A3

Hello everyone,

There have been some very thoughtful posts here lately, considerate even.
I hope people have not ignored my posts on the last page because one was addressed to Keith or because they had Bible quotes in them. I’m sorry but my ultimate authority will always be the internal sense of the Bible. I say this because to me this is Revelation, capital R. I don't see how Science could reveal Him how human experience could. BTW a literal interpretation seemed to be acceptable but during the last century has proven to be very faulty and vulnerable to personal agendas.

Having said this, I also want to make very clear that I believe that absolutely no one has to take my word for anything or believe whatever I believe. All I ‘m ever doing is presenting a view or approach that has helped me, which doesn’t mean it should automatically help you too.
My criteria for believing something is just this: how close to the truth does it appear to me. I can only believe something if I think it is true; whoever it says it should make sense to me.
Most “how” or “why” questions on this board seem to be generated by just such a frame of mind and I strongly believe that this is healthy. As soon as people stop asking, they stop believing.
If someone sees me as a fundy for basing my belief on the Bible than that is too bad. I believe we all have the right to follow the God or Allah that turns us on and gives meaning to our own particular lifes.

Regards
Adriaan

Family Man

While I think it is true that atheists tend to be more intelligent than the average Christianity, I don't think that atheism is what causes this. I think this is a function of Christianity being the base belief of our society (that of the U.S. at any rate). The bulk of the population accepts that belief without question. Those that question will be the ones that reject, and those that question are generally more intelligent.

The bottom-line is: if atheism was the base belief, Christians would probably be more intelligent than the average atheist.

So, no, being Christian doesn't imply the person is automatically stupid. Nor all atheists smart.

Lest I be misunderstood, however, atheists are right!

doodad

I am trying to follow you and really aren't interested in objectivity for the sake of objectivity. So anything is objective if when you stop believing it it doesn't go away? A number of scientific theories have been discredited and have fallen into disbelief, and yet they haven't gone away. Are they non-objective or simply fallacious? What's this form of mental masturbation supposed to buy you? It doesn't do a thing for me because I spent my career as a systems analyst creating real solutions for real problems and mind games are behind me, at last.

Maybe I'm too much of a pragmatist. You can't prove the non-existence of a supernatural god any more than I can prove the existence of a supernatural god, and it's a non-issue to me because as I have said it's academic to me. It's the belief that counts, not the faith object. People could worship a dead rat if they so chose, so to me the issue of God being non-existent is frivolous. He doesn't have to exist in the objective or material sense because the belief system obviously prospers in spite of the fact than no one can prove his existence. Can we deny that?

Amie

you keep thinking that...

Synaesthesia

You are not distinguishing between the theory of God and which entities are posited by the theory. So, for example, caloric does not exist but the theory most certainly does.

Here is evidence that you are falling into the trap of your ambiguity (as I suspected you would). God(1) is a theory, God(2) is the omnipotent dud that the theory asserts lives in the clouds. God(1) may well be a mental construct (and hence, in some sense, subjective) but God(2) is not. Whether or God(2) exists is an objective matter which will determine whether the pope goes to heaven or burns in hell. When we ask whether God exists we are of course asking about God(2), not God(1).

My point was extremely simple. Let's hope you have not left lucidity behind in your advanced years.

Well your comments regarding the belief in God seem sound. But who cares whether the belief exists or not - of course they do.

When we as questions about the existence of God, we are not asking questions about what one person or the other believes. We're asking about whether we are free to engage in mental masturbation without the shameful thought that the hosts of heaven are watching and will call us to account on all heresy we think...

doodad

I understand your last question, and to my way of thinking you are free to engage in such discussion or debate without fear of supernatural bodies punishing you in some way. However, what's the point of if? Are you just getting kicks or venting some pentup frustration?

I think you are dealing in minutae because, as if have tried to explain, the actual existence of God is not central to the effect that the practice of religion has on people. It's the belief that God exists that affects folks. It's not rational but it works.

I think there are those who think that if they can disprove the existence of God or can cast doubt on his existence in the corporeal sense then they can destroy the religious beliefs associated with God. The idea is to discredit relgious beliefs and if that doesn't work then bash the believers by implying they are mentally unsound. Have at it guy, and lotsa luck. You'll need it. People will find something to placate their fears, and if it isn't an Abrahamic
religion then it will be some other belief system.
The point is this. There's worse or more detrimental beliefs than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

Who cares whether the belief exists or not? As you say, the believers do, but apparently the non-believers are also concerned about it or they wouldn't be making an issue of it. If I really didn't give a rat's tail about an issue I probably would find other issues to consider.
If you want to idle your time by knocking the practice of religion you might profit by first gaining a better understanding of what you are trying to criticize. Without that you risk making a fool out of yourself.

doodad

Brian I agree with you in part and I appreciate your trying to be open minded about religion and about theists.

Yes, many Christians seem to be a little dense, and it's been my experience that the fundamentalist sects concentrate on converting those who are simplistic in their thinking. They're easy marks, so to speak. The promises of religion, which in many cases are merely forms of rationalization, appeal to the desperate and the down and outers who have lost any hope or desire to achieve for themselves a semblance of comfort and a feeling of accomplishment. In a sense, they see it as a free lunch, which is a copout.

Some may appear to dumbed down to you because their pride wont let them admit they have bought into something that isn't really what it was portrayed to be. It takes faith they say, to believe something that cannot be proven. Might they be experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance? I'll agree that there are probably a higher percentage of intelligent folks in the atheist community as compared to the reliious community, but intelligence without wisdom or the common sense to apply it isn't worth much unless you are interested in collecting shingles to hang on your wall. By intelligence I mean the scientific type of knowledge and expertise the typical atheist places so much value in.


You speak of the social benefits provided by religion being all false, and your choice of words confuses me a bit? I think the benefits can be very real and beneficial. Perhaps you are trying to say the premises upon which these benefits are derived are false. For example, the concept that we can have eternal life, at least in the spiritual sense, is beneficial to many, but is there really an afterlife? I tend to question that possibility, but what have I got to lose by buying into the idea? It's cost is low, and others seem to go out smiling, so I am not going to reject the possibily out of hand. If there is an afterlife I stand to gain and if there isn't I'll be none the wiser when the lights go out.

Most believers would call me an atheist or some other type of non-believer because it's as another poster on this thread has said. It's all or nothing with them. You either believe all of it or you don't, and if you don't buy the whole package you aren't a Christian. It reminds me of Pres. Bush's comment that nations are either with us or against us. It's not that simple to me. He may just find out about the clout of those who are against us someday soon. Let's hope we can handle it.

I practice religion primarily for the behavorial aspects of it, and I learned my basic sense of moral standards when I was a small boy in Sunday School. That's not to say that organized religion has a monopoly on moral standards, but it works for me. Socially speaking, I think it's beneficial for those who live with each other to have moral standards, because without something we'd have a jungle rather than a civilized lifestyle. Traditionally, organized religion was used to impart concepts of morality into people, but in modern times that is being discouraged, not so much by the atheist community, but by the liberal factions in our land. Can they really see the consequences of weak moral convictions?
If religion is not to be employed for such purpose then what can take its place?

The atheist community has an admirable outlook on this issue, but they are so few in number it will take decades in America for them to be able to have a significant influence. It's like shouting in the wind at present for them. One other thing to consider. Has our experience with organized religion been so traumatic and so unproductive that we should simply abandon it in hopes that another basis for moral standards would better serve our needs? Isn't that akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water?

Synaesthesia

What are you talking about dood? What's with the condenscending attitude?

Given your poor phrasing, I mistook your position for relativism and made a comment about it. That's the only point I was making and I now see that I was wrong about your veiw. You are victim to a lesser form of confusion which conflabulates objectivity with material reality.

There is no reason to put forward such uncharitable intepretations of my intentions and you clearly have no inkling of how much I do or do not understand christianity. If you have a legitimate criticism of any of my positions, please feel free to add in a jab or three.

If the best you can manage is to criticize an abstract caracature, don't even bother.

Goliath

Family Man,

Although I despise religion in general, and absoultely hate xianity in particular, I cannot agree with your above assertion. There exist many intelligent xians.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

doodad,

Pascal's wager is a faulty argument, and it will fail each and every time it is used. One of the reasons why this is so is that you have assumed (but not proven) that if an afterlife exists, it is unique.

Sincerely,

Goliath