circumstance, where he was exposed to God's greatness every single day. But he wasn't he was put at a huge disadvantage. Or are you saying that this Joe never had any chance of accepting Christ no matter what happened, no matter what situation he was put into? I really dont want this to devolve into an argument about how knowing the outcome with certainty affects the freedom of the choice. But do you think its entirely possible that I, vhawk01, have absolutely no chance of ever accepting Christ? Is that why I was placed into the family I was? I'm not blaming God for this, I'm wondering if this is an acceptable Christian way of viewing the situation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Or are you saying that this Joe never had any chance of accepting Christ no matter what happened,


[/ QUOTE ]

Adam was in perfect conditions and was created straight from the hand of God - no indwelling sin, perfect environment, no temptations (save one - the tree), and was in direct communication with God. Yet he sinned. God knew he would. So did Adam have a chance?

Christian theists say yes, but there is great disagreement when trying to explain it. Adam tried to excuse his sin. God didn't debate him, He just held him guilty and pronounced punishment as well as His own gracious provision.

Romans 1 says all know God because God makes Himself evident to all, so they are without excuse, without a defense (anapologia). So the Bible teaches God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Going past that will get you any number of debates from all directions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Or are you saying that this Joe never had any chance of accepting Christ no matter what happened,


[/ QUOTE ]

Adam was in perfect conditions and was created straight from the hand of God - no indwelling sin, perfect environment, no temptations (save one - the tree), and was in direct communication with God. Yet he sinned. God knew he would. So did Adam have a chance?

Christian theists say yes, but there is great disagreement when trying to explain it. Adam tried to excuse his sin. God didn't debate him, He just held him guilty and pronounced punishment as well as His own gracious provision.

Romans 1 says all know God because God makes Himself evident to all, so they are without excuse, without a defense (anapologia). So the Bible teaches God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Going past that will get you any number of debates from all directions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I enjoy that argument too, but I was sort of trying to avoid it in this thread. I probably failed. What I am trying to say is, do you and other Christians accept the possibility (or in fact certainty) that I will never, ever, no matter what could happen to me, accept Christ? I'm not saying I "can't" simply that I won't, and that God already knows this. Does that suck for me?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

do you and other Christians accept the possibility (or in fact certainty) that I will never, ever, no matter what could happen to me, accept Christ?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Judge not that you be not judged"

Where there's life there's hope.

Only, "Today if you hear His voice...."

[andyfox]

What about the story of Passover?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Bible . . . teaches love your enemy"

The Old Testament too? Yahweh may talk a good game, but his actions are those of a murderous lunatic.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd say more like a mafia don who's very good at His line of work.

And He has murderous lunatics working for Him.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[/ QUOTE ]Precisely.

When convenience rears its comforting head, we should be alarmed enough to revisit our way of thinking.

But the temperature is below freezing outside and not many a person wants to get away from the fireplace.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Adam was in perfect conditions and was created straight from the hand of God - no indwelling sin, perfect environment, no temptations (save one - the tree), and was in direct communication with God. Yet he sinned. God knew he would. So did Adam have a chance?

Christian theists say yes, but there is great disagreement when trying to explain it. Adam tried to excuse his sin. God didn't debate him, He just held him guilty and pronounced punishment as well as His own gracious provision.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I enjoy that argument too, but I was sort of trying to avoid it in this thread. I probably failed.

[/ QUOTE ]The one "explanation" that has everything fall into place, the only "explanation" in fact that takes care of the myriad of unanswerable questions and internal inconsistencies that arise from the standard Christian assertions about an omniscient and omnipotent God, is that there is a Creator but He is actually a sadist.

Mickey Brausch

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The Bible . . . teaches love your enemy"

The Old Testament too? Yahweh may talk a good game, but his actions are those of a murderous lunatic.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd say more like a mafia don who's very good at His line of work.

And He has murderous lunatics working for Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, how else is he going to get them across the river? A tap on the shoulder? He's not gonna get believed anyway. At least he's a practical joker. Got salt?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

there is a Creator but He is actually a sadist.


[/ QUOTE ]

But then you have John 3:16. Maybe the fault, dear Mickey, lies not with God but with us.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

there is a Creator but He is actually a sadist.


[/ QUOTE ]

But then you have John 3:16. Maybe the fault, dear Mickey, lies not with God but with us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly we're talking about ultimate fault.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

there is a Creator but He is actually a sadist.


[/ QUOTE ]

But then you have John 3:16. Maybe the fault, dear Mickey, lies not with God but with us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly we're talking about ultimate fault.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Ultimate fault is genius, chez.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Ultimate fault is genius, chez.


[/ QUOTE ]


There's a difference between cause and fault.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ultimate fault is genius, chez.


[/ QUOTE ]


There's a difference between cause and fault.

[/ QUOTE ]Which one is ultimate?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Which one is ultimate?


[/ QUOTE ]

For man's sin, God is ultimate cause, man is ultimate fault.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a Creator but He is actually a sadist.

[/ QUOTE ]But then you have John 3:16.

[/ QUOTE ] "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the fault lies not with God but with us.

[/ QUOTE ]And maybe a Supreme Sadist would also lie His ass off to us.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) what does meaning have to do with free will

2) I do not see how the existence of a god gives anything more meaning...why do decisions have more meaning when they are with respect to God instead of with respect to other humans...I see it as being just as "meaningful" when it is with respect to ANY conscious body...

and I think that decisions are MORE "meaningful" when they are made with respect to humans because, 1) you can affect more than one of them, and humans are not immune to the effects of your decision, but God is.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1) what does meaning have to do with free will


[/ QUOTE ]

If the cosmos is all there is and we are the product of evolution how can free will even exist?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) what does meaning have to do with free will


[/ QUOTE ]

If the cosmos is all there is and we are the product of evolution how can free will even exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that it did /images/graemlins/confused.gif

and that didn't answer my question

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

and that didn't answer my question


[/ QUOTE ]

Free will must exist before it can have meaning.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and that didn't answer my question


[/ QUOTE ]

Free will must exist before it can have meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

but you just said, decisions must have meaning for free will to exist?!?!

didn't we just start this conversation based on what you said..

[ QUOTE ]
As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[/ QUOTE ]


my question is, how do human decisions have meaning if there is a god, but they don't if there is not?

you just twisted it around to say...with atheism, deicisions don't have meaning because there is no free will...

but for theism, you are arguing that there is free will because human decisions have meaning?

what am I missing here?

EDIT: I have a feeling I'm just misinterpreting what you mean by this..

[ QUOTE ]
As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

if that is the case, please clarify..what you mean exactly by "has even more of a problem"...I assumed you were referring to atheists criticisms that free will cannot exist with God in the picture

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

what am I missing here?


[/ QUOTE ]


You:

1) what does meaning have to do with free will

Me:

If the cosmos is all there is and we are the product of evolution how can free will even exist?

You:

that didn't answer my question

Me:

Free will must exist before it can have meaning

You:

but you just said, decisions must have meaning for free will to exist?!?!

I didn't say this. My only reference to meaning was:

in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

I don't see how decisions can have meaning in atheistic worldviews if free will doesn't exist - it would seem free will must be first logically as that is what presumably gives decisions meaning.

[ QUOTE ]

but for theism, you are arguing that there is free will because human decisions have meaning?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not arguing for free will at all. I'm only saying that free will can't exist in atheistic systems. It can only exist if theism is true, but I'm not saying it does - only that theism makes it possible. The reason is that atheistic systems are either ultimately irrational or impersonal and deterministic (evolution made me do it). Though theism on its face seems to be deterministic as well, only theism maintains there is an ultimate purpose to the universe and that is the only way human responsibility can exist, which makes free will at least theoretically possible.

[Prodigy54321]

alright, I guess I was just misinterpreting what you meant in your initial statement..but I'm still confused as to what your argument is..

[ QUOTE ]
As to free will, atheism has even more of a problem with it than theism, because in atheism there is NO possibility of human decisions having meaning, but in theism there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not arguing for free will at all. I'm only saying that free will can't exist in atheistic systems. It can only exist if theism is true, but I'm not saying it does - only that theism makes it possible. The reason is that atheistic systems are either ultimately irrational or impersonal and deterministic (evolution made me do it). Though theism on its face seems to be deterministic as well, only theism maintains there is an ultimate purpose to the universe and that is the only way human responsibility can exist, which makes free will at least theoretically possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure free will is not a dead topic even considering the absence of a god or gods

[ QUOTE ]
only theism maintains there is an ultimate purpose to the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

and I would say that there is no greater prupose in a world with God as there is in one without God

also

[ QUOTE ]
...and we are the product of evolution how can free will even exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(evolution made me do it).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this argument..evolution happens even if god does exist..so what does evolution have to do with it?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so what does evolution have to do with it?


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think there's any difference between chance and design, between purpose and randomness, between the personal and the impersonal?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
chance and design

[/ QUOTE ]

not with regards to "purpose" or "meaning"

[ QUOTE ]
purpose and randomness

[/ QUOTE ]

1) evolution is not randomness

2) I don't see any greater purpose with a God than is possible without one

[ QUOTE ]
personal and the impersonal

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this means...but we have personal relationships without God..and these relationships are not nearly as one sided

--and again, evolution happens even if God does exists..

evolution DOES happen..I guess you could dispute that..if you are daring enough

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

not with regards to "purpose" or "meaning"


[/ QUOTE ]

You see no difference in purpose or meaning whether something happened by chance or was designed?

[ QUOTE ]

1) evolution is not randomness


[/ QUOTE ]


Depends on how you define evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

2) I don't see any greater purpose with a God than is possible without one


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no answer.

[ QUOTE ]

evolution DOES happen..I guess you could dispute that..if you are daring enough


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define evolution.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

evolution DOES happen..I guess you could dispute that..if you are daring enough


[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on how you define evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. From what I understand microevolution is an observable fact where as macroevolution is still theoretical.

[David Sklansky]

"Depends on how you define evolution."

"Very true. From what I understand microevolution is an observable fact where as macroevolution is still theoretical."

That's not what Not Ready meant. He's not saying that only micro evolution occurs. He's talking about what makes either kind of evolution happen at all.

(I did good, didn't I Not Ready?)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"Depends on how you define evolution."

"Very true. From what I understand microevolution is an observable fact where as macroevolution is still theoretical."

That's not what Not Ready meant. He's not saying that only micro evolution occurs. He's talking about what makes either kind of evolution happen at all.

(I did good, didn't I Not Ready?)

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as NotReady doesn't deny science. Science has nothing to do with who/what makes evolution happen at all. Science concerns itself with the fact that nothing supernatural is required to explain the mechanisms of evolution. They are obvious today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(I did good, didn't I Not Ready?) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Science has nothing to do with who/what makes evolution happen at all. Science concerns itself with the fact that nothing supernatural is required to explain the mechanisms of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]Goedel's Theorem you think worked towards helping or undermining the atheist, non-supernatural position?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science has nothing to do with who/what makes evolution happen at all. Science concerns itself with the fact that nothing supernatural is required to explain the mechanisms of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]Goedel's Theorem you think worked towards helping or undermining the atheist, non-supernatural position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of the two (!) incompleteness theorems of Godel have anything to do with a supernatural (or not) position . They both apply to number theory... not related, unless you are one of those believers in numerology! I am sure it is not so, but if it is the case I really have nothing much to discuss. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Shandrax]

I don't see why god should reward someone for his belief in god, but not for his actions. In other words if someone lives by the rules of his religion but doesn't believe in god, he should be better than someone who believes in god, but doesn't live according to the rules of his religion (or even violates them). In fact, if god would act like that and reward people only for their belief it would be extremely vain, selfish and ignorant. According to christian belief, such a god would violate his own principles.

In conclusion I think a religion with a selfish and ignorant god doesn't deserve respect, because that's not the example I want to follow. I simply don't chose [censored] as rolemodels.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science has nothing to do with who/what makes evolution happen at all. Science concerns itself with the fact that nothing supernatural is required to explain the mechanisms of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]Goedel's Theorem you think worked towards helping or undermining the atheist, non-supernatural position?

[/ QUOTE ]

<chuckles> It's a weapon that thus far hasn't been used, but it could certainly undermine the position.

"It's still growed, it's still growed, we can't solve everything, so there's something bigger than Gödel, it must be God."

Uhh? Lingustics and the King's Paradox. <shakes head ruefully>

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
You see no difference in purpose or meaning whether something happened by chance or was designed?


[/ QUOTE ]

no, I don't see how any sentient being can have any true purpose or meaning (in the way I believe you are seeing it)..even if God does exist...

God may think that he created us for the purpose of serving him...but I don't have to see that as a good thing

and whether God exists or not, there are other sentient beings in the world..I see no reason why it is seen that serving God has a greater meaning or purpose (at least in how we are considering "meaning" and "purpose") than serving other people...and I kind of see serving other people (or even just myself) as a greater purpose since they (and I) can be affected by my decisions, whereas, God cannot.

if some guy named Ned creates me in a test tube...does that give my life more meaning than if I were just born because of chance? maybe to Ned, but not to me..and I am entitled to do what I want to do...other wise, that's just slavery...and I see no greater "meaning" or "purpose" in that

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on how you define evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you are talking about whether or not evolution is a naturally occurring mechanism or it was also designed or helped along by God..

well there is no arguing with that..but as I have already stated, I see no greter meaning or purpose either way

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
"In conclusion fundementalists aren't very nice people - quel surprise."

Our usual roles are reversed here because I will be more charitable. Their religion isn't nice but they well be nice people.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say 'religion' what specifically do you mean?

I do not understand how a book can be take on human qualities of being 'nice' or 'not nice'.

If you are lumping in human behavior one exhibits in the 'name of religion', either implicitly or explicitly, I do not understand why it is correct or accurate to define that as 'religion'.

Is it possible for idea's to hold the qualities of niceness? or not nice-ness?...

or do the idea's only transform to take on the quality of niceness or not nice-ness once they are in a human being?

Does the human need to act to make the idea nice or un-nice or does the existance of the idea within him qualify as nice or not nice?

And if they don't 'act' how do we know what idea's exist within them?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Just want to make sure that you realize that the "logic" I am speaking about stems from their premise that all humans deserve to go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't logic require for it to be true for every one of 'them' (please define them as I am not sure who you are talking about) for your statement to be true?

And doesn't the word 'deserve' have to be clarifed and have that definion held by everyone for your statement to be true?

if some believe what you say and some do not (out of the group of 'they that you are referring to that I would like to have clarified) then your premise is false, no?

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's still growed, it's still growed, we can't solve everything, so there's something bigger than Gödel, it must be God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not that we can't solve it, it’s that it cannot be solved.

People appear to have problems with ‘it cannot be solved’, and insist in inventing imaginary solutions.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that we can't solve it, it’s that it cannot be solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. That's right. What's the difference between imaginary solutions and imaginary numbers?

[Piers]

‘Imaginary numbers’ is a noun clause, ‘imaginary solutions’ is a noun and an adjective.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not that we can't solve it, it’s that it cannot be solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. That's right. What's the difference between imaginary solutions and imaginary numbers?

[/ QUOTE ]
Imaginary numbers are for the complex, imaginary solutions are for the simple.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

(I did good, didn't I Not Ready?)


[/ QUOTE ]

You're both right. That's why evolution should be defined before a debate.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

(I did good, didn't I Not Ready?)


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the definition of science.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]

Neither of the two incompleteness theorems of Godel have anything to do with a supernatural (or not) position . They both apply to number theory... not related, unless you are one of those believers in numerology!

[/ QUOTE ]You're not suggesting that they have nothing to do with formal systems, in general, are you?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for a response to this and my other posts in this thread David.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
We cannot prove in general by the methods of logic that an assumption does not lead to logical inconsistency. This is a mathematical consequence of Goedel's Theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Laszlo Mero's Moral Calculations, p. 52.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for a response to this and my other posts in this thread David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Mr. S. intentionally ignoring my interjections here? It seems to me there is evidence of prejudice here in his post. I find it interesting that he did not respond to my points but goes on to post multiple other threads along this same line... Some people may even say he is engaging in propaganda. I had thought his mental powers of reasoning would allow him to recognize his errors here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for a response to this and my other posts in this thread David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Mr. S. intentionally ignoring my interjections here? It seems to me there is evidence of prejudice here in his post. I find it interesting that he did not respond to my points but goes on to post multiple other threads along this same line... Some people may even say he is engaging in propaganda. I had thought his mental powers of reasoning would allow him to recognize his errors here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what a scheming lecturer of mine might have called syntactic sugar he doesn't mean that a doctine holds mental states.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Mr. S. intentionally ignoring my interjections here? It seems to me there is evidence of prejudice here in his post. I find it interesting that he did not respond to my points but goes on to post multiple other threads along this same line... Some people may even say he is engaging in propaganda. I had thought his mental powers of reasoning would allow him to recognize his errors here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's how he works. He's here more to spur discussion than anything else, and he doesn't have a whole lot of time on his hands. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks of us as "those crazy guys on the message board."

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for a response to this and my other posts in this thread David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Mr. S. intentionally ignoring my interjections here? It seems to me there is evidence of prejudice here in his post. I find it interesting that he did not respond to my points but goes on to post multiple other threads along this same line... Some people may even say he is engaging in propaganda. I had thought his mental powers of reasoning would allow him to recognize his errors here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what a scheming lecturer of mine might have called syntactic sugar he doesn't mean that a doctine holds mental states.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If you jump to a conclusion based on something other than logical reasoning and then give it a fancy name it does not change the fact that your rationale is illogical.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for a response to this and my other posts in this thread David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Mr. S. intentionally ignoring my interjections here? It seems to me there is evidence of prejudice here in his post. I find it interesting that he did not respond to my points but goes on to post multiple other threads along this same line... Some people may even say he is engaging in propaganda. I had thought his mental powers of reasoning would allow him to recognize his errors here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt want to speak for him, but it seemed clear to me that by "religions that believe X" he meant "religions whose doctrine is that their adherents should believe X".

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well that kind of drove me a little crazy. And it wasn't because I was sure he was wrong. If there really is a personal God then maybe the detials about him are what txaq says. Namely, "its not what you do, its what you believe".
Now I don't know which religions actually think that. (Do Muslims?) But I do know that religions that believe that are not worthy of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Religions' are not capable of holding beliefs.

the rest of the post that followed that assumption that is obiously not logically possible was snipped as it is all invalidated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for a response to this and my other posts in this thread David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Mr. S. intentionally ignoring my interjections here? It seems to me there is evidence of prejudice here in his post. I find it interesting that he did not respond to my points but goes on to post multiple other threads along this same line... Some people may even say he is engaging in propaganda. I had thought his mental powers of reasoning would allow him to recognize his errors here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what a scheming lecturer of mine might have called syntactic sugar he doesn't mean that a doctine holds mental states.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If you jump to a conclusion based on something other than logical reasoning and then give it a fancy name it does not change the fact that your rationale is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
No but if you misunderstand what someone says then what follows from what you thought they said isn't relevant.

I do it all the time, its a weakness of mine coz I'm hard of understanding but even i got this one.

chez

[jogsxyz]

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

The End of Faith by Sam Harris.