Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 07-16-2002, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:


It depends how you define 'failure'. If all those sacrifices are in vain, because there was no God or because people were mistaken in thinking God required them, then one could say religion has failed humankind...couldn't one?

love
Helen

Davids post about religion as a failure was a reply to my post. And I feel I must make it clear that I was not expressing my own opinion.
I was merely rephrazing a statement made by lpetrich wich David missinterpreted.
In order for me to say that religion has failed, I must first set a supposed goal for religion. And I didn't do that.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

sandlewood · 07-16-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
David: Science is good at what science does. Religion is good at what religion does. Science and religion both have their own territory and there is in reality very few little contact between the two.

You�ve repeatedly pointed out that science has failed. Now you say it is good at what it does.

There is plenty of overlapping territory between science and religion. Since there is no evidence that a God exists (depending on how you define God), then I�d think that application of scientific methods leads one to the conclusion that no god exists. Yet religion rests on the foundation that a god exists. So I�d say they definitely overlap. Scientific evidence indicates all animals have a common ancestor, yet religion claims otherwise. There is plenty of overlapping territory.

So what does religion do that is so good? It delivers a lot of commandments and demands obedience. It provides no useful knowledge that philosophy can�t provide. It makes a lot of claims that it can�t support. The justification for all this is the existence of a being that is conveniently defined as being undetectable.

The territory that religion pretends to cover can be covered by philosophy just fine.

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
These are all mysteries, and the fundamental question is also a mystery.

So the definition of �the mystery� is also a mystery.

I suspect you don�t have the time anymore to provide meaningful responses. No need to feel obligated to dash something off.

Quote:

I wonder if atheism has failed mankind? Without providing any cause, purpose or meaning of life, and by demolishing any hope for anything else except for this dismal life, what has atheism done for humankind?

You continually insist that atheism has to provide something for mankind. You choose to evaluate it by what you call its positive qualities. But that is like asking �what are the positive qualities of not believing in Santa Claus?� Are there any? Isn�t the world a better place with Santa Claus actually existing? What are the positive qualities of non-unicornism? What positive things does not believing in the IPU provide? Truth. That�s the positive quality.

davidm: good post. You said it better than me.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 01:20 PM

Hello HelenSL,

Quote:

Atheists don't kill each other for religious reasons. They are more 'live and let live' than religious people. They have more freedom in how they make decisions. They are free from being threatened with religious threats. They will never throw their lives away because they mistakenly think "God wants it".

Atheists might kill people for other reasons. For example, the Soviet Union was officially atheistic and that government killed millions of its own citizens. Communist China is guilty of the same crime, I believe.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 01:33 PM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

Religion has failed mankind too then, because no matter how much people invest in it in time, money and emotional energy, we still all die (everyone who is mortal).

And many many many people have been deliberately killed for not believing the right things i.e. directly because of religion.

A very very small proportion of people have been deliberately killed using our medical knowledge compared to those killed because someone thought it was right, for religious reasons.

David: People have died for religious reasons. People have also died because of gold, diamonds, wealth, power, land, oil, political differences, philosophy, jealousy, rage, anger, lust and a thousand other causes.

Humans have been known to kill each other because of racial differences, socioeconomic reasons, and also boredom.

Throughout the history of the world humans have appealed to many reasons to justify violence, murder and war.

How much evidence does anyone need to demonstrate that the human character is inherently evil?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 01:36 PM

Hello Ryanfire,

Quote:

You cannot create that which you do not know.

Your pathetic logic and reasoning of god is amusing David.

Love a god that has no love. That's definately worthy of worship.

David: That God's emotional states are not similar to human emotional states has been known to religious thinkers for more than a thousand years.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 02:16 PM

Hello Theli,

Quote:

David: Omniscience is a quality of God by definition.

Theli: I don't care.
How did the one who first came up with the definition/concept of god reach the conclution that he was omniscient?
Wasn't he in the same position you are now? Oblivious.

David: Religous people, theologians and philosophers have known that God is omniscient for more than two thousand years. God's omniscience is suggested by Aristotle:

Quote:

"For God is to us a law, impartial, admitting not of correction or change, and better, I think, and surer than those which are engraved upon tablets."

and ...

"For God is in very truth the preserver and creator of all that is in any way being brought to perfection in this universe; yet he endures not all of the weariness of a being that administers and labours, but exerts a power that never wearies; whereby he prevails even over things which seem far distant from him."
(On the Universe. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Volume One)

More ancient authors have a similar opinion of God's knowledge: "Can anyone teach God knowledge, since He judges those who are on high?" (Job 21:22). Isaiah describes God in Isaiah 40:13, " Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, and showed Him the way of understanding?" In verse 28 of the same chapter, "Have you known? Have you not heard? The everylasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. There is no searching of His understanding."

For thousands of years religious minds have concluded that God is omniscient. God's status as eternal Creator of the Universe and humankind leads religious people to conclude that God is omniscient.

Quote:

Yet you accept it?
What if there is something wrong with the whole concept of an omniscient being? Yoy must have thought about this some time.

David: Do you have an objection to omniscience?

Quote:

Ofcourse it is. But would you say that faith is a good tool for deciding right from wrong - correct from incorrect when it prevents you from questioning what you've been told?
You might have been decieved. And you cannot know it, since you don't question.
Is your mind open for other explainations (including the opposite to what you believe)?

David: My mind is perpetually open to alternative explanations. That is how I came to read the scriptures of all these other religions and engaged in conversations with atheists, agnostics and humanists.

Quote:

David earlier...
All we can know is that God does exist and that God is everything that we are not.

BTW, who is we?

David: "We" is humankind and also generally the entire physical cosmos.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure it is. As you stated that god is a big mystery outside our knowledge and understanding.
And now you are saying he had a son?
How could you possibly know that?

David: God can have a Son, that is by no means a difficult task for the Creator of the Universe.

Quote:

BTW, how "productable" can a person be who is in constant agonizing pain?

David: People who are in agonizing pain should go to a doctor.

Quote:

David earlier...
"If atheists exempt themselves from the first they still remain obligated to fulfilling the second."

So, what new obligations do I get reggarding loving people if I become a christian? Who/what is obligating me?

David: If you were a Christian you would feel a special obligation to love all people because Jesus commands that you do so. You would also feel a special obligation to love God because God did give His Son so that He might save you.

Quote:

What sacrifices?
I think you missed a part here. You never said what any of those people actually did that was tied to their religion.
They gave up their time and wealth for the cult, but what good did it do?
You never clarified this.

David: These benevolent missionaries travelled to distant lands without any hope of financial reward so that they could dispose of their medical talents among people who were otherwise deprived of any medical attention. These missionaries in some cases subjective their own life to mortal risk because they wanted to help unknown neighbors half a world away from the comforts of their own home.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 02:29 PM

Hello davidm,

Quote:

Science is not capable of "sinning," or of anything else. Science is a method, not a mind. People, making poor choices, build nuclear weapons and despoil the environment, using the tools of science and, very often, the justification of their religious beliefs. For example, it was science that made jet airplanes possible, and blind religious fanaticism that drove two of them into the Twin Towers. My question: Could you please explain, in some detail if you have the time, how science "demolishes human dignity?"

David: Why did science invent the jet airplane? The jet airplane was invented to shoot down propeller driven planes. Intercontinental jets were developed to drop conventional and nuclear bombs. Supersonic jets and Stealth bombers were invented to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Missiles were initially invented to drop convential bombs on London. Intercontinental missiles were invented to drop nuclear bombs.

I suppose that all technologies were initially developed for the purpose of killing other humans. There may be some exceptions but in general all of these technologies were first utilized in the context of warfare before their civilian uses were developed.

Quote:

Science is not a religion. It is the antithesis of religion. Your religion relies on dogma that a believer is required to accept, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Science is a self-correcting method of obtaining information about reality, and putting that information to use. As such, it has been spectacularly successful. It requires no deity, and no scientist claims to be acting in the role of a savior.

David: Perhaps so.

Quote:

Thank you for conceding my point. In a brilliant compression of the basic stance of your faith -- a mere one sentence, consisting of just five words -- you have made an appeal to ignorance and fear. Ignorance: All of us are aware of the fact that we are ignorant about many aspects of reality. Fear: Believe as do in order to banish this ignorance, or God will punish you. You deserve to feel dread, if you don't believe as I do.

David: Existential dread has nothing to do with fear of God's punishment. Existential dread is the fear that atheists experience when they recognize that their life is temporary, purposeless and meaningless. The dread is generated by the transformation of the question "What is the meaning of life?" into the conclusion "My life has no meaning whatsoever."

Quote:

Do you think that the fact that humans are mortal, and that the universe itself is destined to die, entails or even implies that God and an afterlife exist? I see no reason to believe this. Hence I am forced to say "So what?" at the prospect of universal demise. There is nothing I or anyone else can do to prevent it. You have accused atheists of arrogance. I would like to ask: Who is arrogant? Is it the person who follows the evidence where it leads, and in doing so tentatively concludes that the natural world is all that there is, and when we die, our consciousness is extinguished and our elements are recycled back into that natural world? Or is it the person who claims, against all evidence, that human beings are special and apart from all the rest of the universe, and that when we die, we will somehow continue to live for all eternity?

David: Theists consider atheists arrogant; atheists consider theists arrogant. Both sides are correct.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 02:55 PM

Hello Sandlewood,

Quote:

You�ve repeatedly pointed out that science has failed. Now you say it is good at what it does.

David: Science has failed to solve humankind's problems or bring about the utopain society envisioned by previous generations of scientifically inclined futurists.

Quote:

There is plenty of overlapping territory between science and religion. Since there is no evidence that a God exists (depending on how you define God), then I�d think that application of scientific methods leads one to the conclusion that no god exists. Yet religion rests on the foundation that a god exists. So I�d say they definitely overlap. Scientific evidence indicates all animals have a common ancestor, yet religion claims otherwise. There is plenty of overlapping territory.

David: What is this that you are claiming: The scientific methods leads one to the conclusion that no god exists. I have read the writings of many scientists and must say that I haven't found any such conclusion in their writings. Perhaps a more accurate statement is: Atheists believe that the scientific method leads to the conclusion that no god exists.

Quote:

So what does religion do that is so good? It delivers a lot of commandments and demands obedience. It provides no useful knowledge that philosophy can�t provide. It makes a lot of claims that it can�t support. The justification for all this is the existence of a being that is conveniently defined as being undetectable.

The territory that religion pretends to cover can be covered by philosophy just fine.

David: Philosophy and religion do function in the same territory, the abstract concepts of the human intellect.

Quote:

So the definition of �the mystery� is also a mystery.
I suspect you don�t have the time anymore to provide meaningful responses. No need to feel obligated to dash something off.

David: Yes, the mystery is itself a mystery. Job speaking to God in 42:3, "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."

Do you suppose that you know every question? Do you suppose that humankind has attained a knowledge of every sort of mystery?

It seems quite likely that humans are ignorant of their own ignorance. Do you disagree?

Quote:

You continually insist that atheism has to provide something for mankind. You choose to evaluate it by what you call its positive qualities. But that is like asking �what are the positive qualities of not believing in Santa Claus?� Are there any? Isn�t the world a better place with Santa Claus actually existing? What are the positive qualities of non-unicornism? What positive things does not believing in the IPU provide? Truth. That�s the positive quality.

David: You believe that atheism is truth? That is remarkable.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

HelenM · 07-16-2002, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
How much evidence does anyone need to demonstrate that the human character is inherently evil?

Ah, this is very much a 'conservative Christian distinctive' - total depravity.

I don't think one finds it anywhere else, does one?

love
Helen

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 04:36 PM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

Ah, this is very much a 'conservative Christian distinctive' - total depravity.

I don't think one finds it anywhere else, does one?

David: If you read the newspaper, watch television, watch movies, read books or spend any time observing the behavior of people, you will find that evil words, thoughts and behaviors are abundantly displayed by people. Not only do people act in an evil manner towards their enemies, opponents and competitors, they also behave in that way towards their friends, neighbors and strangers. People are also known to behave in evil and sinful ways towards their closest loved ones: Spouses, children and parents.

Atheists at times behave in an evil way towards Christians. Christians sometimes behave in an evil way towards atheists.

The reality of human evil is abundantly displayed by humans.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.