rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow walking,

Hi David, I apologize for taking so long in responding. Had to have a bit of a vacation with the family but I’m back now and ready to carry on if you are. I hope you don't mind my creating a new thread. The old one was too congested to find your replies so I could respond.

David: Your analysis of the origin of religion has some merit. However, I believe that your correlation between the motives and character of ancient humans and my own self is altogether speculative and therefore extremely doubtful.

Rw: I probably should also include a brief history of philosophy and its metaphysic to further substantiate my claims. The point is David, you have adopted the classic pacifier of theism as a narcotic to alleviate the discomfiting effects of the ticking of your biological clock. Everyone experiences this subliminal fear and everyone devises or adopts a method of insulating themselves from its debilitating effect on the psyche and emotions. It is an integral aspect of the experience of life. Theism addresses the effects with the comforting thought and promise of an after-life represented as eternal life. Death is the only immovable mover David. It moves man to flee in many ways. Its penetrating force is fear and it is common to ALL men. It is this fear that originally motivated the invention of these doctrines of immortality and immortal gods and goddesses. Theism paints death as a necessity and that, more than anything else about theism, is why it is a major dead end for humanity.

David: Facts beyond reality are a philosophical necessity in my way of thinking.

Rw: If you had expressed your beliefs as probabilities and attempted to assign some percentage I would have had fewer objections. But, as it is, you are making rash unsupported assertions as though they were facts and doubling your indemnity by additionally asserting them as having their basis beyond reality. Hinting at a philosophical sophistry doesn’t legitimize your assertions. I was, justifiably so, expecting some form of argument or syllogism from you that would demonstrate the necessity but none has been presented so I am wondering if perhaps you have nothing to offer.

David: I find naturalism and materialism particularly ineffective as ultimate explanations for all things which exist.

Rw: The reason they are ineffective at this time is due primarily to insufficient data. But they are of sufficient data to make many predictions about much more of reality than just its origins. I find it hard to imagine someone basing their irrational beliefs on something as minor as an explanation of origins. Especially when the explanation they’ve adopted has demonstrated no basis in reality. At least methodological naturalism has produced a host of testable, verifiable results and promises to continue to do so. Dulling ones intellect on the narcotic of theism has produced nothing but multitudes of sheep bleating all the way to the grave. Theism is a blind alley and holds no promise for the future of mankind. Men have managed to climb up out of the pit of mysticism in spite of its debilitating effects, usually men who were prone, due to sociological reasons, to be lass dogmatic and more open to reason. Theism is notorious for resisting advances of science when they threatened some aspect of what the theist considered his deity’s domain. Science does not intentionally threaten theism, it just follows the evidence where it leads.


David: I examined theism and atheism and found that the theistic explanation more appealing and more effective than its atheistic alternative.

Rw: Atheism offers no explanation for anything David, it simply expresses a lack of belief in the explanations you offer. When you say atheism in conjunction with explanations about origins you are actually referring to cosmology and abiogenesis that are disciplines of science and have nothing to do with atheism. I hope you’ll make an effort to keep your arguments in proper context when formulating your replies as it tends to obfuscate the meaning of your arguments, such as they are. What, exactly do you find “appealing” about theistic explanations for the origins? That they come pre-packaged with a hand-me-down purpose that allows you to pretend the ticking of your biological clock will not stop at the grave? Do you have any evidence for any of these claims to support their appeal? Do you have a philosophical argument outside of your wishing them to be necessary?

What if I show you that DEATH is the un-challenged cause of all man’s evils that in turn cause all of man’s ethics and morals, philosophies, sciences, politics, cultures and religions? Would you join me in turning the tide of man’s amazing capabilities towards facing this common enemy in the deliberate battle to defeat it? Do you think death must necessarily be an inevitable consequence of life? Do you not see how religion thrives on it; propagates it; embraces it? Perhaps it is time to reject it as inevitable and concentrate all our resources towards its subjugation to our will. You think this impossible? Of course you do. Nothing is impossible to mankind. Nothing. Would it that men could see that death is their common enemy and not other men; that we could stop manufacturing weapons of death and start manufacturing weapons against it; but not until we stop manufacturing justifications to accept it as inevitable.

David: The intellectual or rational or reasonable method used was strictly a matter of probing the alternative explanations for their failure points. Naturalism/materialism seemed to fail at the starting gate as it left the Universe which presently exist without any meaning or purpose,

Rw: Just as I suspected. You have not the courage to assign your own purpose to your life and attain that purpose from reality. The purpose of life is to live, is it not? Then why embrace a dogma that teaches and encourages men to live a specific way and then die. Methodological naturalism is not a tool of assigning purpose, only defining reality. Defining reality is a purpose unto itself, but, in one sense I agree. To date, methodological naturalism has no unifying purpose, even though one exists right beneath the noses of every scientist in its ranks. It was originally driven by curiosity, then practicality was derived from it and now it seems to be driven by the profit motive. That’s all well and good but it has not yet been unleashed in the fullness of its glory because it has not found its balance and true purpose. When men come to realize that they truly want to live and extend their lives indefinitely, that’s when methodological naturalism will come into its own and provide the method of achieving that one noble purpose. It is already making tremendous strides in medicine, genetics, physics and psychology; the major areas that will be crucial to win the war against death, but once the seed of indefinite life takes root in man’s intellect as a doable goal then, and only then, will it become a unified force. This will only happen when man realizes that he is truly in a battle for survival. Man has always made his greatest strides during war and this is a war that man has not yet agreed to fully participate in. He has too many distracting opiates to dull his senses; distractions like religion and politics and economics. What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his LIFE?

David: and its opinions regarding the origin of the Universe were altogether speculative.

Rw: So what? That’s insignificant compared to what lies ahead. Some benefit may be gained in looking back but nothing compared to the advances to be gained by facing the many faces of death and staring them down. When, in the future, we can turn off the biological clock, then we will have the time to look back. Men reason that death is necessary to make way for new life. I say hogwash! There is plenty of room for new life in the stars and galaxies that await us. But men will have to be able to live for thousands of years to make those journeys yet the rewards will be new habitable planets to populate. Men argue that Earth would become over-populated but I say hogwash! Men will learn to regulate their productive nature and thus regulate Earth’s population. Man reached the top of the food chain by two methods: his reasoning skills and his ability to out produce all competing carnivores. Both of these natural innate abilities must be harnessed and man is capable of doing so now. You should seriously think about dreaming realities David instead of propagandizing myths.

David: Yes, theism seems a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe and humankind.

Rw: It is all smoke and mirrors and a blind alley.

rw: Why does it seem so?

David: To be perfectly honest, because theism does not exclude natural explanations for those things which originated naturalistically.

Rw: There was a time when it did. Care to venture a guess as to why you believe it no longer does or should?

David: God's role in the creation therefore does not exclude the evolution of matter, stars and even life.

Rw: And where is your evidence of god’s role? There is ample evidence for evolution but none of it bares the trademark of your god. If he was so intent on reaching man why not stamp his logo on a few chromosomes or atomic structures?

David: If that is the case, then strict atheistic naturalism doesn't have any concepts which are denied or forbidden by supernaturalism.

Rw: Nor does it seek permission from supernaturalism’s representatives. It plough’s ahead eroding most previous theistic claims for godunnit.

David: Under those circumstances atheistic naturalism became essentially bankrupt and that is why it has no advantage over the theistic explanation of origins.

Rw: Metaphysical naturalism is an ideological derivative of methodological naturalism. “Atheistic naturalism” is an unfamiliar term. Are you saying that science is bankrupt? That it has no advantage over make believe mystical sophistry? I’d like to see you put that in practice. Perhaps you could set up a test or experiment by attempting to implore your deity to duplicate the process of creating life in a test tube. This would more than substantiate his existence, don’t you think? Why is it necessary that your deity remain incognito anyway?

rw: What is it about godunnit that attracts you more than “we don’t know yet but we are learning more everyday”?

David: As I have stated above, "God did it" does not exclude "we don't know yet but we are learning more every day."

Rw: Sure it does, David. In more ways than you can imagine. When you say godittit, that’s a self contained explanation and no further research need be launched on the matter. If everyone simply believed the telelogics of godunnit, (like the majority did during the dark ages), no one would have any reason to investigate further. Curiously, men who didn’t embrace this teleological explanation and managed to make some scientific headway, found their theories being heavily resisted by the clergy and the laity almost to the point of death and beyond. Is this your idea of a non-exclusionary theism?

rw: Do you have a difficult time living with uncertainty?

David: No. I live with uncertainty all of the time.

Rw: Under the narcotic effect of theism uncertainty has a different definition. With the imagined assurance of eternal life uncertainty is just a test to mature one in their faith, that is to say, to further intoxicate them with the doctrines that embrace death as the ticket to greater rewards than life.

rw oes it bother you that our universe is predicated on conflict and change?

David: Not at all.

Rw: Let’s test this, shall we. Imagine for a moment (this shouldn’t be too daunting of a task for a theist) that a natural explanation exists for the origins of the universe and life. How would that affect your worldview?

rw: Maybe you fear the conflicts or doubt your ability to face them and the challenges they produce?

David: If I feared conflict I couldn't engage atheists in conversations about God, could I?

Rw: It is a mistake on your part to enter this conflict David. Your cautious theism will not protect you from the germination of the seeds being planted in your mind. They will eventually blossom into full-fledged questions whose answers will awaken you one day to the discovery that you have grown a brain. The questions this conflict engenders will counter-act the sedative of theism and you will awaken. You will be forced to flee, and confront your cowardice, or embrace the change. You have joined this fray because you fear that you may be wrong about your assumptions and are seeking to vindicate your doubts. You will find no vindication here David because I am intentionally sowing in the furrows of your un-belief. You are not my adversary but you are not yet my ally. We share a common enemy who dwells among us and hides behind a thousand faces. My comrades here also do not yet realize how fully under the sway of theistic dogma, perpetrated over tens of thousands of years, they still are. They, like you, still do not comprehend that death is their only enemy and that together mankind can subdue it. They likely haven’t the confidence I do that it is doable. It is hardly even thinkable yet. Why should it be? Men have accepted death as a natural extension of life and sought only to insulate themselves from its insidious effects taking what precautions they could and seeking what delivery was available whenever death penetrated their particular domain.

rw oes your faith bring stability into your mind about these facts of reality?
How and why?

David: Faith does not bring stability into my mind about anything, that is why I follow the sciences, history, archaeology, and that is also why I have read the religious writings and scriptures of many different religions.

Rw: Then what purpose does your faith serve?


Rw: So what? Why does that frighten you David? Why have you allowed fear to drive your mind into the incomprehensible imaginary protection of a non-existent deity?

David: Reality's incomplete, temporary and transitory nature does not scare me at all; my own incomplete, temporary and transitory existence does not scare me either.

Rw: But it should David. It should cause you to seek a stay of execution. Instead you have buried your mind in the soothing belief that this life is just an insignificant moment of your eternity. And that without reason or evidence to justify the burial.

Rw: Don’t you find it curious that you’ve expressed it as a need?

David: It is curious but in the final analysis words are just words.

Rw: No David, words have the power to unite men in a common goal, to identify the enemy and to communicate the cure. Unfortunately, the words you have chosen to accept as necessary allow the enemy free reign, mis-diagnose the problem and offer no prognosis of hope in this life.


rw: you can realize that you, and you alone, are responsible for your attitudes and behavior. You don’t need a dictator. Neither do I.

David: As a theist and as a Christian, I and I alone am responsible for my own attitudes and behavior.

Rw: But this is quite different from your previous claim that god dictated your attitudes. How are you responsible for attitudes dictated by another? You can take no credit for attitudes that reflect good character but you get all the blame for attitudes that do not. Does this seem fair or just to you?

rw: Ascribing that mystical quality to the existence of an incomprehensible deity contributes nothing to the ongoing search for an explanation since it cuts off any further need of one. Taking refuge in the mist as though that explains everything isn’t mystical, it’s an escape route from reality.

David: I do not share your low opinion of the God-idea's lack of contribution to the ongoing search for an explanation. From a historical standpoint, the God idea has inspired many people to pay close attention to the creation in order to discern its form, structure and function.

Rw: In what way David? Could you provide me with a specific reference?

David: Theism in that sense contributes to scientific investigation as it makes a study of nature meaningful as something more meaningful than merely a diversion from boredom.

Rw: How does this work David? If godunnit is a viable explanation for the universe what purpose would it serve to study nature? What would inspire men to study it believing it to be the handiwork of a deity? What meaning could be derived from its study other than to just gape in awe at the complexity of this deity? Why did, and still does, the church resist the findings of science in many disciplines? (Genetics, evolution, cloning, etc.) Why does nature not attest to the existence of a deity?

Rw: If it’s so good, since it relates to your beliefs, perhaps YOU should investigate it further. Unless you aren’t really interested in truth…

David: I have investigated it: The Bible does not deny the role of doctors and medicine, nor does it promise a miraculous cure for every illness for all believers. Therefore, there is a need for medicine and doctors.

Rw: The only problem with this position David is that the bible doesn’t prescribe any cures other than a few basic bandages over external wounds while it gives great emphasis towards miraculous healings of the most complicated human mal-conditions. Its mention of medicine and physicians is all in the negative, such as the woman with an issue of blood for twelve years the doctors couldn’t cure. If this book was truly inspired by a loving deity you’d think it would, in the least, offer a few fundamental hints towards alleviating man’s pain and afflictions outside of prayer and faith…wouldn’t you? The sad truth is your deity doesn’t really care much about man’s physical condition because it has a vested interest in suffering as a means of purifying the soul. All anti-thetical to life.

emphryio

Actually Rainbow walking,
I think it's safe to say David came here to convert people, not because he had doubts about his thoughts. If you swim through the last few pages where he talks to Helen, I think this is apparent.

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow,

David: Are you suggesting that atheists do not feat death or attempt to alleviate it in any way?

David: I don't feel any special obligation to form my beliefs into syllogisms. Do you form your own opinions and beliefs into syllogisms?

David: Your presentation of atheism as an advance over mysticism and primitivism suggests that atheism does provide emotional and psychological benefits. You take some pride in your atheism and believe that atheism sets you apart from the masses of humanity.

David: There seems in inconsistency between your description of atheism as an advance and your denial of any positive content to atheism. I suppose that this is one of atheism's paradoxes.

David: The theistic explanation is appealing because it actually is an attempt to explain the origin, meaning and purpose of the Universe and human life. The atheistic explanation is unappealing because it cannot explain any of these things and even denies any meaning or purpose to the Universe and human life.

David: For the last four billions years organisms have lived and died. I suppose that means that death is inevitable. Why does death trouble you so much?

David: Mankind will never defeat death. You might as well accept death as inevitable because you will certainly die.

David: What is the purpose and meaning of life within the context of atheistic naturalism? If that purpose is "to live" it appears so vague as to lack meaning altogether.

David: You appear a utopian if you actually believe that mankind will conquer death. Consider the horrors of success: Perpetual, eternal, meaningless, dull and utterly valueless life. I suspect that people who find that sort of eternal life will consider it some sort of hell.

David: Throughout human history, humans have recognized the distinction between purely natural phenomena and supenatural acts. The boundary between the two has always been a matter of dispute, but humans have always known that natural events had natural causes.

David: I suppose that God's signature would not be recognizable by humans even if were found in the Cosmic Background Radiation or in the subatomic particles.

David: Call it what you will.

David: Science is not atheism.

David: God doesn't perform miracles for me, and He would do so for you either.

David: Those first scientists who did suffer persecution for their radical new ideas were Theists. They believed in God, loved the Bible and were all very religious.

David: Your description of religion as a narcotic and an intoxicant is not an accurate representation of what religion is or what religion does. The profound and difficult questions which you are bringing up were under consideration by religious people for thousands of years prior to the advent of philosphical atheism.

David: That would not affect my world view in the least. God's acts might appear naturalistic to humans because the supernatural element in the creation does not have to reveal itself to human scientific investigation.

David: You are describing atheism as a glorious thing, an honorable thing, as progress over primitivism and mysticism. I can't help but suppose that these thoughts do provide emotional and psychological benefits to you and other atheists.

David: Faith is context.


David: It is fair.

David: Science was invented by theists, most Bible-believing theists whose study of the universe was motived by their religious devotion to God.

David; Critique it, if you will, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the first scientists were believers, often very religious and devoted to God.

David: Miracles are rare occurrences even in the Bible. The majority of Israelites, Jews and Christians never saw any miracle. The reason why miracles seem so common in the Bible is because the passage of time is compressed within the Scriptures and events which impacted one individual are recorded while the lives and deaths of tens of thousands of others went unrecorded.

David; Medicine at that time deserved criticism. Until recent centuries medicine was very dangerous, killing lives as often as it saved lives.

David: If the Bible was going to be a book of medical science and medical procedures it would have grown to the size of the great medical libraries that you will find at the best universities. If the Bible answered all of man's problems it would fill a million volumes.

God didn't have to solve the problems that He has already man's intellect to solve.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Ryanfire

Don't underestimate man David, you have already lost with that attitude.

Oh, but eternal life granted by a god is somehow better? How does eternal life differ in heaven from that of immortal man? Perhaps heaven is nothing more than hell, ever consider that David?Does god wrap eternal life(after death) in infinite pleasures?

I would much rather be eternal with that which I am, rather than eternal with that which I am not.

David Mathews

Hello Ryanfire,

David: I think we can be certain about some things, such as: All theists and atheists will die. Death is inevitable. You can struggle with death, fight against death and engage in a war against death: Do whatever you wish, no matter what you will ultimately die.

As to the nature of heaven and what the immortal soul will experience there, I have no direct knowledge. All I can say is that the physical Universe, even as it is, is extraordinarily beautiful. The spiritual universe must be just as beautiful, if not more beautiful.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

HelenM

I think it would be more reasonable to say: science was invented by smart, curious, imaginative and innovative people in a time when most people were theists. It is not surprising that the scientists were theists - based simply on the laws of probability.

Things have changed a lot since then and theism is not presumed like it used to be.

It was inevitable that scientists would one day include God as something/Someone whose existence ought to be indicated by scientific evidence, if real.

Even if His existence was 'a given', when science first began.

And even if there is a sense in which God's existence can never be proven or disproven, by evidence, observation and experimentation.

I certainly think it's valid to question God's existence when our observations don't align with how we expected a world ruled by an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, God, to behave.

I daresay there comes a time in the lives of most people where that happens; maybe it happens repeatedly for most people. And some decide "my expectations of how God would order His world were wrong but I still believe in Him" i.e. they set aside 'evidence' in favor of 'faith', to some extent - or they decide, no, God cannot exist, giving 'evidence' precedence over 'faith'.

The Bible says that 'we walk by faith, not sight', thus 'encouraging' people not to place too much reliance on 'observation' and 'evidence'.

Do people give equal weight to when things go as they expect God would have them go, as they do to when things do not work out as they expected, in deciding what they believe about God?

I don't know

love
Helen

Theli

David...

This is a good point, people don't like insecurity. But I wonder, doesn't saying this put yourself in a bad position, by making you look insecure?
And also, this takes us back to the rock and the ghosts from pluto (remember?). Is an explaination always better than no explanation at all?
Unreasonable beliefs/explainations makes people act unreasonable. All religions are more or less guilty of this. Excorcism, burning food (even people) as offerings to gods and ofcourse unreasonable fears. Just to name a few.
In a world that has had thousands of religious sects/religions, "Don't know yet" seems like the most reasonable answer.

I find this sounding alittle strange to. I guess you can call theisms negative value, "atheisms positive value". As atheism is just lack of theism. Ergo (lack of theism's negative/positive values).
Although most atheists adopt a naturalistic worldview it is not part of the basic definition of atheism.
I don't see why some read so much into Atheism/Theism as non of them guarentees any meanings or unique values. I find the terms themselfs as pretty informative.

Didn't you believe in an afterlife? I might have missread your statement here.

hehe, the "meaning of life" question. Isn't that question in itself very vauge and informative? I mean, what life are you reffering to?
My life? Your life? Human beings life? Life itself (like in the ecosystem)? Maggots life?
"To live" is the purpose from naturalistic/biologic standpoint. However, people create their own meanings in life. It would be pretty dismissive to state an objective purpose to all individual humans life (except for the will to live, that we are born with).

"Purpose"?

Purpose seems to me like a series of events like any other. If you state that our purpose is to serve a god (for example) then that is just a choice made by god (an event) and in itself serves no more purpose than a quantum flauctation (don't know if I spelled that right).
It's just another event that led to our creation. And if you reffer to purpose as goal, then the goal is generally set by the individual. Any goal for life in general (ecosystem) I don't think exists.

I've been thinking about this myself. Eternal life would be abit of a torture. I could imagine it if my memory was erased every 100th year.
But you have to think about it, would the same principle apply to heaven?

Ok, "loved the bible and was very religious"? I'll give you the benefit of doubt and just leave that part out.
The main issue here isn't what the people believed in, who came up with the new ideas but rather wich "tools" they used. It was naturalism. Their new "radical" views was based and founded on examination, mathematics, observation and logic. It doesn't matter if they were christians, atheists or hindus as they didn't include their religious beliefs as a factor in their research (wich was an intelligent move, methinks).

Aren't you just trying to kill the messenger here?
If science points against your religious beliefs then suddenly you say that the proof is "hiding".

Anonymous mystic: "Aaaarhhh!!! look, a ghost!"
Anonymous non-mystic: "That's not a ghost, that's just sheets hanging from a chair"
Anonymous mystic: "ehhh... But maybe a ghost put the sheets there."
Anonymous non-mystic: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

These are some apparent signs of denial on the mystics side.

I doubt you believe this, David. Christianity was not in any way a scientific light in the ignorant darkness. It was rather a shadow, and it still is.

Was the first scientists christians?

This is a pretty good point, but I you must wonder... Could we have reached todays medical standards if we had never gone through those clumsy medical "dark ages"?
There was no reason to stop the medical science just because it at the time was barbaric. I mean, what was the alternative?

Such an old medical book? I think not. I wouldn't be comfortable if my doctor begun to follow medical procedures from a book as old as the bible. I would probably run.

Anyway, glad to see you staying on this board.

Ryanfire...

This is a good point. I mean, who thought we would land in the moon? Can you count the people who said something like that could never be done?
And what about the phone? Lots of people thought it was an insane thought that we would cover the larger part of the world with a tele-net.
Not to mention the computer, and the internet. Yesterdays science-fiction is todays reality.

Ryanfire

What about agnostics? Be certain of this David, such as: Humans will conquer death. Religion engages in a war against life, struggles with life, and can only look to death for salvation from life. You really are a small, small man David. It quite clearly shows in your ignorance of existence and the unknown.

You have no direct knowledge of death either David. And once again, assuming there is a spiritual universe. You won't believe this, but there isn't one my friend. There is only reality.

Man can die in many ways, but not that many. Human organs are the biggest issue. The brain can live forever, but without fuel it cannot. Solve the fuel delemma.

Existence is beautiful David, don't fight that which you are, you don't need to be more than human to enjoy the pleasures of existence. I'm telling you this as a friend, not as your enemy.

Ever look to the stars David? They really are beautiful aren't they?

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]</p>

wordsmyth

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. There are many, any, many myths and legends about the supernatural (God?) cause of naturalistic events such as rain, thunder, lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods ad infinum.

Throughout human history, the majority of humans have always sought supernatural answers to phenomena they could not answer by naturalistic means.

"Oh look, the river is flooding again. God must be mad because we didn't sacrifice enough goats to him last week"

It would be utterly pointless for a hypothetical signature of God to exist but for it to be recognizable as such by humans.

Unless you can produce names and dates of the specific people who "invented" science this is nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

This seems a very poor attempt at affirming your acceptance of science and its findings based solely on your (unsupported) belief that it was "invented" by theists. Would the discoveries of science be any less valid if it were "invented" by atheists?

Don't mistake me... I'm not claiming that you are wrong at all. I'm simply stating that you cannot make such a bold claim as "science was invented by theists" without any factual support for that assertion.

I'm also interested to know if by theists you are specifically implying xians?

John Page

David:

Do you support the death penalty (for convicted premeditated murderers who confess guilt and there is positive evidence they committed the crime)?

Cheers, John

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>