The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion by Calhoun

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I do believe that organized religion should be "stomped out" since the potential for abuse is very high and the benefit of organized religion over personal religion is small.

I've often heard that people oppose "organized" religion. You'll have to explain what this means, and what the difference between that and "personal" religion is.

Also, people can use steak knives to do tremendous evil (cf. with the guy in Japan who killed school kids with one). The mere fact that something might produce bad side effects can't mean that it should be banned. Because then everything would be banned!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
God, to me, is not a judging entity or living father figure, but rather the indifferent order of the universe. Indifference I can deal with, but not the pretense of caring.

That wouldn’t seem to solve your problem though. There are just as many consequences to disobeying the laws of the Universe. We are as much slaves to the laws of the universe as to god.

But the universe doesn't assume some moral high-ground, nor does it threaten us with inescapable hell after we die.

Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.

If we can stand the consequences of our bad choices, we can make them. We don't go to the hot place even though we have no regrets. That's free will to me.

There is nothing to worship, nothing that demands being praised for no reason other than supposedly existing and having made us. (What's to be grateful for in something we had no say in??) None of that self-agrandizing vanity and greed.

Just facts. That's the difference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
God, to me, is not a judging entity or living father figure, but rather the indifferent order of the universe. Indifference I can deal with, but not the pretense of caring.
That wouldn’t seem to solve your problem though. There are just as many consequences to disobeying the laws of the Universe. We are as much slaves to the laws of the universe as to god.

Finn, I've always wanted to disobey a law of the universe, can you explain to me how it's possible?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the universe doesn't assume some moral high-ground, nor does it threaten us with inescapable hell after we die.

It also doesn’t provide use with a heaven after we die or the ability to distinction good from bad. This is just rhetoric.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.

So what? The consequence for making the “wrong” choice is still there. The universe always has moral high-ground. If you don’t believe me, convince yourself you can fly and then jump off a building. See if the universe doesn’t smack you with a dose of its own self-righteous moral high ground.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Finn, I've always wanted to disobey a law of the universe, can you explain to me how it's possible?

You could try to fly. Gravity is likely to take some serious issue with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You mean if I go kill someone because he crossed into my territory or because I wanted to eat him. Or maybe I just thought he looked good to eat, so I just maimed him and left him to die. Or maybe I take control of the country and kill all the children who aren’t born from my sperm. You wouldn’t consider those actions to be evil or at least wrong?

If you or some other civilised human did any of that then sure it's evil. But applied to animals in a natural environmental setting there's a reason for that sort of behaviour.

You're making a mistake by looking at nature and seeing evil, even if you only do it for the sake of argument. There is no evil in nature, the concept of evil only arose once humans became civilised enough to identify behaviour that is detrimental to the overall well-being of a society, and should only be applied in that context. Outside of civilised society there is no evil, and any claims of seeing evil in nature is a case of a person looking at it with 'civilised bias'.

Quote:
God didn’t give man a gun to play with. Man created the gun and how to use it and chooses to use it.

I think you either completely missed the point of the analogy or you're saying that humans created free will (which, assuming the existence of God, would have been created by him).

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I do believe that organized religion should be "stomped out" since the potential for abuse is very high and the benefit of organized religion over personal religion is small.

I've often heard that people oppose "organized" religion. You'll have to explain what this means, and what the difference between that and "personal" religion is.

Organized religion is when there is a structure (say the Catholic Church) that takes a conceptual religion and forces it's interpretations on it's followers and demands their obedience. Personal religion is when you take a conceptual religion and have everyone make what they will of it. I don't dislike the idea of religion so much as the power structure that forms which enforces specific beliefs and compels people (through force of arms, social pressure or some other means) to follow those specific beliefs.

Now of course you can make the argument that people can choose to be part of a organized religion or not, and this is somewhat true, but the organized religions push the concept that you MUST be part of the organization to be a good member of said religion, and most times people are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that the organized religious structure is the way things are supposed to be. When someone is indoctrinated in a belief from the time they can comprehend speech it's much less of a choice.

Quote:
Also, people can use steak knives to do tremendous evil (cf. with the guy in Japan who killed school kids with one). The mere fact that something might produce bad side effects can't mean that it should be banned. Because then everything would be banned!

Right. But here's my point, are there alternatives to steak knives that are less dangerous but do the exact same job at least as well if not better? I think that we have potential alternatives to religion (and I know we have alternatives to organized religions) that are at least as good without the potential for abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the universe doesn't assume some moral high-ground, nor does it threaten us with inescapable hell after we die.
It also doesn’t provide use with a heaven after we die or the ability to distinction good from bad. This is just rhetoric.

It's not. Heaven and hell being absent factors, all we have to consider are the direct consequences of our actions in the here and now.

Good and bad are disctinctions we have drawn from those consequences, those being suffering or pleasure. Our ability to empathize is an integral part to that structure, as well, as it connects the pleasure and suffering of others to our own.

Basic building blocks. No outwardly imposed moral structure that would necessitate an outwardly imposed heaven or hell.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.
So what? The consequence for making the “wrong” choice is still there. The universe always has moral high-ground. If you don’t believe me, convince yourself you can fly and then jump off a building. See if the universe doesn’t smack you with a dose of its own self-righteous moral high ground.

I'm not talking about physical laws. (Those aren't moral, either, btw. They're also indifferent.) I'm talking about human interaction, society, our attitude towards ourselves.

A lot more grey area there, without taking away the concept of consequences.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Finn, I've always wanted to disobey a law of the universe, can you explain to me how it's possible?
You could try to fly. Gravity is likely to take some serious issue with that.

Right, it's not possible. You are saying that rules that cannot be broken are equivalent to rules that can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
If you or some other civilised human did any of that then sure it's evil. But applied to animals in a natural environmental setting there's a reason for that sort of behaviour.

You're making a mistake by looking at nature and seeing evil, even if you only do it for the sake of argument. There is no evil in nature, the concept of evil only arose once humans became civilised enough to identify behaviour that is detrimental to the overall well-being of a society, and should only be applied in that context. Outside of civilised society there is no evil, and any claims of seeing evil in nature is a case of a paerson looking at it with 'civilised bias'.

No I don’t see evil in nature, but I wonder if you can see the implication of your own words. Human beings, as opposed to animals, have the sentient ability to distinguish activity that is detrimental and create a society that seeks to be free of those hardships, if they choose to.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I think you either completely missed the point of the analogy or you're saying that humans created free will (which, assuming the existence of God, would have been created by him).

I got the point, but god didn’t give man a gun, he gave man sentient ability and free thought. How man chooses to use that is not god’s fault.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Right, it's not possible. You are saying that rules that cannot be broken are equivalent to rules that can.

No, I'm saying there are consequences to the actions you take, regardless of whether you blame them on god or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not talking about physical laws. (Those aren't moral, either, btw. They're also indifferent.) I'm talking about human interaction, society, our attitude towards ourselves.

So then you admit that we are a slave to the physical laws of the universe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not talking about physical laws. (Those aren't moral, either, btw. They're also indifferent.) I'm talking about human interaction, society, our attitude towards ourselves.
So then you admit that we are a slave to the physical laws of the universe.

I never said I wasn't. I'm confused as to what this has to do with my point?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I never said I wasn't. I'm confused as to what this has to do with my point?

You’re initial criticism was that people are necessarily a slave to god regardless of their free will. I simply pointed out that we are every bit as much a slave to the universe regardless of our free will.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.

If we can stand the consequences of our bad choices, we can make them. We don't go to the hot place even though we have no regrets. That's free will to me.

If you can stand the consequences of you bad choices, you can make them. This applies as much to religion as to the universe. Accept that in religion, you can choose not to believe in that particular religion. Good luck choosing not to believe gravity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No I don’t see evil in nature, but I wonder if you can see the implication of your own words. Human beings, as opposed to animals, have the sentient ability to distinguish activity that is detrimental and create a society that seeks to be free of those hardships, if they choose to.

Erm... yes? I'm sorry, actually I don't understand the question (or statement). If you're arguing that the thing that makes people civilised is the thing that makes them evil, then I disagree. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote:
I got the point, but god didn’t give man a gun, he gave man sentient ability and free thought. How man chooses to use that is not god’s fault.

Well, that was the point of the analogy in the first place. I'm saying he shares responsibility, and that he is at fault.

God -> free will -> evil.
Irresponsible parent -> gun to child -> oops.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:01 AM

We're talking ethical and moral choices. The kind that actually involve the concept of free will.

Bringing physical laws into this is just lazy!

Not to mention: to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God it matters a lot whether you believe in them or not. So counting the possibility of their existence, it's not really a choice unless you want to suffer in hell for all eternity.

If we're arguing the merits or downsides to God's masterplan, it's kind of silly to say "Well, but you have the choice not to believe!", since the basis of arguing about that masterplan is its validity in terms of God actually existing. Or people actually believing it. And within that context, not believing is not a neutral choice, as you imply.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Well, that was the point of the analogy in the first place. I'm saying he shares responsibility, and that he is at fault.

God -> free will -> evil.

I'm not sure you're going to be able to use a hypothetical syllogism argument here. If we have libertarian freedom (if, that is, we and we alone are responsible for our own decisions), then your argument by hypothetical syllogism won't work. If a human and a human allow is responsible for the way he uses his freedom, God can't be held accountable for the way the human chooses to use that freedom. And if that's the case, then God neither shares responsibility nor is responsible for evil. At most, he is at fault (maybe) for having created free will. And then we're back to the question of whether human freedom is worth the evil that comes along with it (or, for Plantinga, whether it would even be possible to have human freedom without also having evil).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Erm... yes? I'm sorry, actually I don't understand the question (or statement). If you're arguing that the thing that makes people civilised is the thing that makes them evil, then I disagree. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, so I'll leave it at that.

I don’t profess to know what makes people evil, what I do know is that free will allows us to choose, whether that choice is to be civilized or to be evil.

Edited to clarify:
My point is that the ability to see what choices lead to evil, allows us to avoid those choices and instead construct a society freer from those hardship then we would otherwise be.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
]Well, that was the point of the analogy in the first place. I'm saying he shares responsibility, and that he is at fault.

God -> free will -> evil.
Irresponsible parent -> gun to child -> oops.

Is the school that teaches a child science at fault if that child learns how to constructs a nuclear device, does so (setting aside for the moment how he acquired the materials) and detonates it Time Square?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If we're arguing the merits or downsides to God's masterplan, it's kind of silly to say "Well, but you have the choice not to believe!", since the basis of arguing about that masterplan is its validity in terms of God actually existing. Or people actually believing it. And within that context, not believing is not a neutral choice, as you imply.

Then I would say that before your point can be made, you’ll first have to define God’s masterplan, because we can’t discuss the merits or downsides to it, if we don’t know what it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
No. My logic is that the good that comes from religion can come from other sources that do not have to potential (or at least have reduced potential) for abuse. I did not state that religion itself is bad, merely that it (like many other things) can have evil effects. If you can achieve the same (or better) results with something that has less negative side-effects why shouldn't you?

Keeping in mind that I don't disagree with you from a personal perspective; the only "hole" in the logic is that you justify fundamentally denying the existance of god on the basis that religion can be abused. From a "logical" perspective, this doesn't hold up; god exists or doesn't. That religion can be abused does not mean god does not exist. If god exists, it is rational to practice religion. In any case, I'm not attempting to convince you god exists; I'm not clear on the matter myself.

Quote:

I would not shed a tear at the death of religion, but I would not advocate a systematic purge of religion either.

We are pretty much on the same page here.

Quote:
I do believe that organized religion should be "stomped out" since the potential for abuse is very high and the benefit of organized religion over personal religion is small.

It's hard for me to accept this; I don't believe it is possible to have a free society and prevent folks from organizing on this basis. I do not advocate perpetuation of organized religion; in the US for instance I could easily be convinced to treat churches like any other for-profit entity. If that caused some to "go out of business," no lost sleep here. HOWEVER, to avoid state sponsorship of the suppression of religion, I'd be opposed to "higher" taxes being charged to a church than any other similar business.

Quote:
However, religion itself is not something I feel strongly about either way (except when I see another story about an abortion clinic being bombed

I'm pretty strongly against abortion. Having said that, I believe anyone who bombs a clinic should be treated like any other terrorist threat.

Quote:
Agreed, I don't believe I ever said I agreed with Dawkins, in fact I may have posted (and I know I considered posting) a response saying that I think he does more harm then good (at least lately, he used to be pretty kick-ass but then he got religious about his atheism).

I like that, religious about his atheism. Agreed about his current work; not familar with his earlier works.

Quote:
My position, more clearly stated, is that religion is not necessary and is more harmful and less beneficial then some of the alternatives. However, I am all for allowing people to harm themselves, I just don't want it to affect me.

The only qualifier to this I would add is that some of the non-religious alternatives are worse than the better of the religious ones; however, I suspect we are mostly in agreement here.

Quote:

Quote:
To further stipulate, I will maintain that some people lack the intellectual capacity to be a "good human secularist"; if you 'liberate' them from the 'controls' of religion, you can end up with a Stalin.

Agreed...to a much lesser point. Psychopaths exist, this cannot be denied, but religion doesn't necessarily make them any better and in some cases religion can have a hand in creating them (Ed Gein anyone?).

I'm not clear that religion is necessarily a good 'control' for a psychopath either. I'm talking about subtler positions. Keep in mind that should one reject god, a person may not necessarily choose 'secular humanism' or other decent non-theistic approach to life.

Quote:

Quote:
But Stalin is proof positive we should not go clammering off following the lead of an athiest blindly (which I will acknowledge a 'Human secularist' would tend not to given the 'test beliefs' convictions they uphold).

Right, but that's just it, there is no power structure in atheism, there are no prophets there is no reason to follow someone because they are atheist. People didn't follow Stalin because he was an atheist, they followed him because he promised them things they wanted. On the other hand many religions stress obedience to the leaders of the religion giving over control of their lives to someone else.

That's a tough one. The Soviet Union actively discriminated against religions; there was clearly profit in being an atheist. One did not rise high in -anything- if one was overtly religious. Being a strong advocate of the -seperation- of Church and State, I think the Soviets went a bit too far the other way. It's not clear to me that atheism was not the 'state religion' of the Soviet Union to the extent that is 'possible'.

Regarding stressing "obedience to the leaders", you can't possibly be saying Stalin (or for that matter, much of the Soviet govenment for many years after, if perhaps less so "dramatically") did not stress that? At the same time, I will agree that in my opinion -some- organized religions excessively stress giving over too much control of their lives to someone else.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
At most, he is at fault (maybe) for having created free will.

Exactly my point. By creating humans with unbounded free will, he allows evil to flourish. If he's omniscient, he should've seen this design flaw, and if he's omnipotent, he can fix it, and if he's clever about it, humans won't even be able to tell that their free will has limits.

Quote:
And then we're back to the question of whether human freedom is worth the evil that comes along with it (or, for Plantinga, whether it would even be possible to have human freedom without also having evil).

An interesting question indeed, I say definitely 'no' since if our free will is constrained to exclude evil, we wouldn't know that we're less free in the first place. But I look forward to reading up on Platinga and continue discussing this (and your other points) next week.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Is the school that teaches a child science at fault if that child learns how to constructs a nuclear device, does so (setting aside for the moment how he acquired the materials) and detonates it Time Square?

No, that would be because of free will.

But I'm done for today, see you tomorrow.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
No, that would be because of free will.

But knowing that science can be used to construct nuclear bombs, the school must certainly be at fault for teaching children science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Keeping in mind that I don't disagree with you from a personal perspective; the only "hole" in the logic is that you justify fundamentally denying the existance of god on the basis that religion can be abused. From a "logical" perspective, this doesn't hold up; god exists or doesn't. That religion can be abused does not mean god does not exist. If god exists, it is rational to practice religion. In any case, I'm not attempting to convince you god exists; I'm not clear on the matter myself.

How about another alternative then? How about rewriting the holy book of a current religion? Take the Bible strip out the justifications for violence and discrimination, clear up the language to make it unambiguous, add in some disclaimers stating that not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken as literal truth, some of it is metaphorical and strip out the parts that imply blind obedience and BAM! you've got a religion that has an enormously reduced potential for abuse.

Quote:
Quote:
I do believe that organized religion should be "stomped out" since the potential for abuse is very high and the benefit of organized religion over personal religion is small.
It's hard for me to accept this; I don't believe it is possible to have a free society and prevent folks from organizing on this basis.

Agreed, I think the only way to do this would be to convince people that they don't NEED a church leader to tell them what to believe, and that it's a much better idea to come up with their own beliefs rather then bow to the pressure of church.

Quote:
If that caused some to "go out of business," no lost sleep here.

Exactly, if you want to have a giant church in the middle of downtown you should have to pay for it, plain and simple.

Quote:
HOWEVER, to avoid state sponsorship of the suppression of religion, I'd be opposed to "higher" taxes being charged to a church than any other similar business.

Of course.

Quote:
Quote:
Agreed, I don't believe I ever said I agreed with Dawkins, in fact I may have posted (and I know I considered posting) a response saying that I think he does more harm then good (at least lately, he used to be pretty kick-ass but then he got religious about his atheism).
I like that, religious about his atheism. Agreed about his current work; not familar with his earlier works.

He used to (and probably still does) write pop science about evolution, he is a very good pop science writer and can explain parts of evolution that are misinterpreted or confusing quite well. I knew years ago that he was a big advocate of atheism and I agree with him when he says that atheists get a bad rap and aren't treated quite as well as theists. But I don't think that attacking religion is going to help anything and it will only turn people off of his older books that they should be reading.

Quote:
Quote:
My position, more clearly stated, is that religion is not necessary and is more harmful and less beneficial then some of the alternatives. However, I am all for allowing people to harm themselves, I just don't want it to affect me.
The only qualifier to this I would add is that some of the non-religious alternatives are worse than the better of the religious ones; however, I suspect we are mostly in agreement here.

Certainly, there are bad choices everywhere.

Quote:

I'm not clear that religion is necessarily a good 'control' for a psychopath either. I'm talking about subtler positions. Keep in mind that should one reject god, a person may not necessarily choose 'secular humanism' or other decent non-theistic approach to life.

I'll stipulate if you agree that even people who believe in god may choose lifestyles or goals that are detrimental to society.

Quote:
[/quote[
Right, but that's just it, there is no power structure in atheism, there are no prophets there is no reason to follow someone because they are atheist. People didn't follow Stalin because he was an atheist, they followed him because he promised them things they wanted. On the other hand many religions stress obedience to the leaders of the religion giving over control of their lives to someone else.

That's a tough one. The Soviet Union actively discriminated against religions; there was clearly profit in being an atheist. One did not rise high in -anything- if one was overtly religious.

Sure...but. There is a clear advantage to being an atheist IF you already are following him. Once again, atheism is not the reason people followed him, they became atheists because they followed him. Though doubtless some of the more militant atheists probably supported him BECAUSE he was an atheist I'd bet they were in the minority by a wide margin.

Quote:
Being a strong advocate of the -seperation- of Church and State, I think the Soviets went a bit too far the other way. It's not clear to me that atheism was not the 'state religion' of the Soviet Union to the extent that is 'possible'.

I think the wiki entry on religion in Russia made it pretty clear.

Quote:
Regarding stressing "obedience to the leaders", you can't possibly be saying Stalin (or for that matter, much of the Soviet govenment for many years after, if perhaps less so "dramatically") did not stress that?

Certainly Stalin stressed it, but not because he was an atheist. He stressed it because he was a dictator. Dawkins is about the closest thing there is to an atheist evangelist and he doesn't say that people should obey him or obey atheism, he just says that atheism is the most reasonable choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
How about another alternative then? How about rewriting the holy book of a current religion? Take the Bible strip out the justifications for violence and discrimination, clear up the language to make it unambiguous, add in some disclaimers stating that not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken as literal truth, some of it is metaphorical and strip out the parts that imply blind obedience and BAM! you've got a religion that has an enormously reduced potential for abuse.

I had almost suggested this myself; however, I'm not sufficiently involved in anything you would recognize as an organized religion to allow for my participation in the same. No beef from me on this; however, you gotta sell this to the folks with the 'control' of the 'books'.

Quote:
Quote:

I'm not clear that religion is necessarily a good 'control' for a psychopath either. I'm talking about subtler positions. Keep in mind that should one reject god, a person may not necessarily choose 'secular humanism' or other decent non-theistic approach to life.

I'll stipulate if you agree that even people who believe in god may choose lifestyles or goals that are detrimental to society.

:-) Absolutely.

fred "Right, but that's just it, there is no power structure in atheism, there are no prophets there is no reason to follow someone because they are atheist. People didn't follow Stalin because he was an atheist, they followed him because he promised them things they wanted. On the other hand many religions stress obedience to the leaders of the religion giving over control of their lives to someone else."

lead "That's a tough one. The Soviet Union actively discriminated against religions; there was clearly profit in being an atheist. One did not rise high in -anything- if one was overtly religious."

fred "Sure...but. There is a clear advantage to being an atheist IF you already are following him. Once again, atheism is not the reason people followed him, they became atheists because they followed him. Though doubtless some of the more militant atheists probably supported him BECAUSE he was an atheist I'd bet they were in the minority by a wide margin."

At the begining, yes. I suppose my point is he (well, participated in with the other communists of the time) -created- what was effectively an organization which, via reward and punishment by the government/economic system, steared people to atheism. One could claim to be a "communist" but religious and be "outside" this structure (of course, Soviets defined 'communism' such it required you to be atheistic, but I am fairly confident that not all "communist" countries required this; thus it is diffult for me to separate the two here). Additionally, this gave atheists (and of course, hypocrits and those willing to subvert the system from within by pretending to be atheists) a 'power structure' to use. Of course, these people also had to be communists (or again, pretend for whatever reason). So we have here an example of a power structure available to communistic atheists. This power structure was -not- available to those known to be religiously inclined, "communist" or not.

leadb "Being a strong advocate of the -seperation- of Church and State, I think the Soviets went a bit too far the other way. It's not clear to me that atheism was not the 'state religion' of the Soviet Union to the extent that is 'possible'."

fred "I think the wiki entry on religion in Russia made it pretty clear."
So... perhaps you do agree with my above observation, and I'm somewhat guilty of beating the equine corpse. Or perhaps you will say the communists established the above not -because- they were atheists, but instead because they wanted to preserve the 'power' for the 'communists' (though this -particular- 'brand' of communism also required you to be atheistic). Which might draw back to the conclusion 'atheists may make poor choices too' above.

leadb"Regarding stressing "obedience to the leaders", you can't possibly be saying Stalin (or for that matter, much of the Soviet govenment for many years after, if perhaps less so "dramatically") did not stress that?"

fred "Certainly Stalin stressed it, but not because he was an atheist. He stressed it because he was a dictator."

We might have to simply disagree on this point, but I'll take one more refinement. I'm willing to maintain that for the most part those who stress this in organized religion do not do so because they are religious, but rather because they wish to exersize and preserve their power. I will concede that a religious leader is more likely to imbed this into the "formal crede", but this is not 'religion', this is 'manipulation of religion'. I concede this is not a 'provable' point, so this might simply be something we disagree on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
At most, he is at fault (maybe) for having created free will.
Exactly my point. By creating humans with unbounded free will, he allows evil to flourish. If he's omniscient, he should've seen this design flaw, and if he's omnipotent, he can fix it, and if he's clever about it, humans won't even be able to tell that their free will has limits.

See? This is why I brought up the logical problem of evil! Your arguments come directly out of that playbook. You should read J.L. Mackie--he's the guy who gave the logical problem its classic formulation.

Well, I don't think that you quite picked up on what I meant when I said "at fault (maybe)." What I intended by that is that on a libertarian understanding of free will, your hypothetical syllogism breaks down such that God is not the cause of the evil in the world.

You are clearly right about this, though: God does allow evil to flourish in the world. Typically the advocate of the logical problem is going to maintain that this means that either 1) God is not omnipotent (he can't prevent the evil) or that 2) He isn't omnibonevolent. The advocate of the logical problem says that evil, omnipotence and omnibenevolence can't coexist. This, of course doesn't quite work, because those things are explicitly or implicitly contradictory (read my essay, or better yet, Plantinga's book for a better explication of that notion). And this is exactly what Plantinga has established.

If that tack won't work, we have to look at the other elements.

One is "design flaw." This presupposes that free will that results in evil is a flawed in some respect. But I would maintain that free will that can't result in evil isn't free will at all! Because the will is constrained in some significant way (namely, with respect to moral choices). Now suppose that God wanted to create a world with free creatures. As you say, if he's omniscient, he would have known that this would result in evil being brought into the world. But suppose, for the moment, for the sake of argument, that the having of free will outwieghs the moral evil that comes about as a result of that free will. If that is true (which we are assuming for the moment), then God was not wrong to create humans with free will even though he knew that that would mean the creation of evil. It seems to be at least be possible that this is the case. So the defender of atheism would have to show why that's not even possible.

The second objection you raised is that if God was omnibenevolent, he would have fixed this situation. But suppose that he couldn't? Most philosophers maintain that God, if he exists, is omnibenevolent, by which they mean that he can do anything that is logically possible. Creating a human man who is 15 feet tall is logically possible (because a man's height is not essential to his being) but creating a human man who is a cat is not logically possible (because being a human is essential to the nature of a man's being). Likewise, God couldn't create a triangle with four sides, because having three sides is what defines a thing as being a triangle. It could turn out that it's not possible to create a world with free creatures but with no moral evil. Certainly there are such possible worlds. But it might be the case that God couldn't have brought those into existence because doing so is logically impossible (for a more adequate explanation, check out my paper). I don't have time to get into why that might be, but it is at least possible that God couldn't have create a world with moral good but no moral evil.

I understand your objection, "Why couldn't God have constrained our wills such that we are free except in moral choices?" But I think that libertarian freedom of the will is essential to the nature of what it means to be human. God could certainly have made such creatures, but whatever they would have been, they wouldn't have been humans as I understand the term. Of course, I also think that in addition to giving philosophical answers to these questions, theological ones can be given. The trouble is that theological answers don't satisfy people who don't accept the theology to begin with. So I guess I'm stuck with philosophy. Good thing I'm OK at it, I guess!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
No beef from me on this; however, you gotta sell this to the folks with the 'control' of the 'books'.

Geh, just the thought makes my head hurt.

Quote:
At the begining, yes. I suppose my point is he (well, participated in with the other communists of the time) -created- what was effectively an organization which, via reward and punishment by the government/economic system, steared people to atheism.

Sure, but they are Communists who happen to be atheists pushing atheism, not atheists who happen to Communists pushing atheism...do you see the difference? My point is that atheism in itself does not indicate that you should follow the orders or beliefs of anyone else, where many religions stress the importance of obedience.

Quote:
(of course, Soviets defined 'communism' such it required you to be atheistic, but I am fairly confident that not all "communist" countries required this; thus it is diffult for me to separate the two here)

Basically the creators of Communism disliked religion, I don't think that atheism was stressed as a necessary part of Communism (though I may be wrong) but it was generally accepted that a true Communist should owe allegiance only to the state.

Quote:
Additionally, this gave atheists (and of course, hypocrits and those willing to subvert the system from within by pretending to be atheists) a 'power structure' to use.

Right, but again the atheism was incidental, the power structure was based off of Communism, it was much more important that you were a good Communist then a good atheist. If the Communists had decided to push Catholocism, Protestantism, Islam or Scientology the power structure would have been identical.

Quote:
So... perhaps you do agree with my above observation, and I'm somewhat guilty of beating the equine corpse. Or perhaps you will say the communists established the above not -because- they were atheists, but instead because they wanted to preserve the 'power' for the 'communists'

Right, the power structure was for Communists, they just happened to require that people be atheists too. It's certainly not a shining example of atheism but it's far from a push for power structure coming from atheism.

Quote:
We might have to simply disagree on this point, but I'll take one more refinement. I'm willing to maintain that for the most part those who stress this in organized religion do not do so because they are religious, but rather because they wish to exersize and preserve their power.

Sure, but many religions set the groundwork by insisting on unquestioning obedience making the believers easy to control. My contention is that atheism lacks a push for obedience and thus does not encourage the ability to gather that sort of power in the first place.

Quote:
I will concede that a religious leader is more likely to imbed this into the "formal crede", but this is not 'religion', this is 'manipulation of religion'. I concede this is not a 'provable' point, so this might simply be something we disagree on.

But what if unquestioning obedience IS part of the religion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:17 AM

Causal:

Wouldn't it be possible to create man with free will but a strong instinctual impulse towards good? Not necessarily eliminating evil but giving a much better result then we have now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Maybe. But I think that at least one of the reasons why we do such a lousy job at behaving ourselves morally is because we are imperfect in our ability to understand the moral law, its implications for our behavior and how it applies in given situation. It's obviously the case that God could have made humans with the capacity to perfectly understand the moral law, its implications, and its applicability. But again, I take imperfection to be part of what's essential to the nature of being human, so whatever else he might have created, if it could reason perfectly, it wouldn't have been human in the sense that I understand it.

Of course, I hope everybody realizes that I make no demand on anyone to accept what I say as true. The most I'm hoping for is an acknowledgement that I have solid reasons for believing what I do, and that we'll all be able to respect the dignity of the others by permitting them their own beliefs.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Sure, but many religions set the groundwork by insisting on unquestioning obedience making the believers easy to control. My contention is that atheism lacks a push for obedience and thus does not encourage the ability to gather that sort of power in the first place.

You say 'many', I'd say 'some'.
Atheism lacks such a push, I will grant. 'Religion' may or may not.

Quote:
But what if unquestioning obedience IS part of the religion?

Then I'd likely have a problem with -that- religion. I would also likely suspect that the establisher of the religion was not a true believer, but instead using religion for power (again, not always true; but I'm not sure it is material to our discussion either).

Re: Soviets: Did a bit of reading on communism at wiki (so you know it must be true ;-); and there is an entry for "religious communism". I'm personally satisfied that the Soviet establishment prior to it's demise qualified, in my humble opinion, as an "atheistic" power structure, primarily on the grounds that it actively blocked the participation of the religious and generally worked to the active suppression of religion. Were they indifferent to religion, then I would withdraw that opinion. I can see how you would believe otherwise.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:45 AM

Causal:
Just curious, lets say I work thru the 'proof' that you reference; it establishs such a God is not logisticaly denied. However, it does not posit one exists? So we are back to the leap of faith?

I have the one advantage that I have no particular interest in disproving the existance of God; he's perfectly well able to take of his own existance.

[final comment deleted: off topic, and I really dont' want to take the thread there]

[Second edit to add:]
Causal "The most I'm hoping for is an acknowledgement that I have solid reasons for believing what I do, and that we'll all be able to respect the dignity of the others by permitting them their own beliefs."
Realizing this is likely not aimed at me in particular, but I'm happy to grant your 'solid reasons'. I'll go further to say I wish I shared the planet with more folks with similar reasoning and approach; despite not always reaching the same conclusions :-)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Causal:
Just curious, lets say I work thru the 'proof' that you reference; it establish such a God is not logisticaly denied. However, it does not posit one exists? So we are back to the leap of faith?

Short answer: no. If Plantinga is right (and most theist and atheist philosophers alike agree that he is) then all he has established is that it is not logically impossible for God to exist. But that's all he's really going for. The logical problem of evil concludes that it is impossible for God to exist and for evil exist. Plantinga's Free Will Defense establishes that that's not the case. But as you say, that doesn't establish that God does exist, only that it's possible that he does. And that's all I want, because that means that I'm not illogical in believing that he does.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:53 AM

Thanks. Yeh, I'll grant that. We be cool.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Re: Soviets: Did a bit of reading on communism at wiki (so you know it must be true ;-); and there is an entry for "religious communism". I'm personally satisfied that the Soviet establishment prior to it's demise qualified, in my humble opinion, as an "atheistic" power structure, primarily on the grounds that it actively blocked the participation of the religious and generally worked to the active suppression of religion. Were they indifferent to religion, then I would withdraw that opinion. I can see how you would believe otherwise.

Minor disagreement, I'm good with agreeing to disagree at this point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:20 PM

Second double post ever...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:26 PM

Guess I wasn't done for today after all. But I'll done for today after this one.

Finn:

Schools don't teach the students how to construct nuclear bombs, and no student could construct one with the knowledge gained from the school environment.

Now let's say, hypothetically, that schools taught students everything about science, including how to build nuclear bombs. Then they (together with free will

) would bear responsibility if students started building nuclear bombs, and people would be calling for schools to stop teaching such things. The argument would be for schools to still teach the students science, preferably a lot of science, but not enough for them to be able to build nuclear bombs. Similar to my argument.

Causal:

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Exactly my point. By creating humans with unbounded free will, he allows evil to flourish. If he's omniscient, he should've seen this design flaw, and if he's omnipotent, he can fix it, and if he's clever about it, humans won't even be able to tell that their free will has limits.
See? This is why I brought up the logical problem of evil! Your arguments come directly out of that playbook. You should read J.L. Mackie--he's the guy who gave the logical problem its classic formulation.

An unfortunate use of conjunction on my part. My hypotheses are that there is a God who is omniscient and omnipotent (and all the other standard qualities except evidently omnibenevolence), but from the way I worded that sentence you're right in thinking that I was questioning his omniscience and omnipotence and in that case you were right to bring up the logical problem. I'll rephrase my sentence slightly:

By creating humans with unbounded free will, he allows evil to flourish. Since he's omniscient, he should've seen this design flaw, and since he's omnipotent, he can fix it, and if he's clever about it, humans won't even be able to tell that their free will has limits.

Apologies for not being clear.

Basically, since he has the power to have initially prevented humanity's capacity for evil by limiting free will from the get-go, or limiting free will after seeing all the carnage that results from unlimited free will (which he already would have known about in the beginning due to omniscience), it follows that since humanity still has the capacity for evil, and exercises it freely, that this must be part of God's plan, and since God's plan goes against the well-being of humanity, why should humanity worship him? People can believe in him if they wish, but why the worship?

But Causal, you keep referring to Pantinga's arguments and I first want to read your essay and read up on Plantinga before responding to your posts properly, then I could give the detailed responses they deserve. I'll only be able to do that after my exams end on Wednesday though, so if it's alright with you I'd like to put this discussion on hold until then, and hopefully you won't have already moved on to some other discussions.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
By creating humans with unbounded free will, he allows evil to flourish. Since he's omniscient, he should've seen this design flaw, and since he's omnipotent, he can fix it, and if he's clever about it, humans won't even be able to tell that their free will has limits.

Yeah, I thought I had responded to this one, but I guess I didn't do it clearly enough. Basically, this whole argument turns on the assumption that free will resulting in moral evil is flawed. But why assume this? Prima facie, it seems obvious, given our perspective. But suppose there's some overriding reason why God created humans with a type of will that result in moral evil. Suppose we can call units of evil "turps" (following Plantinga) and suppose we can call units of good "gorps." Suppose that by creating creatures with a will that did not result in moral evil, God would have created a world with 0 turps and 15 gorps. And suppose further that by creating creatures with a will that results in moral evil, God would have created a world with 50 turps but 1,000 gorps. Surely this latter is the better of the two worlds. For although there is some evil in it, there is far more good than evil, and for more good than there would have been in the alternate world. I guess I just don't buy that a will that results in some moral evil really is of necessity flawed in some way, because I can easily see how it might turn out that the world is better with the "flawed" will than without.

Quote:
Basically, since he has the power to have initially prevented humanity's capacity for evil by limiting free will from the get-go, or limiting free will after seeing all the carnage that results from unlimited free will (which he already would have known about in the beginning due to omniscience), it follows that since humanity still has the capacity for evil, and exercises it freely, that this must be part of God's plan, and since God's plan goes against the well-being of humanity, why should humanity worship him? People can believe in him if they wish, but why the worship?

Whoa, and we've just moved from philosophical to theological (which is an area where, like LeadB, I'm hesitant to go). I can say at least this: if God is perfect (and I think most religions take him to be) then above anything else, he is worthy of adulation. That's about all I've got philosophically on your question. I wouldn't mind discussing it in another format, but I fear that it would just be incendiary here. As with LeadB, we've seem to come to both an understanding and an impasse. And, as with LeadB, I feel that we're at a point where I could still have a jolly good time with you over a pint or two!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Schools don't teach the students how to construct nuclear bombs, and no student could construct one with the knowledge gained from the school environment.

I knew how to build a nuclear bomb by the end of High School. It’s not as hard as you think it is. And you don’t need to be taught “how” to build one, any student with a basic knowledge of first year college Physics, Chemistry and Calculus can figure it out. And this represents the basic “hard” science curricula taught to students in the United States. (The trick is the materials; which we actually do try to protect, so this isn’t the best analogy in application, but you don’t need a nuclear bomb to do evil.) It’s even easier to build a gun, and easier still to build a conventional explosive bomb. We don’t have to be omniscient to know that someone will use this knowledge for evil, and we don’t have to omnipotent to set up society so that our students never learn the tools that they can use to build bombs or guns. By teaching our children we allow evil to flourish. So we should stop teaching our children?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If we're arguing the merits or downsides to God's masterplan, it's kind of silly to say "Well, but you have the choice not to believe!", since the basis of arguing about that masterplan is its validity in terms of God actually existing. Or people actually believing it. And within that context, not believing is not a neutral choice, as you imply.

Then I would say that before your point can be made, you’ll first have to define God’s masterplan, because we can’t discuss the merits or downsides to it, if we don’t know what it is.

I find it interesting that you choose to respond to this bit and ignore everything else, such as the fact that your focus on physical laws is completely invalid to the question of free will.

Ignore the masterplan bit. I was merely making a point about the fact that your argument of "But with religion you can choose not to believe it!" was just as invalid, because within a particular religion, everything is irrelevant unless you believe it. In particular if that particular religion makes not believing a punishable problem of itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I find it interesting that you choose to respond to this bit and ignore everything else, such as the fact that your focus on physical laws is completely invalid to the question of free will.

No, it’s not. You claimed that a person is a slave to a religion regardless of free will, because there are consequences applied to the choices that person makes. But there are consequences applied to anyone’s choices as a fundamental rule of nature, regardless of religion. So therefore, we are a slave to nature. But then you claimed that we aren’t slaves to nature because we can choose to accept the consequences, but the same is true of a religion, so therefore we aren’t slaves to religion. Can you see how I might be a little confused with your argument? How do you reconcile this?

Also to all:

This has been an extremely interesting discussion, and I’ve enjoyed it, but I have a commitment tonight so my participation must end here, until I have more time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I find it interesting that you choose to respond to this bit and ignore everything else, such as the fact that your focus on physical laws is completely invalid to the question of free will.

No, it’s not. You claimed that a person is a slave to a religion regardless of free will, because there are consequences applied to the choices that person makes. But there are consequences applied to anyone’s choices as a fundamental rule of nature, regardless of religion. So therefore, we are a slave to nature. But then you claimed that we aren’t slaves to nature because we can choose to accept the consequences, but the same is true of a religion, so therefore we aren’t slaves to religion. Can you see how I might be a little confused with your argument? How do you reconcile this?

I never said that we aren't, in essence, slaves to the fact that there are consequences to actions.

I am merely saying that God expects us to love him for being a slaver and he could have well just left out the free will thing if he won't let people use it without bad consequences. It's a selfish child that says "Free will! But if you don't choose this one path, it's eternal damnation! [s]Mwahahaha.[/s]"

The mere universe, on the other hand, is neutral, without expectations. There is no hypocrisy of love, or vanity. It's not sentient. It's just a place with a set of rules.

Does anyone, when questioning free will, actually consider physical laws? They are not subject to will or choice. Why do you keep bringing them up? God doesn't attach moral judgment to physical laws and neither do we. It's the things that involve our conscious choices that we judge and that's what we refer to when talking about free will.

And I think that we are less limited in our exercise of free will without the visions of hell after death hanging overhead.

If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:33 PM

First, I would like to reiterate that I do not go to church, I have not given myself to God and I don't regularly go around preaching because
a)nobody listens to anything I say anyhow, so I don't feel the need to preach religion.

b) I admit that I don't have a clue myself so to preach God's word would be very hypocritical of me.

I just get kind of pissed off when my youngest brother (who is living at a math and science academy his Junior and Senior year of highschool) says there is no god because that's what a majority of his "people" believe. He's got a Spagetti Monster T-Shirt and it's the wallpaper on his computer. He carrys around a Bible and quotes the most horriffic lines in it to people all the time. I agree with Cit that Atheism is not a religion, but when I see things like this I start thinking that it is becoming very religion-like.... especailly when you have atheists going door to door trying to preach atheism. I know it's a joke when they do it today, but who knows? Tomorrow there might be thousands of Atheists going door to door preaching why there is no God at all. Anyhow, I think 15 years old is way too young to be so adamant about anything let alone the existance or lacktherof of God, especially considering that science has never (and according to Cit, can never) prove that God doesn't exist.

I see how it would be easy for people to hate God. Life is tough. It doesn't matter who you are. Even if your rich and powerful, your yacht engine breaks down at the most inoppurtune time. Blame it on the rain, blame it on chance, blame it on God... it's just easy to do.

Now in the hypothetical circumstance that there is a God, he did not create the evil in the hearts of man, but he knew from the beginning when he gave us free will that not only were we capable of great evil inside of us, but it would ultimately be the end of his creation. This saddens God, but he realizes that it is better for the people to maintain their free will than to be mindless zombies always making the "right" choices and living in Utopia. What good is Utopia if you're incapable of recognizing how wonderful it is because there is no alternative? You can't have light without dark, you can't have good without evil, you can't enjoy pleasure if you've never felt pain.

This is what the American Government and I assume the UK Government and most of Europe is trying to do now. They're legislating morality everyday and trying to take away the human element of humanity. (Traffic cams, taxing the hell out of cigarettes and booze, marajuana illegality, "click it or ticket", etc., etc., etc....) To understand more what I'm trying to say, I recommend reading an old Sci-Fi book called "Jesus on Mars" by Phillip Jose Farmer. (I neglected to leave the Wikepidia link on the book because it really is good and it would be a shame to ruin it by reading a few paragraph blog about it. Feel free to Wiki it yourself though if you don't want to read it). Just so you know, it is a very anti-religious satirical book so I'm not trying to make anybody read the Bible here.

To say that God is evil because man is evil is not only not knowing the full story, but it is blatently ignoring it and doing whatever you can to avoid knowing it. It is nothnig more than wearing ignorance like a badge of honor. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone was good because to live in that world we would all have to be animals... mere pets. We would live purely via instinct and would never make any decisions for ourselves. This is my main problem with perscription drugs today, especially after reading "Brave New World" and watching movies like Equilibrium.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me.

This is assuming that you are incapable of guilt and conscience free. Hannibal Lechter lived a life without regret.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I just get kind of pissed off when my youngest brother (who is living at a math and science academy his Junior and Senior year of highschool) says there is no god because that's what a majority of his "people" believe.

Question: Would you be pissed off if he believed in god because that what his people believe? If no, doesn't that seem hypocritical?

Quote:
but when I see things like this I start thinking that it is becoming very religion-like

I see it too, and being an atheist it's kind of annoying.

Quote:
especailly when you have atheists going door to door trying to preach atheism. I know it's a joke when they do it today, but who knows? Tomorrow there might be thousands of Atheists going door to door preaching why there is no God at all.

Question again: Do you have a problem with theists going door-to-door preaching religion? If no doesn't that seem hypocritical?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Question: Would you be pissed off if he believed in god because that what his people believe? If no, doesn't that seem hypocritical?

No, I would not be pissed off about it because it's not with snarky or bad intent if he believed in God because of his "people". I don't believe that a majority of Atheists are anything like how he is acting. Neither do I believe that most people who buy into a particular religion are anything like how he's acting. He's acting like a little asshole about it, quoting shitty lines out of the Bible that he barely understands, and that's what really pisses me off. That Spaghetti Monster thing is like a damn Nike Symbol on his chest and it seems almost like he's doing it because that's what the smart kids do to be cool. He'll realize one day, like I did, that you don't know everything when you're 15, no matter how much you think you do. It wasn't that long ago for me that my world was turned upside down and I relized that the more I knew, the more questions I had. At the end of the day, I really don't know shit.

Quote:
Me: but when I see things like this I start thinking that it is becoming very religion-like

Quote:
You: I see it too, and being an atheist it's kind of annoying.

Heh.... yeah. It's kind of like being a big fan of a band when they're underground and then they have this huge hit and are the big thing all summer and then you look like you're trendy for wearing the same band shirt you've had for the last five years.

Quote:
Question again: Do you have a problem with theists going door-to-door preaching religion? If no doesn't that seem hypocritical?

I've actually had this discussion with my brother before. No I don't have a problem with people of a particular faith preaching door to door. I have turned them away before. The Johova's Witnesses frequent my apartment complex and I've had to turn them away multiple times before. No biggie. There's a difference when Atheists do it, though and that's because they do it out of spite, not love or caring. Now I'm not trying to say that Athiests are uncaring or incapable of love at all, nor am I trying to imply that religious folk are in any way more caring or loving, but what would be the real reason for an Atheist to go door to door other than to piss people off? A true believer certainly isn't going to convert because a non believer is speaking to them. They do it with big smirks like my brother's and they're trying to get under religious folk's skin.

I get a vibe off of you that you're an Atheiest who doesn't feel the need to proclaim to the world that you are and try to convert others. I'm thinking you just don't care. There's no God, and that's the end of it. It's not some cool little club you belong to. I don't understand how somebody could ever come right out and say with conviction that there is no God, but that's freedom, aint' it?

I don't know.... it just seems to me that if Atheists start banding together and start forming groups and communities, it's completely besides the point. Did you see that South Park where Cartman went into the future to get the Nintendo WII? There was no religion in the future, but the different sects of scientific atheists were fighting and killing each other in the name of Science. This all just seems vaguley familiar to me.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I get a vibe off of you that you're an Atheiest who doesn't feel the need to proclaim to the world that you are and try to convert others.

Yes. If the issue comes up I will present my views and correct others when they are factually wrong, but as far as I'm concerned the only time I care about someone else's religion is when it affects me.

Quote:
I'm thinking you just don't care. There's no God, and that's the end of it. It's not some cool little club you belong to.

Meh, not really. If you want to get technical about labels I'm a Strong Agnostic-Apatheist combo, meaning I don't believe there is a god but I don't deny the possibility that I'm wrong, but in the end I don't care anyway. If you want to get specific about my actual beliefs then I'd tack on that I think that if there is a god then we don't have the slightest clue as to it's true nature or intentions, we aren't special to it and all the religions we've made up were exactly that, made up. It's just a hell of a lot easier to simply say "I'm an atheist" rather then try to explain my actual beliefs when the next sentence from the person I'm talking to is going to be the same thing either way "You don't really mean it though right?".

Quote:
I don't understand how somebody could ever come right out and say with conviction that there is no God, but that's freedom, aint' it?

I see no evidence that there is a god, I see no reason why we need a god. The absence of need means that there doesn't have to be a god, and the absence of evidence indicates that there is not a god.

To me the existence of the gods of our religions raises more questions then it answers, and the existence of a god that hasn't seen fit to give us "divinely inspired" rules to follow is simply irrelevant to everyday life anyway.

Quote:
I don't know.... it just seems to me that if Atheists start banding together and start forming groups and communities, it's completely besides the point.

I can see where you are coming from. The thing is though that churches serve as social hangouts as well as religious buildings, so atheists that form groups like that are trying to recreate the social aspect that they don't necessarily get otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Me: but when I see things like this I start thinking that it is becoming very religion-like

Quote:
You: I see it too, and being an atheist it's kind of annoying.

Heh.... yeah. It's kind of like being a big fan of a band when they're underground and then they have this huge hit and are the big thing all summer and then you look like you're trendy for wearing the same band shirt you've had for the last five years.

Not so much really, it just seems like we're selling out, stooping to a lower level by proselytizing like theists. I understand why people are doing it though, particularly Dawkins, he's been part of the evolution "debate" for a long time and he sees a constant stream of people who have been misinformed, underinformed or outright lied to in the name of religion regarding evolution. At the same time he's annoyed because atheists get treated differently from everyone else, atheism is not a religion but it is a religious choice and the choice of atheism gets much less respect then the other choices. If I told people I was a Buddhist almost no one would comment on it, but if I tell them I'm an atheist they usually say "You don't really mean it though right?" and "How can you possibly not believe there's not a god?" and my favorite "Well you must just not have heard the Word then, because if you had you'd never doubt". Part of Dawkin's goals in his crusade that he's on now is to get people to respect atheism whether they agree with it or not, though I think that goal has fallen by the wayside.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:33 PM

I'm pretty much in agreement or can at the very least sympathize with everything you've said here.

My only thing is about athiest forming groups to recreate the social aspect they don't get otherwise. I just dont' get it. If there isn't a God, and that's what they believe, fine. There's plenty of things that people, no matter what they believe or choose not to believe, can get together and do. Things where religion would most likely not come up. I rarely get into religion with anyone in the "real world" except for my Grandma, who's an old school Episcopalian who's always trying to get me to church and my little brother and his damn Spaghetti monster. I can't even recall anytime where I was out with friends ever that religion ever came up, although there may have been a forgotten night or two where we were all stoned out of our minds and the subject came up. The truth is, 98% of the time, no matter what you're doing, religion is a subject that will never come up. I just find it almost comical that Atheists would even want to get together simply because a disbelief in God is the only common ground they share from the start. I'm an un-confirmed Catholic and I've known plenty of Catholics that I think are assholes that I'd never want to share a room with. I guess I'd have to be of the Atheist mindset to really understand.

About your second post though. I should apologize for calling Athiests idiots (or whatever terms I used), although I still think that the closemindedness that 100% disbelief embodies is completely flawed. That was more me ranting about my brother than anything else and it is unfair of me. I know you know what I'm saying.... being that in actuality you wouldn't even classify yourself as an Athiest but simply do because it's easier than telling everyone the 3 paragraphs that follow when you tell them what you really think.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:13 PM