Toto

I think you are projecting your own feelings into the matter. Christians historically thought they are better than the unsaved, so they assume atheists return the compliment.

Most of us here were Christians at some point, or are married to Christians, or have Christian friends. Most of us think our Christian friends are okay except for having some strange ideas, and we don't like to upset them by telling them how strange their ideas are to their faces. So you may not be used to having religion discussed very frankly.

On a personal level, there are some Christians I admire and some atheists I wouldn't want to be associated with. This has nothing to do with the Christian doctrine, which I still think is absurd. I have just gotten beyond expecting anyone to be totally consistant or logical in all parts of their life.

E_muse

But aren't concepts such as reason and rationalism only phenomena experienced by the human brain?

If we reject theism on these grounds, where does that leave the faculty of reason in humans?

So does a majority view mean that such views are right? You've already tried to argue that the vast majority of the populace is theist.

Disagree with who?

If religion is 'unavoidable' and favours survival how can it be considered a setback in evolutionary terms? Please bear in mind that natural selection is blind. If natural selection is blind what does it matter whether or not a system of thought represents 'truth' or not so long as it promotes survival?

Remember that 'evolution' as you seem to state it, is a system of thought and not necessarily a change in a physical characteristic.. or is it?

Please would you define 'weak minded' precisely?

So why was it that the apostle Paul was able to write that, "we face death every day."?

He was also able to say that, although he was hard pressed on every side that he was not in despair.

Hardly the words of someone who feared death or who was suffering from depression I think you'll agree.

Now before you go on to claim that this proves your hypothesis, it needs to be noted that, if God does not exist, that he exists as a concept within the human mind.

If the human mind is able to construct so lofty a concept as God - and be prepared to die for it - can God truly be said to be a product of weak minded people?

Wouldn't it? Has this ever been tested or is this a statement of faith?

Are all people capable of thinking rationally? Does rationalism necessarily lead to one particular way of thinking or value system on which a society can be based?

Could it possibly have occured to you that your opening hypothesis - that all religious thinking people are in some way weak minded - is wrong? Perhaps?

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

One important distinction: no one is arguing that reason and rationalism are actually entities that created us, reside in heaven, lay down laws for us to follow, manifested themselves as flesh only to be crucified for our sins, etc, etc.

E_muse

No, they haven't. And neither have I. What is your point here? I'm testing the opening hypothesis as a rational grounds for rejecting the existence of God and whether the God concept can simply be labelled as the product of weak minded people.

If the examples given above are to be rejected because they only exist as phenomena in the human brain then the faculty of reason must also be rejected on the same grounds and the arguement shoots itself in the foot.

What are your thoughts on the rest of my post?

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Easy Be

E_Muse,


I never said we should reject them. I tried to imply that since it’s experienced by the human brain in some people it will result in a belief in God and religion.

No, I disagree with the many atheists. I feel God is necessary for some people. Religion is an unavoidable consequence of this.

With atheists on the secular web that have claimed religion has set back evolution in some places.

I don’t think religion favors survival I think the phenomena that results in the belief of God favors survival. An indirect result of this phenomena is religion. Now this normally wouldn’t have hurt evolution, but as this religion began developing, greedy people changed it to make money, become more powerful, and other unlawful things. So as religion evolves from it’s original state it becomes less friendly with evolution.

I used the term weak-minded which was clearly the wrong term to use. I should have said it will predominantly be felt by those who fear death or have severe depression.

I think Murphy does a good job explaining how the human mind was able to construct so lofty a concept as God
Yes that has. I guess people continue to assume i'm implying things that I am not truly talking about. This is my fault and from now on i'll try to make it more clear as to what i'm implying. A better Topic would have been "I feel religion is an unavoidable consequence from a phenomena that some people afraid of death experience.

Answerer

Well Sikh, you better show evidence of your claim that atheism is absurd and also the question of why can't a person lie to himself subconsciously. Show us your arguments or you will be regarded as just another lamer.

DarkBronzePlant

Hi E-muse:

My point is that your comparison between god and rational thought is way off. The concept of "weak-minded" in this thread, as I understand it, is not to say that anything that human minds invent is worthless because human minds are weak. In fact, I'd argue that whatever people came up with the idea of religion and Christianity were quite skilled with their minds.

Rather, those people who hold on to religion and the notion of god because they can't cope with death, uncertainty, the unknown, etc, have a weakness.

I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say: I took you to mean this: If god is a useless concept because human minds invented it/him, then why is not logic/rational thought similar useless, because human minds invented that as well? Still, based on your clarification, I think the comparison still fails. At least, I am not arguing that god was created by weakminded people at all; rather, that in many cases it is held on to by people that lack a particular mental strength.

In reading the above paragraph, I revert to my original interpretation of your argument, so I think I am missing something. So I'll just assert what I think, and you can either agree, disagree, or claim that my thought is irrelevant to the discussion :

If god exists only in the minds of people, then god should be rejected, because there is no original sin, there was no son-of-god who died for our sins, there is no heaven or hell, there are no divine laws that we are supposed to rigidly and unquestioningly adhere to, etc.

I had originally refrained from responding to your whole post, since it was really addressed to someone else. But hey, since you asked, I'll start up my second response to you after this one.

DarkBronzePlant

Part II
Back to the above discussion; I'll add no more here.
I agree with you that majority view does not necessarily mean anything. I do believe that the world would be better without religion, but that's basically my unproven assertion.
I'm not sure how religion "favours survival." Certainly not more than any other belief or action. In fact, in certain cases, religion favors martyrdon. Religion also, in cases, favors the abandonment of science that can help prolong life. So I'd say that if anything, religion is a setback in human evolution.
I'm not sure what Easy Be meant with evolution, but I think evolution typically describes changes in physical characteristics. It can also describe changes in typical behavior patterns (such as favoring an "altruism gene" in a certain species) which is maybe what you're getting at here.

Again, it's sort of up to Easy Be to define what "weak minded" here refers to. It seems to me that it refers to an inability to accept that some things are just unknown, and some horrible things (e.g. death) simply happen without any purpose or any greater good attached.

Well, Paul's not your average member of the religious flock, now, is he? Plus, didn't even Paul himself cling to the belief of an afterlife, of a greater good and purpose? That's kind of the point... that he found a way to not have to fear death, to help alleviate his dispair.

Which I think leads to your next point:
Again, everyday people do not construct the concept of god; they merely consume what they are fed.

As for Paul, it may be argued the in fact he is one responsible for inventing the concept of god. And as I pointed out, it would take some serious brainpower to create such an elaborate system. But really, if he did pen Christianity, or parts of it, is he really going to assert anything other than confidence in overcoming the very fears that Christianity is designed to address?

It's also worth noting here that I am kind of playing along with the idea tha Paul's words demonstrate anything other than an admission that death and strife exist. I don't find his words--certainly not the ones you presented--as evidence that Paul is unusually able to cope with things on his own.
Actually, I disagree with Easy Be's assertion there (again, just my opinion.) I don't know if thinking rationally will necessarily cause someone to feel any better about their own mortality, for example. Some people will always need to find a higher purpose, a "reason for it all." Some people will always be content not to have one. I don't think rational thought has much to do with that.
Again, related to the topic at hand, I don't think it's relevant.
Any time I see a statement that reads "All XXXs are YYY", warning bells go off. Certainly, saying that all religious thinking people are weak minded is wrong. I say that for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it is impossible to make such a blanket generalization.

If someone can't cope with the idea of death and mortality, for example, then I would assert that that is a weakness they possess. But possessing that weakness does not make them overall weak minded, any more than my inability to stand on the tips of my toes--as many dancers can do, for example--make me overall physically weak. But it is a weakness in its own right, nonetheless.

Also, people hold religious views for many reasons. I think that fear of death/uncertainty is a very common reason, but there are certainly others. A religious person might hold his/her beliefs for any number of other reasons, and be perfectly capable of coping with death/uncertainty even without religion.

Finally, I might also add that I didn't see Easy Be actually asserting that all religious people are weak minded.

Whew! Back to work!

E_muse

I didn't say we should reject anyone. I said 'theism' as a system of thought, not 'theists'.

I know that there are many other experiences that lead to religious belief. People may claim to have experienced physical healing, witnessed miracles and so on and so on.

In the United Kingdom, "What will happen when you die?" doesn't seem to feature very prominently in religious teaching.

What is more, I'm not sure that being dead is a thing to fear. We are all aware of the fact that there was a time when we didn't exist and we know what it wasn't like! But we know that there's nothing to fear about being dead!

Actually, the concept of hell can make death even more frightening - even if one does live forever.

I'm sorry, I just don't see that it's that simple.

I think that Murphy's ideas are too simplistic.

For example, Christians do not base their confidence upon their own feigned near death experience but on the resurrection of an individual named Jesus.

[quote]Easy Be:

It bewilders me how 90% of the world can believe in the fairy tales that religions claim.[/quotes]

People have a capacity for faith and invariably they fill it with something!

However, the fact that so many people persist in something that you view as being based on fairy tales might suggest that there is more to it than that.

But in your opening post (and I quote), you said:

I was responding to the OP.

You seem to be changing your mind.

With respect, I don't think that the abuses you describe are peculiar to religion. What would you say capitalism is?

Is it unlawful to become more powerful and make more money? What about Bill Gates?

People don't need religion to do the things you describe.

But religious alleigance has often cost people their lives. Committing to a certain religion has far from removed the fear of death.

Religious history is littered with martyrs and not all of them believed in life after death.

For example, the Saducees were theists - and a branch of Judaism - but they had no belief in life after death.

I think that it is erroneous to analyze reasons why people believe today (which may even be misguided), and then stretch it back through history and make it fit all people throughout all history and then say triumphantly, "This is why religion exists!"

For one thing, it is not testable and there are clear examples of religious people who throw the theory into doubt.

But obviously doesn't apply to atheists. People do not all share this near death experience that Murphy describes.

But you only need one example of a person who is religious but wasn't afraid of death before their converson to prove that the theory is too simple.

In that regard, the Apostle Paul didn't need to switch alleigance to Christianity - he already believed in God and he didn't appear frightened of death.

Some theist will even say, "I wasn't even looking for God."

DarkBronzePlant: Thank you for your considerate reply. I shall not be able to answer it tonight.. but hope to soon.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Ron Singh

So this person consciously wants to lie to himself unconsciously? That's more absurd than atheism!

Notice that the and the , mean that it's a joke. Theists like me have it hard in this neck of the woods.