MrDarwin

An interesting observation, given that in most of the world (the United States being a possible exception), one's religious beliefs are generally the same as those of one's family and one's community. That is, the overwhelming majority of children in Israel will grow up to be Jews, the overwhelming majority of children in Saudi Arabia will grow up to be Muslims, the overwhelming majority of children born in most parts of India will grow up to be Hindus.

It seems to be a typical pattern of humanity that one's religious beliefs are decided for a child, based on where he or she is born, and into what family. Freedom to choose one's own religion seems to be a primarily Western invention.

David Mathews

Hello Buffman,

David: Here is a matter of agreement between us. You are not obligated to believe the sacred-texts.


David: Who told you that you were living your life based upon fact? Is this something that you have told yourself?


David: Now you have said something of great interest to myself:

How do you define the titled "Non-Supernaturalist"?

How is that title different from "Atheist"?

Finally, how do you define "atheist"?

David: No, there is not an exact chronological point at which an individual begins making his/her own choices.

David: All these factors and perhaps some more.

David: For some beliefs, yes; for other beliefs, perhaps no. Depends on the complexity of the belief and the amount of information necessary to resolve it with certainty.

David: The critical thought process is a tool of investigating ideas to determine their merits and decide their fates. The criticial thought process is subjective on the most fundamental level, though not absolutely so.

[quote]So many wonderful questions that no one is "obligated" to answer in your universe. And the most disturbing factor of them all. What if there currently isn't an answer? Should I make one up? Evidently that is no longer a problem for you.[/QUOUTE]

David: This is a very good question and it is not a problem to me. How would you answer it for yourself?

David: You are putting words in my mouth and I have already forgiven you.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow Walking,

David: I suppose that those decisions are made based upon whatever information the individual feels necessary. People make different choices for different reasons, it is not my place to dictate upon what basis anyone makes their own choices.

David: I can't speak for anyone else, so I don't presume to know what makes anyone else believe what they believe. All I know is that all people are face a choice and ultimately all people make that choice.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David M. Payne

Hello David, and welcome to the Sec-Web from another David. Good luck in your sojourn here, you’ll need it.

I have two somewhat complex questions, and hopefully you will be able to refrain from answering my questions with your own, a common tactic we see here with theists. I will answer your questions, if you answer mine.

On the worship of this being you call God, I find one thing especially troubling, the tale of Noah and the great flood. (Genesis 6-9) This God of yours drowns everyone/everything living on land, except Noah and his family, and of course two animals of every kind, for the sin of corruption. What “sin” did the innocent babies and little children of these hundreds of thousands/millions (?) of people commit? What “sin” did the animals commit? This action of genocide, committed by an omnipotent God, who had the ability to pick any other punishment he wanted to stop this “corrupt” behavior, is disturbing. After all, he could chose to correct this behavior with every choice available to him; which is everything, and or anything, and yet chose mass murder, the worst and most brutal option he had, to get the message out. I don’t get that, perhaps you can illuminate the rationale for this choice of genocide by your God for us. Or perhaps you’ll tell us that it was just a fairy tale from the bible, not to be taken literally, which opens up the possibility, and or probability, that the rest of the bible follows suit. (Yes, I’m sure you don’t like the choice of words I use to describe his behavior, genocide and mass murder, but that’s what it looks like to us atheists/agnostics here.)

This question is a little less complicated, where/when does God give us free will? Is it in the bible? Perhaps some Pope got a revelation from him on it? Perhaps you know where it comes from, because none of your brethren here do, though they all say it somehow, someway came from God. Now to save some time, try and refrain from giving your pet passage where you “think” it was divined from, give us a passage/reference that says; “And God gave man free will.” Something not open to interpretation, but crystal clear in it’s meaning and intent. I really look forward to that, if you can do it that is.

I look forward to your response to these two questions, and I invite all here to examine your answers, if any, and join in the conversation they may spark.

Enjoy your stay here, may it be a long and fruitful one, for you and us.

David

David Mathews

Hello MrDarwin,

David: You make a valid and true observation. Children usually adopt the religion of their parents for whatever reason, either training, custom, culture or comfort.

I suppose that the children of atheistic parents adopt their parents' atheism. Do you agree with this supposition?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello David,

David: Your choice of words do not offend me, nor does your opinion of God's act of punishment in the flood offend me in any way.

To begin with, let me say that God owns humankind, and that our own lives belong to Him and not to our own selves. God can give life and take life according to His own will, whether we approve of His decision or not.

Secondarily, I will also say that the death of children and infants is a common occurrence in the Universe and it makes little difference whether those deaths occur in a worldwide deluge or in an auto accident.

Thirdly, I must observe that the complaint against the death of these humans, in its most fundamental form, is rather a complaint against death in general. I suppose that your own death is more troublesome to you than the death of children that you don't know and have never met.

Fourthly, it is not my place to exonerate God from any accusations you may have against Him for His decisions recorded in the Bible. I have a lot of questions for God myself, including some very substantial questions about the behavior of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament.

Finally, I am not dogmatically devoted, or in fact devoted in any degree, to the concept of a worldwide deluge. There is certainly no evidence that the entire human population was brought to near extinction at any point within the last 100,000 years. Therefore, God's judgment as recorded in the Flood Account may not have resulted in the genocide that you are attributing to Him.

David: When I say that God gave humans free will, I am not reasoning from the Scriptures so much as drawing a conclusion based upon my own self-perception and self-consciousness. I cannot in any way prove that free will exists either in myself or in anyone else. Free will is a concept which is not available for proof or disproof.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Autonemesis

If I may jump in...

I'd like to split that one off to a separate thread. I can't get jiggy wit dat and want to talk to you a bit about why it is necessary to resist such a despot with every means available. What do you think? Worthy of a separate topic?

I think there's a difference between the two. Auto accidents happen as a consequence of human design (or misdesign if you prefer). There is an assumption of risk involved - a choice. But as for natural disasters, I can see no practical way for me to mitigate the probability or reduce the risk of my death (or anyone else's) from a worldwide catastrophe, should I become aware of it and wish to avoid it (which I probably would).

And if I may indulge a little pedantry, how do you know the deaths of children are common occurrences in the Universe? Not so pedantic is to point out that the deaths of children are much less common than children living to adulthood. But using dying children as a rhetorical point is all good - now and then - since without a table present, we can't pound our fists for emphasis!

Actually, <a href="http://www.newswise.com/articles/1999/4/ATREE.UCD.html" target="_blank">there is</a>. And don't forget about <a href="http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/RELEASES/99NEWS/Oct/neaderta.htm" target="_blank">Neanderthals</a> who seem to have disappeared from Europe perhaps only 28,000 YBP. It's still an open question whether modern humans replaced them, or absorbed them through interbreeding.

You would be right to say that there is still no evidence of that. So I agree with you.

B. H. Manners

David Mathews said:

"I suppose that the children of atheistic parents adopt their parents' atheism. Do you agree with this supposition?"

David, patriciaredstone from GCM is an example of a child of atheists choosing to have faith in God. It is possible that children of atheists do tend to follow their parents, but they should do it for what to them are their own well thought out reasons, not just because mom or pop said that was the way to go. I am sure you will say the same about Christianity.

I am glad you are here and seem to be getting an overall friendly reception. Please feel free to visit any other forums we have here too, but I would suggest avoinding Rants, Raves, and Preaching for that is where the discussions get very uncivil.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Buffman

To begin with, let me say that God owns humankind, and that our own lives belong to Him and not to our own selves. God can give life and take life according to His own will, whether we approve of His decision or not.

So much for your statements about free will. Additionally, I find your belief that human beings are nothing more than the ejaculative slave and gunfodder of someone's make believe Sky Headmaster (SH) to be quite repulsive and personally demeaning. I think it best that I leave this discussion to the very capable hands of others.

Thank you for honestly sharing your supernatural religious beliefs.

Zeus has appointed Hephaestus, his armorer, as Attorney General to keep an eye out for any slave that might dare to think for themselves. Every bolt of lightning you see hitting the earth is Zeus "zapping" another critically thinking terrorist.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

David M. Payne

DP chats with DM;
[quote]Originally posted by David Mathews:

David: Your choice of words do not offend me, nor does your opinion of God's act of punishment in the flood offend me in any way.
To begin with, let me say that God owns humankind, and that our own lives belong to Him and not to our own selves. God can give life and take life according to His own will, whether we approve of His decision or not.

A rational used by Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, and a host of other “creators” of genocide. (Maybe it’s to early to put Osama in there, but he has potential, don’t you agree?)I wonder where they got the idea? Hey, it was good enough for God, so it’s good enough for me, one could imagine them saying. So we are slaves to this God? Sorry don’t buy that.

Secondarily, I will also say that the death of children and infants is a common occurrence in the Universe and it makes little difference whether those deaths occur in a worldwide deluge or in an auto accident.

To kill an entire races children in an auto accident would take a really big car, yes? A poor analogy here DM. One is an accident, the other one is genocide, surly you know the difference?

Thirdly, I must observe that the complaint against the death of these humans, in its most fundamental form, is rather a complaint against death in general. I suppose that your own death is more troublesome to you than the death of children that you don't know and have never met.

No, it isn’t a complaint in general about death, which comes to us all. It is a complaint about behavior. Specifically the behavior of an omnipotent God who has every choice there is to correct the behavior of humanity, and chooses the most brutal option, genocide. And you just shrug this off. It’s this, “He’s God, he can do what he wants” mindset that allows for this religious warfare that is seen throughout history. Again, if God can kill almost everyone for the “Sin” of corruption, then we are justified in killing our infidel foes for the sin (put your favorite sin here) they commit. And all sides, Christian, Muslim and Jew have/do use this kind of argument when committing this barbaric behavior, don’t they? They are all doing it in the name of God/their religion, who just happens to be on all sides of any religious war ever fought. Funny how that happens, isn’t it? This God guy really gets around.

Fourthly, it is not my place to exonerate God from any accusations you may have against Him for His decisions recorded in the Bible. I have a lot of questions for God myself, including some very substantial questions about the behavior of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament.

You have some questions for God! Well DM, we may save you yet.

Finally, I am not dogmatically devoted, or in fact devoted in any degree, to the concept of a worldwide deluge. There is certainly no evidence that the entire human population was brought to near extinction at any point within the last 100,000 years. Therefore, God's judgment as recorded in the Flood Account may not have resulted in the genocide that you are attributing to Him.

Ah, some parts of the bible are true, some aren’t. How convenient for your argument. When you pick and chose what parts are true and which parts are false, you open up this book to the fanatics like Jim Jones, David Koresh and the like, for they pick and chose to, didn’t they? And look at the results of their choices. Osama is just a better-funded example of this type of megalomaniac, and he won’t be the last as long as you religious types believe in these fairy tales. For you provide the fertile breeding ground for the rise of these religious zealots, all wanting to show us the error of our ways, or send us to hell if we refuse their “faith.”(There’s my sermon on the mount!)

Translation, you have no idea where this doctrine came from either. No surprise there. I think it came from the problem of evil that was attributed to Epicurus. He pointed out that the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent God was an oxymoron. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he isn’t omnipotent. If God is able to prevent evil and chooses not to, then he isn’t benevolent. So how does the theist get around this quandary? I know, he gave us free will, yeah, that’s it, he gave us free will and all the evil in the world is the result of this, with a little help from the devil of course. You do believe in the devil, right DM?
Time to call it a night, I look forward to your reply. Your doing a good job so far DM, but your not saying anything we haven’t seen here before.

David