Darkside_Spirit

I disbelieve in religion because I have not seen evidence that establishes any of its manifestations as a serious possibility. Some of the reasons given at the start of this thread are good, and some of them aren't, but it cannot be over-emphasised that the burden of proof rests with the claimant.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Darkside_Spirit ]</p>

D.H. Cross

Hi! Which of my reasons aren't good?

As to soul being eternal because "energy" cannot die, I agree with the fellow who would remind us that energy must first be defined. This soul-energy as stated is not detected by any scientific instrument, and so it little more than another form of ectoplasm. There have been many forms suggested: etheric bodies, astral forms, even "long-bodies" wherein souls glob together in the afterlife. Even more complicated are the ideas set forth by the science fiction writer Jane Roberts who wrote the Seth books (At least I think her name was Jane). Seth spoke of all of our multiple lives existing outside of time/space, and went on about how we "create our own reality". This world, according to the new age view, is evolving toward some Omega point, a new age of Aquarius of course. The theosophical folk speak about the Hidden Masters; the New Order of the Golden Dawn teaches spiritual ascension; the Wiccan’s uplift their consciousness to become one with Gaia and yet...

A few days reading back issues of CSICOP, Skeptic magazine, or a good lecture by James the Amazing Randi would prove more educational than a thousand hours with Crowley, Gardener, Seth, or Neale Diamond Walsh. All such stuff is driven by the need for watered down religion, is syncretistic to the extreme while betraying how real science works and what is taught in regard physics, etc. Any serious look into the claims of the new age, from “magick” to new conceptions of God/Goddess demonstrates that they are subject to the very same supernatural-melting logic as the idea of GOD in the more traditional sense.

If the personality does not go with this nebulous conception of "soul", nor memory, then what is left of personal-identity? What difference does it make if my "soul" escapes stripped of everything that makes who I am WHAT I AM? Why should anyone give a rat’s ass about this sort of soul-conception, all myth-conceptions!

Some would say, (people like Ken Wilber) that the point is not survival of the soul, but transcending the ego and becoming more integral in ones views. Once one has the realization that he is One with All, all sorrow and pain melts away into the wonderful bliss of One Taste. All is well with the world then. And hey, maybe he's right! The man obviously benefits from his eclectic brand of mediations and practices, and he is no dummy, but he also had this to say...

"There is more spirituality in reason's denial of God than there is in myth's affirmation of God, precisely because there is more depth... even an "atheist" acting from rational-universal compassion is more spiritual than a fundamentalist acting to convert the universe in the name of a mythic-membership god."
-- Sex, Ecology, Spirituality , p. 250

I take that to heart.

RogerLeeCooke

I too, would like to hear counters to these arguments. They convinced me at age 10 that God was a myth, even though as an adult I really, really tried to swallow Christianity. Now, 50 years on, I think I was wiser at 10, and I've never heard any convincing counterargument to any of your arguments, or several others I could advance.

HumanisTim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by D.H. Cross:
[QB]I'd like to hear counter-arguments to my reasons.

I don't believe in a personal God because:

1. Immortality of the soul is impossible. Most Christains believe that the personality & memory of an individual will go to heaven after death. Yet, what happens when the personality is changed by brain damage or disease? Is the soul "changed", or are we faced to alter our view of soul? One can say that the *true* personality lurks in the background of one who is brain damaged, like a prisoner, or perhaps there is some kind of metaphysical backup of the Self, like a DVD-RAM somewhere deep inside, but I doubtit. If the personality---the soul---can die before the body is dead, then who is it that makes it to heaven?


I'm an atheist too. But I think it be fun to have fun and make up a answer to this. Maybe the soul is like a radio signal and the brain is like the antenna. If a radio antenna gets broken. The radio doesn't work as well then. But the signal doesn't change. I don't really believe in a soul either. But hey its fun coming up with answers.

banditoloco

I'm with DHC and Shawdowy Man in saying that energy must be defined. If the soul is energy in the sense of the word as used in physics, then the sould would have an impact on the universe, as all other forms of energy do. Have the effects of souls been observed thus far? Since the answer is fairly obviously no, how might these effects be measured?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

DarkBronzePlant,
Can you see, touch, smell, hear or taste...
A-Logic?
B-Math?
C-Your own conscious?


Does this mean you don't believe in these things? Most likely not (unless your nihilist).

SOMMS

Pomp

That's not exactly the point, SOMMS. DBP was responding to an allegation that Cross's arguments also supported disbelief in the tree in one's yard by pointing out that the tree has the redeeming feature of being immediately accessible to the senses, unlike any proposed personal god. DBP never claimed that belief is only warranted in such immediately accessible things, merely that the arguments against things that are not accessible do not apply to those things that are accessible.

Jayhawker Soule

In my opinion, they are, at best, entirely secondary. They are arguments against a very specific and rather simplistic God. I can grant every one of your arguments and still walk away a happy theist. Note, for example, that most Pantheons are filled with critters possessing more than their share of limitations and personality defects.
Not in my denial, but perhaps I'm reading too much into the term "spirituality". What do you mean by it?

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

D.H. Cross

In my opinion, they are, at best, entirely secondary. They are arguments against a very specific and rather simplistic God.

*Yes, the arguments are addressed toward the conception of the Christian God. Most try to cast too wide a net and the point is lost.

I can grant every one of your arguments and still walk away a happy theist.

*Really? You can't be a theist if you don't believe in the traditional sense of God! If you insist on another usage of theist then I suppose the whole matter becomes one of debate again. What if we used "theist" to mean the belief in the Force, ala Star Wars? Well, that's not what I think of when I use the word. That is a pantheist to me. I'd use different arguments against pantheism than for pure theism.

"Note, for example, that most Pantheons are filled with critters possessing more than their share of limitations and personality defects."

But here we are talking about polytheism, not just theism in the common usage of the term. Of course the greek gods were more like humans. The monotheistic god has little in common with such deities of pagan myth (unless we go back to the early books of the OT).

Originally posted by D.H. Cross:
"There is more spirituality in reason's denial of God than there is in myth's affirmation of God, precisely because there is more depth ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in my denial, but perhaps I'm reading too much into the term "spirituality". What do you mean by it?

*I don't mean to defend Ken Wilber's world view, but he feels there is a difference between "transrational" religion and "prerational" religion. THe transrational he calls a "deep empiricism" or a "broad science" and uses only meditation as his measure of spirituality.

Gotta go...if you're curious about mr wilber, I'll explain more...

A3

D.H.Cross
Since you asked here are my reactions to your reasons why you don't believe in a personal God.

1. Immortality of the soul is impossible. Most Christains believe that the personality & memory of an individual will go to heaven after death. Yet, what happens when the personality is changed by brain damage or disease? Is the soul "changed", or are we faced to alter our view of soul? One can say that the *true* personality lurks in the background of one who is brain damaged, like a prisoner, or perhaps there is some kind of metaphysical backup of the Self, like a DVD-RAM somewhere deep inside, but I doubt it. If the personality---the soul---can die before the body is dead, then who is it that makes it to heaven?
---
As I understand Swedenborg, we have a soul a mind and a brain (with its body). Via our soul God (Life) flows in and disperses all through our mind and body. We have the faculties of freedom and reason to ‘shape’ our mind. If either is disabled in any way we lack the ability to do any shaping of our mind and then our personality does not die but becomes unconscious. And just because it is unconscious it does not mean nothing is happening. At the death of the body and thus the brain, the mind in so far as it was ‘shaped’ by the person goes to heaven and develops there further. In the meantime this ‘life’ is not useless time because others now have the opportunity to care for and still love a fellow human being.

2. The teachings of the bible must be taken on faith. So what gives it more authority than any other religious text? It was built by comittee, its books arranged by vote in the 3rd century. Faith truly does seem to be best described as a belief without evidence.
—
Although I have not read other religious text I would base it’s higher authority on age, accuracy, on the fact that it has an internal sense, that it has prophesies and stories of God on earth. Your description of how it was treated and interpreted from 325 AD onward is accurate but that is not the Bible’s fault.

3. What kind of a God would allow for such suffering? Why is it that whenever somebody is saved from a burning house by a fireman, but the rest of the family burns, that it is a "miracle"? Why would God save one and allow millions to die horrible deaths? It makes more sense that HE/SHE/IT does not have its hands in mortal affairs at all, but sits back and watches the show. Or, even better, it does not exist. Nature is unkind as often as it is good to us. The Hindu and nature-based Pagan myths make better sense of Gaia than the concept of God.
---
Have you read any accounts of Near Death Experiences or talked to anyone who had one? As usual, the less one knows about something the more horrible it seems to be. Practically all say that it is nothing to be afraid of. Also, suffering seems, just like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

4. Evolution lacks foresight. Bad design is evident. God would not make such mistakes, even for creatures living in a fallen world. CHeck out E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, etc. Their arguments are quite probable. Much more probable than the reality of God anyway.
---
Sorry, I don’t see your reason here.
5. Why would god punish people born into the world who had nothing to do with Original Sin? And how can this punishment be based on events that never occured in history? And if we are to interpret those events as metaphor, it does not remove the weird concept of sexually transmitted guilt. It is absurd. What kind of a silly despot is that?
---
I fully agree with your fifth reason not to except the Orthodox Christian interpretation of God. There is no such thing as “Original Sin.”

Regards
Adriaan