The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Ah, a world without religion
rustylime.com — Religion should never be given the benefit of the doubt. Just because it worships one god over another, claims past miracles or fulfilled prophecies and is exempt from taxation, does not mean that your one religion is more likely to purify your soul over another.
MrBabyMan- 923 diggs
- digg it
- jeremyduffy, on 08/19/2008, -29/+127"To completely circumvent logic in the place of religious belief is denying the very thing that makes you able to worship, your brain."
This guy is right on. I've always said that "to believe in something with NO PROOF is idiotic". Keep in mind that people can have personal proof such as they believe in ghosts because they've had recurring dreams for years where they talked to their dead mother and learned things only she could know. I would at least respect that belief even if I didn't believe it myself.
But to say that you took a "leap of faith" is to say you had "your way with logic and truth" for the sake of feeling more comfy about the universe and your place in it.- macweirdo42, on 08/19/2008, -9/+68No proof? Hell, there's no evidence. That's what boggles my mind. It's not like "Hey, I had a talk with a dude who claimed to be the Son of God, and he said all these really profound things and performed miracles that I can't explain. I can't prove he's the Son of God, but I have reason to believe he is." It's "I read in a book about some guy 2,000 years ago who claims to have met someone who claims to be the Son of God."
That's what I don't get. Why on Earth would anyone be so sure of something based on third-hand accounts? I mean, if someone claims to have had a personal experience, completely unrelated to any religious text, that is the origin of their personal beliefs, I may be suspicious of their claims, but certainly, I would not fault them for their beliefs. I mean, I think that would be a perfectly natural reaction to being faced with something you can't explain. But no one in this day and age has any such experiences - they just go along with whatever their pastor tells them.- jeremyduffy, on 08/19/2008, -3/+27Exactly. At least personal evidence is evidence and that can be debated as to what it really means, but to say something is true with no reason at all... well it's no wonder you can't have an intelligent conversation with someone like that because they don't have any evidence to argue!
- btschul, on 08/20/2008, -10/+9Alot of people do have personal evidence. There has been an event in their life that they believe can only be explained by the existence of a higher power. A "miracle" of some sort.
- estvir, on 08/20/2008, -43/+7The evidence is the Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, etc and they are not [only] third hand accounts.
- Risingashes, on 08/20/2008, -3/+29@estvir: Yes they are.
---
The thing about people who believe in religion is that they choose to suspend disbelief. It's not about convincing them that there is no God- they purposefully delude themselves so they can avoid the crushing weight of a limited existence and the sorrow that comes from losing those they care about.
You try explaining to a kid that mommy is rotting in the ground and you'd likely want to push eternal life as well. I'd much prefer to be able to believe in fairy tales and Santa Claus, I just can't. - WoollyMittens, on 08/20/2008, -8/+17Hey estvir, what part of your bible was written by god himself again? Keep the faith bible-boy... it's all you have.
- jeremyduffy, on 08/20/2008, -2/+6@btschul: That's the point that both Macweirdo and I were making. Personal evidence can be "respectable" because then at aleast we can argue the truth of your interpretation, but no evidence can't. Someone who believes with no evidence is the worst sort of religious bully. See here:
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?dat ... - topgigmedia, on 08/20/2008, -2/+10Some people find comfort in a pack-like setting where they do not ultimately have to feel responsible for their own thoughts and past demons. How great is it that you can lead a vial life and then one day claim you believe in Jesus as your savior - which in return wipes your slate clean?
Belief in religion or a higher god/man-like persona or power is likely wired into all of us to some degree and is one of the brain's defense mechanisms to cope with the anxieties of our own deaths - the ultimate end, our moral failings, and explain why the world is seemingly cruel. Believing that there is some pristine, divine place (aka heaven) after you die helps likely is enough for some to carry on in this world. For others it is a cloak of denial to hide behind and manipulate for their own purposes whether diabolical or perceived as good.
Clearly the idea of religion, god, whatever is manipulated in some of us by others to the extent that many can only see religion as fact. It starts in our childhood. Ironically, one of the very base premises of the bible is freewill, but we are beaten into believing in these fact-absent stories at such a young age and told that there are grave consequences if we do not fall in line.
Religion should be left out of the general public square and kept private amongst those who want to practice it. I especially think it needs to find the exit when it comes to politics. - salmonmoose, on 08/20/2008, -6/+20@estvir:
Isn't that like saying 'Lord of the Rings' is proof of elves and hobbits? - Mnementh2230, on 08/20/2008, -6/+10@ estvir - look up the Council of Nicea, circa 325AD. They wrote the bible by comittee, which explains all the inconsistancies in the religion.
- jerichobp, on 08/20/2008, -7/+7@ Mnementh2230 - Do some research will ya. The Council of Nicea didn't write anything. They're job was to take all books that had previously been written about the Catholic religion and figure out which ones were authentic.
And for the rest of you, go look up the writings of some ancient historians (e.g.Flavius Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ Ch.3 section 3). - PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -5/+2@Macweirdo - So you have never in your life spoken to someone who believes in God because of a personal experience? Have you ever asked? I find it hard to believe that you have not run across anyone as there are many out there. I am one, so if you read this comment you can now happily say that you have met someone who believes because of a personal and undeniable experience.
- sodade, on 08/20/2008, -5/+4If I was going to use my personal experience to generate a belief in god, it would have to be one hell of an experience. (pun intended)
- Drahkar, on 08/20/2008, -5/+4Who's to say that if there isn't a 'God' there is a limited Existence. The core of what we are is based on Energy. Our minds and everything that makes them up in a complex pattern of firing energy. Energy doesn't just cease to be. It changes from one thing to another. So from a scientific standpoint it is more than likely that when we die, something happens to the energy that makes up our consciousness. We just don't know what yet. But its not 'It passes into Oblivion' because that goes against the fundamental laws of physics. Energy can be changed, but not destroyed.
- tim620, on 08/20/2008, -4/+3First off, the Bible (I assume you are referring to the New Testament) is not completely third hand. Some of the books (especially those written by John) are thought to be second hand accounts of people who actually met, touched, prayed with, witnessed miracles of, etc. Jesus (or Yeshua).
As far as personal experiences, I've had one and I would be happy to share, if you want a long email. I also know a number of others who have had personal experiences as well (not all Christian). So, you can not say that nobody has those types of experiences today. Just because you have not witnessed something doesn't mean it didn't happen (or doesn't happen). - justinbonnet, on 08/20/2008, -5/+4everyone speaks of how there is no evidence of god. while every single thing you can comprehend with your brain is full of evidence of god. WHAT IS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS?! why is grass green? why can you feel certain pressures of sound? just about every single thing about nature is a work of art. God exists through everything. don't think religion has anything to do with god. religion is just someone else's idea of god followed by massive groups of people. just as atheism is a belief followed by several people. try stepping out of another mans ideas and really try to break existance down for yourself. naturally your brain cannot conceive it, giving in to your own ego is not going to do anything. i personally believe we are all god, and there is no such thing as hell or judgment. i think we exist eternally, our brains just lock us out of the key information to put mankind on a hunt for answers.... using science.
knowing digg, i will be buried for even using the word god optimistically. - mordeci, on 08/20/2008, -2/+6Miracles happen every day. If a miracle is a 'one in a million' longshot, billions of things happen to billions of people every day, some of them will be 'miraculous'. That's not proof of god, that's proof of math.
When something good and against all odds happens, the weak and stupid attribute that to a higher power because they want to believe they deserve it, they're special, god likes them better than all those that didn't (fill in the blank. beat cancer, survive the accident, win the lottery, get laid, etc). They are afraid to admit what we all know, life is random. Bad things can happen to good people. You are not special or immune or protected, just lucky - so far.
If a miracle is something that can't be explained by science, then I have never seen a miracle or any proof of a miracle. Ever. Period. And in my personal experience, those that claim they have are sometimes mistaken, sometimes delusional, but usually lying. - bitweever, on 08/20/2008, -4/+5To add to what tim said, and I don't know why I bother because I will probably get dugg down, many of those writers of second-hand accounts died grisly deaths because of what they believed. Nobody ever willingly dies for something they know to be a lie or only halfway believe. The changes in their lives were evident. And because of the actions of 12 men following the teachings of one man, history was changed forever.
The evidence for God we can debate. But the evidence for Jesus is pretty hard to get around. There's some liberal scholars out there that don't think he existed, and jump through some hoops to get to that point, but most scholars do believe that he existed. He either existed and is who he said he is, or he is some sort of liar/magician.
Look into the evidence for Jesus, and look into the reliability of the New Testament documents. I think you'll be surprised as to how much evidence there is. - jec68, on 08/20/2008, -3/+6Here is something for you to think about bitweever:
If this person, Jesus, was the most important person in the past and future history of the universe, why is there such weak evidence of his even existing? Why does his story mirror the stories of many other popular fictions of the time? Don't you think God would take a bit more care to help get the point across? Why would God make the smartest among us the least able to believe in his existence?
The evidence for Jesus even living is weak to nonexistent. The evidence for his coming back from death is nil. Old habits die hard: just let go, you'll find yourself much more liberated when you do. - LacY, on 08/20/2008, -0/+4@bitweever --people die for delusions all the time--look at the "Heaven's Gate" cult and Jim Jones' cult. The people in the Heaven's Gate cult were willing to kill themselves b/c they really believed that their souls were going to end up on a spaceship behind the comet. That doesn't make it true. Believe what you will, but I don't think "they were willing to die for their beliefs" is a good enough argument for why their beliefs were true.
- tim620, on 08/20/2008, -2/+2@ jec68.
There is stronger evidence for Jesus' existence than most Roman emperors. Roman writers, historians, and leaders like Josephus, Thallus, Tranquillas, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Emporer Hadrian. As well as the Jewish Talmud, a Greek named Lucian, and Mara Bar-Serapion of Syria, not to mention all the Gnostic sources, all write about a man named Jesus (or Yeshua) and his followers. The issue isn't whether Jesus existed. Many atheists and people of other faiths believe he existed (the evidence is overwhelming). The question is if he was really the Son of God (and/or God), and if he rose from the dead, as the New Testament claims. - Risingashes, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3@justinbonnet: Existence proves existence. If you want to bring God in to it then you need a proof that wouldn't make as much sense if you substituted pudding for God.
'Of course pudding created the universe- look at the color of the grass, we all know that if grass was blue then there would be no pudding. Look at the fact that you can walk- if pudding did not create the universe then obviously humans would slither around on their bellies. Look at the number 5- if pudding was not eternal then 5 could of been 4, or 18 and then we wouldn't be able to count- because the world as it is is the only way the world could be as long as pudding reigns supreme.'
If you're reading this I know you think I'm the one being ridiculous- but you're too far gone to reason with anyway. - JesusTeaseUs, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2@bitweever: Oh man, the "people died for him so he must be god" arguement.
Go look up the Heaven's Gate cult. Or WWII, politics, or any other religion. Do you really think Christianity is the only cause people have died for? People sacrifice their lives for causes and beliefs all the time. Doesn't make those causes/beliefs right.
@Drahkar: you seem to have a very psuedo-scientific grasp of energy. When we die, our bodies will be broken down and the only energy transfer will be us becoming worm food and fertilizer. Sorry : ( - Suzilla, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2@bitweever
Far, FAR more people have died not for what they themselves believe, but for what SOMEONE ELSE believes. - returnofthemac, on 08/20/2008, -1/+0@bitweever
http://thatvideosite.com/view/856.html
Is this the evidence you were referring to?
naaahh i'm just kidding, but seriously I don't deny the evidence that Jesus existed. I just don't care because he probably was just a normal dude who people had stories about. Sort of like Chuck Norris - Albion01, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2"Why on Earth would anyone be so sure of something based on third-hand accounts?"
Hope. - jec68, on 08/20/2008, -1/+1"Why on Earth would anyone be so sure of something based on third-hand accounts?"
Because some people just aren't being honest with themselves.
- warsongs7, on 08/20/2008, -24/+9Suggestion: Read some of the work of Thomas Kuhn. You will discover one of many theories that point out the weaknesses in science, logic, and proof. Just like religion these are all man-made concepts, product of society and not TRUTH. If you ever decide to look critically at science then you will find that some of the greatest minds have had trouble defining it, let alone finding proof that it will lead to truth.
I know that science is to be credited for all the privileges and technology of modern society but you will also be ignoring the fact that religion should be credited for pulling people out of their barbaric traditions in the pre-prophet eras. Therefore, if you believe a world without religion would be better then also consider the fact that just as many weaknesses have been found in science but not pointed out to sheep.- Murdats, on 08/20/2008, -2/+20if religion could predict the outcomes of events and explain why that was the outcome then great, until then science will keep proving that at least within the confines of our reality that it is correct.
- drunkenoaf, on 08/20/2008, -2/+18Oh come on! Try and study to understand the world around you, or believe the stories of magic... I mean miracles, fed to you by a big organisation called a church?
Science and rationality FTW! - flashback99, on 08/20/2008, -2/+18I love it when people try to counter a sound argument of science with "read this book by blah blah blah" which to my mind is really no better than telling someone to read the bible. If the argument against science is really that strong you should at least have the decency, to give us one paragraph or at least one piece of sound reasoning as to why you are more correct in your comment and not have to cite a book.
- Meep3D, on 08/20/2008, -2/+16I thought that the time in which religion was heavily adopted by the west was called the 'dark ages' and is pretty much a blight on our history between the polyethistic roman/greek civilizations and the renaissance, which was pretty much the adoption of free thinking over dogma, which brought us to our present day situation.
There are also no 'weaknesses' in science or logic that science and logic does not freely admit to. Unlike religion, science has no agenda or goal to push. Science is like a set of rules that govern a sporting event*, with the interest in who will win and how. Religion is like the same sporting event but the winner has already been declared and they just need the rules to fit.
* Driving, obviously :) - guabancex, on 08/20/2008, -2/+5Barbaric according to whom? Swapping out 1 dodgy belief system, "pre-prophetic" or not for another = enlightenment?
- jeremyduffy, on 08/20/2008, -2/+14What are you nuts? At least we admit that science gets it wrong sometimes. We're willing to re-evaluate and move on. Religion doesn't get that luxury since they try (and fail) to present their dogma as perfect.
- cw31088, on 08/20/2008, -2/+12This is a classic argument used by Religious Apologetics to try to equate the idea of scientific hypothesis to faith. Scientific hypothesis can be tested and re-tested, and if a hypothesis is at one point confirmed true and another point confirmed false it can be tested over and over until a conclusion can be made. Repeatable tests and explicit hypotheses are the foundation of modern scientific theory - faith in a scientific theory is entirely different from faith in a religious belief. I cringe applying "faith" in both of these usages in the same sentence simply because there is no comparison. You're wrong.
- dharmacrat, on 08/20/2008, -2/+14Proof in science is not in its successes, but its failures. When a theory proves sound, you test, and retest, and retest again while isolating all variables. It's not that hard to define. You're muddying the waters, and what's worse you're ***** promoting some filthy rag which you've only read to confirm your preconceived notions. Try summarizing the arguments instead of telling people to read some obscure paperback you found in the religion and philosophy section at Borders.
Furthermore, religion did not deliver us from barbarism. It caused it. Do the Dark Ages ring a bell? It was the scientific reasoning of the Enlightenment that rescued humanity from monkish ignorance and superstition. - darkstar949, on 08/20/2008, -5/+4Alright, I'm likely to get buried extremely hard for this; but the "Dark Ages", or the Middle Ages from 476 to 1000 CE, got its name for two reasons: the lack of artistic and cultural output between the fall of the Roman Empire and Enlightenment writers trying to attack religions by saying that the Middle Ages was a decline of Western Civilization due to increased religious sentiment.
As it turns out, the first Crusade wasn't even 1095, after the period of time that is thought of as the dark ages. This is after the period of time when the first medieval universities started to appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university - jakobrowning, on 08/20/2008, -7/+4Uh oh! you better not contradict anyone here, your likely to get dugg down for not believing what they believe.
- roodammy44, on 08/20/2008, -1/+8I really tried to find an argument for religion, but (being a scientific person myself) I couldn't really find one that makes any sense.
The main benefit religion has is by influencing large amounts of people who can't think for themselves about the big questions. By giving them answers and a set of rules of how to live your life, it was supposed to bring peace to the world - however it seems to have failed. The people who can think for themselves have hi-jacked the idiology for their own purposes over the last 4000 years.
I'm sure the creators of the big religions thought it would be a way of getting rid of man's more violent urges, but it seems modern humanity will have to go back to the drawing board. Just how do you get people to reconcile their needs without killing large numbers of each other, or even wiping out the world with nuclear weapons. - bbtweb, on 08/20/2008, -4/+2ironically there is tangible proof in many forms, from scripts to artifacts to historical roman records (that had no affiliation with anything other than the roman empire). All you have to do is look at it and decide for yourself. Even more ironically, science has proven on many occasions things that some religions have known for thousands of years, so science certainly has not been an enemy of religion nor will it ever be.
- PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1@cw31088 - Can you explain to me how the theory of natural selection (the theory of evolution if you will) from molecules to man has been tested and retested so that it could move beyond hypothesis to theory?
@dharmacrat - please consult actual history next time. Since you appear to not care for reading books, might I suggest asking someone knowledgeable. Religion was around long (very long) before the dark ages. If it is Christianity to which you refer, that was around from app. 33-34 AD, also well before the dark ages. In fact, it was the fall of the Christian Roman Empire that is considered to be the start of the dark ages. And the Muslims were having their golden age during Europe's dark ages. And the barbarians were polytheists.
Now, feel free to bury me for daring to say something you don't want to hear regardless of the truth of the matter rather than actually respond. - davodavo, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3I'm an atheist through-and-through, but to consider Kuhn's works "some obscure paperback you found in the religion and philosophy section at Borders" is just ignorant. Kuhn isn't some quack apologist or armchair philosopher; he's a positively _huge_ figure in philosophy of science. Whenever anyone talks about paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions, he/she's echoing Kuhn.
- davodavo, on 08/20/2008, -2/+2*****, edit time ran out. "Some filthy rag"? I guess Wittgenstein and Popper were just crackpots publishing diatribes in obscure, filthy rags too.
- cw31088, on 08/20/2008, -0/+0@PennFarmer - Sure, I'll get right on that, just give me a few millions years and a few trillion planets. Evolution and natural selection are not the same, read a book. Your handlers have not informed you correctly.
- warsongs7, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2For all of the people who didn't read my comment with their brain turned on I will have to explain myself in a little more detail. I am not berating science as a whole, in fact I am a med student and acknowledge the Big Bang theory as more credible than the 7 day Bible thing. However that doesn't mean that I will hail science as the most ultimate form of truth of our world (although it is the stepping stone in the right direction) just like not all religious people believe Christian, Muslim and Jewish dogma to be 100% correct. All I am saying is that people who believe science is without weakness are wrong and that for those inclined enough, weaknesses can be found in scientific 'dogma' (I am allowed to call it that because most researchers follow Bacon's ideology of science, an unattackable theory of science).
P.S I am not going to summarise the work of major philosophers here on Digg because most of the people are looking for a short 30sec read which would be doing a great injustice to the aforementioned authors.
- DagonNL, on 08/20/2008, -13/+14You all know you are all going to burn in Hell for denying your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ died from a horrible crotch wound to save your hole, yes?
- BuLong, on 08/20/2008, -1/+8Too bad people digg down before reading the whole comment.
Hilarious! - flashback99, on 08/20/2008, -2/+2can someone christian explain to me how jesus dying for our sins makes any sense whatsoever? what is the connection between a human being dying & all the behaviours and thoughts of the human race that are arbitrarily deemed "sinful" being suddenly forgiven?
I think people are correct when they say only the mentally ill can become die hard believers.
- BuLong, on 08/20/2008, -1/+8Too bad people digg down before reading the whole comment.
- phoenixshard, on 08/20/2008, -6/+13There are still plenty of things that are out there that science can't explain. I'm a firm believer in evolution, but also believe in God. You want examples of things that science hasn't explained.
The best example I can think of to support the idea of a God creating the universe, or if scientific theory is correct, the Big Bang. Who or what created the very material that would be needed to create this. Anything that is in existence had to come from something, what created the very first substances that would become the universe? What can science do to answer that question?- cw31088, on 08/20/2008, -8/+17So the automatic answer is God did it? That's a very medieval thought process. I would like to see how people make the mental jump from "we don't know how it happened" to "God did it, and he came to Earth, and he died for our sins." Give humanity a little credit, maybe in 100 years we'll all look back at this and laugh.
- phoenixshard, on 08/20/2008, -4/+10And an automatic answer of there is no God qualifies for a higher thought process in what way? You're still saying that there isn't a God because science says there isn't. I'd say that was pretty much the same argument that religious people make and are scoffed at, just with the words shifted around. The major problem with an argument of whether there is a God or not boils down to a belief in an individual, one that goes right to their core. Both sides can argue till their blue in the face and neither side is going to change its mind for the most part. I'm going to say that belief in God is something that you have to take on faith. You'll say see, you can't prove anything, going back to square one.
I'll agree 100% there are nutjobs in religion, the Creationists that believe man walked with dinosaurs just added another book to the Bible, the Book of Flintstone. That doesn't mean that all religious people are in that category. There are atheists that take it upon themselves to show the world there is no God, I'd put them right up there with those people that push religion on you, both idiots. - roodammy44, on 08/20/2008, -4/+10If god created the universe, how did god come to exist in the first place?
- phoenixshard, on 08/20/2008, -4/+5Can't answer that one at all, but then again, if I knew the answer to any questions like those or even the one I asked about who created the matter of the universe, I'd probably be a god myself. As I said above, some things you take on faith. That might get you ridiculed, but in the end, that is a personal decision.
- coolcash2005, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1@phoenixshard - The problem with the idea that its our "core beliefs" that make our decisions is that as an atheist, I look at science and see "hey, this follows a nice set of logical rules" and my other thoughts are "hey, I havent seen anything supernatural EVER". There are unexplainable things in this universe (like life itself), but hell, there are also a lot of things that were formerly unexplainable until science showed us some reasoning. I do not believe in religion because for as long as humans have existed, there have been 100s of major religions, each one adjusting the beliefs over time to fit with totally undeniable scientific ideas (e.g., the earth is billions of years old). This isn't a simple "core belief", this is just looking at a trend. Every atheist recognizes that even if there is some supernatural force controlling the universe, then why would he need to create all this mystery and doubt? Relying my entire confidence in a religion based on "faith" is far less logical than relying my confidence in science. Religion, by the trend, will almost certainly become obsolete.
- cw31088, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1Tell me this, what sounds like a more realistic "default" answer - 1. We don't know how the universe came to be, and because we have never seen any real evidence of the involvement of supernatural beings there's no reason to assume there is a higher power. or 2. The universe is so vast and incomprehensible that I need to believe something created it, despite there being no evidence to support creation. I prefer logic and common sense.
- Myztry, on 08/20/2008, -2/+10No one should have any real problem with other's beliefs no matter how peculiar. Be it gay relationships, vegetarianism, religion, or whatever. As long as that belief doesn't unduly impact on others.
Sadly relgion is rarely an inward belief. It usually contains self-righteousness over others, domination over others, hatred to murdererous extremes towards others.
Religious belief fails because it's as much about self declared divinity as anything else. The idea that a personal belief makes someone superior in relation to others, when it does not.- PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2I would disagree with you on your last statement. I do not feel that my faith makes me in any way superior to anyone else. Religion can be blamed for many of the world's ills. I will not dispute this point. I would like to point out though that humans are able to use almost anything to justify their actions and scientific reasoning can be blamed as easily as religion for at least as many deaths. As can atheism (China and Russia are good examples). The biggest killer throughout history though is government. Governments have killed and will kill far more people than all other reasons combined. See Death by Government for plenty of examples.
As to your other question below of evil, a good God could create evil only in the most abstract sense. It depends on your definition of evil. This is a rather complex subject and one that I am willing to explore further with you in a different forum, but I will attempt to present a synopsis here.
If we define evil as the Bible does (called sin) as the absence of God or the absence of doing God's will then it becomes much clearer. Good then would have to be defined as God and His will. Doing God's will = good, doing other than God's will = evil or sin.
Before I go any farther I wish to point out that i am not trying to convince you of the correctness of these definitions, I am simply trying to answer your question by explaining the Christian view of the creation of evil which is necessarily done in the context of the Bible. I ask you to judge this based on the logic of the argument given the above assumptions.
Now, if evil = not God's will then evil could not exist so long as only God existed. It would be impossible for Him to do anything out of His will because if He did it, it was because He willed to. If God created beings that could only do His will, then evil still could not exist because everything would still only act as God willed.
If God created beings with free will (meaning they could choose to do other than His will), then evil could exist, but did not necessarily do so yet. Once any of these beings did something out of God's will, then evil would have begun to exist. This existence is only in the negative sense though in that it only exists with reference to God Himself. Therefore, God did not create evil, only the opportunity for evil to exist in the form of some will other than His. As an analogy, if I have a space in which light reaches everywhere, then dark cannot exist. If I then create the ability for a wall to be built, but do not build the wall, I have created the opportunity for dark to exist on the other side of the wall.
This is not merely a semantic difference. In God's case, He judges those who do evil. What He created was choice. The choice to receive blessing or punishment. With the wall, had I created it and then punished it for causing darkness I would have been unfair in my judgment because the darkness and the wall were of my doing and I would be punishing unfairly. If I only create the choice, then if someone creates the wall and I punish them for causing darkness I am punishing fairly because it was their choice. They could have chosen not to create the wall and bask in the light. Also the darkness itself is not a real thing, merely an absence of the light that was there before.
Now you may ask why He created free will. That would be beyond this definition and this forum to discuss. I am willing discuss it further. If you wish to contact me let me know through some later comment. - Myztry, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1@PennFarmer - Governments are manifestation of humanity and all that entails. The Christian government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City%29 is no different except it is the self appointed representative of the Christian God. If God had appointed the Church to represent him in his absense, I suggest he would have selected less pedophiles and other such 'evil' humans.
You obsess on God's will as the basis of the distinction between good and evil. The problem with this being that it's the will of the Church that is imposed apon Christians. An omnipotent diety would be more than capable of communicating his will directly with his subjects. We'd just have the free will option of not following it.
The belief in God, and the belief in the Church are two seperate issues. Unfortunely Christians are subjects of the Church and it's government at the Vatican. Whether there is a God or not becomes mute because it's not God whom Christians follow. He becomes no more than the justification of the religion.
True religious belief needs to come from within. When it is taught via doctrine, or other human manufactured means, then what you have in reallity is a cult.
Know we are all more than free to believe in whatever we wish, but I won't give special treatment to someone just because their religious government whims it to be so.
- PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2I would disagree with you on your last statement. I do not feel that my faith makes me in any way superior to anyone else. Religion can be blamed for many of the world's ills. I will not dispute this point. I would like to point out though that humans are able to use almost anything to justify their actions and scientific reasoning can be blamed as easily as religion for at least as many deaths. As can atheism (China and Russia are good examples). The biggest killer throughout history though is government. Governments have killed and will kill far more people than all other reasons combined. See Death by Government for plenty of examples.
- PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -7/+4What proof is there that there is no God? Why is the atheist side automatically correct? Is this bland arrogance not what you often accuse Christians of? Show me proof that He does not exist and I will believe you when you say that you are not making a leap of faith.
- VAXcat, on 08/20/2008, -5/+6 You know you're right, but at the same time sadly misguided. True, there's no proof that god doesn't exist, but that's immaterial, since the one true Divine Being is the Invisble Pink Unicorn, which we also cannot prove doesn't exist! Marvel at the Divine Mystery, of her simultaneous invisibility and Pinkness! BTW, don't let those Spaghetti Monster heretics confuse you - we can't prove he doens't exist either, but, he doesn't. All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn!
- nycmac247, on 08/20/2008, -1/+7So now wee are supposed to prove a negative?
You have a unicorn in your bedroom, right?
Or at least I should act like you do "just in case," right? - Myztry, on 08/20/2008, -1/+3The presence of evil in the world would suggest there is no God. Can evil come from pure good?
Is their also an evil God refered to as the Devil, or are they the one and same?
Whether God exists or not, he/it/they are certainly not what Christians present God to be.
But then the Church appointed itself to represent Divinity, and create the ludicrous idea than mankind amongst all other living things was solely made in God's image.
If I was the creator of all things in this massively wonderous universe, I would not pay much heed to such arrogance from such a flawed species.
My vote goes to the non-sentient symbolic Mother Nature (ie. The Earth). The essense of which we are created from, who gives us life, sustains us, and we return to. Not a God by definition, but something much more worthy of paying heed too... - PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -4/+0@nycmac247 - Do you believe in dark matter or black holes? Neither of those can be seen or proven. They are only theoretical. Backed up by some logic and reasoning, yes, but still only theoretical. If I wished to say that they did not exist would I be able to lay all the burden of proof on those who say they do?
On the contrary, if I were not simply laughed at or denigrated I would be expected to show some evidence that they do not. The same applies here. You could say that there is proof for black holes and I could say that there is proof for God. We could both say the others proof is flawed and then where would we be? That gets us nowhere.
Usually what happens is that the burden of proof lies with those who are trying to contradict accepted wisdom, regardless of the correctness of either position. I would have to show that black holes do not exist because current wisdom is that they do. I am asking the same respect of you in regard to God because current overwhelming wisdom is that He does exist in some form. Simply because atheists say it isn't so doesn't make it true. So yes, in this case I am asking you to prove a negative. A negative whose positive I freely admit I cannot prove to your satisfaction either. In response to the unicorn though, current wisdom is that it does not exist and so the burden would still lie with you to show that it does. - mb96net, on 08/20/2008, -0/+4OK, despite all the other attempts I'll bite.
There is no proof that god exists, but there is a good (I'll go as far as saying great) probability that no god exists. If a god exists, the universe would be very different from a universe in which no god exists.
Atheists don't say 100% there is no god. They say the probability of god existing is so small that it's not worth too much thought. We make this judgment of each of the 100s of gods created by all the different religions, not just Christian's god, but the gods of the ancient Egyptians too. - Testiculese, on 08/20/2008, -1/+3If you want proof that gods do not exists, simply ask for one to show itself to more than one person *unambiguously*. The bible claims that its god showed itself to people many many times Nowadays, not once ever.
Until then, there are no gods. - PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1mb96net - How do you derive this probability? I understand what you are saying, I just don't understand where you get the information from. And thank you by the way. You are the first to honestly respond to any of my questions.
Also, could you explain to me how you think the universe would look with and without a God. This is a new one for me and interesting since Christians frequently use this universe and the laws that govern it as one of the proofs that a god does exist and that he created the universe. I assume that you view the universe as proof that God doesn't exist (probably) and have a different view of a God derived universe.
@Testiculese - God has shown himself to me unambiguously. I know of many others who could say the same. If you choose to reject these statements, then you are asking for proof and then saying you will never accept the proof offered. What you actually appear to be saying is that unless God forces himself on you, you will choose to believe that He does not exist. There are too many well known people who say that they have personally had contact with the Christian God for me to believe that you have never heard of them. Therefore your statement of "Nowadays, not once ever" shows your bias in rejecting all such claims out of hand. Please feel free to prove to me that you are not a troll.
- adam71o, on 08/20/2008, -2/+2jeremyduffy, "I've always said" is never a good phrase. You sound pompous.
- blakestah, on 08/20/2008, -7/+3But religion is an innate part of being human. Children under the age of 5 all believe in some form of god, simply because that's what humans do. We are programmed to seek cause and effect to an extent not present in any other animal. When we are young, many things do not compute. How can a 4 year old understand the world around him? Try to explain to such a youth that the sun is a massive ball of gas 93 million miles away undergoing hydrogen fusion. Instead, the young will assign simple things to cause and effect. The complex things get assigned to god. As science has advanced over the years, god has become responsible for fewer and fewer physical things. But one thing has not changed. It is human to seek cause and effect, and it is human to assign responsibility to things uncomprehendible to some form of god. God is not a creation of man, it is a part of being human. Atheism, on the other hand, must be learned at an older age - it is not pre-programmed.
- mb96net, on 08/20/2008, -1/+4WOW...what an amazing claim. All the children you know have parents that teach them about god before the age of 5. They also teach them about Santa Claus. Does that make it true?
Sorry to tell you this, Tarzan was an Atheist... Feral children that have never been exposed to any bible or religious text or teaching do NOT necessarily believe is some form of god. In fact we are all born atheists, without any knowledge or believe in a theist.
You're confusing science with Atheism. Feral children may not know the science governing the universe, but each would have their own impressions of what causes things to happen. They probably won't believe in magical invisible men that watch them masturbate and get mad at them if they work on Sundays. - DemonWasp, on 08/20/2008, -1/+3You're talking out of your ass. To put it mildly, neither I nor any of my sibling ever attributed unknown effects to "it's God's doing". We'd say "I don't really know", or try to make up some *****, but we'd never resort to God as an explanation. Granted, we never went to church and never worshiped in any way.
I think you're really mixing up nature versus nurture here: you claim that nature is causing young children to attribute complexities to god, whereas I find it more credible that adults have simply told children to attribute complex things to God's doing. As a kid, whatever your parents tell you has a pretty huge effect on your beliefs at the time (though of course many people question those beliefs later in life), so if Daddy says that it's God making the airplane work then it's God as far as the little 5-year-old is concerned.
My default reaction when something I don't understand happens is "huh, funny, I wonder if it always does that", not "woah! God / FSM / other divine being / ineffable force must have done it!". - JesusTeaseUs, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2You make some good points, but I would argue against your broad generalizations of children.
My little cousin is under 5. He think's god is a superhero, like spiderman. He also believes in Santa Klaus, monsters in the attic, and ghosts.
When I was a child I believed what my parents told me, which was, in part, god.
God is man-made, created in response to our fear, ignorance, and imagination. Has the notion be around long enough to be part of 'being human'? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that god isn't real. - blakestah, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3
You are, quite simply, wrong, and this HAS been the subject of academic inquiry. The work I refer to has been done by Oliviera Petrovich, a Professor at Oxford in Experimental Psychology.
http://resources.theology.ox.ac.uk/staff.phtml?lec ...
Through cross-cultural studies of children under age 6, she has found evidence that belief in God occurs through an inference more or less precisely as I stated. She is pursuing the hypothesis that god is a natural by-product of the human mind seeking causal relations. It is a "shortcut" to believe in god instead of continuing to pursue an incredibly complex causal relation.
She also notes that this is the default fallback position of children. She has come across only one atheist child in her studies, and believes it is "learned" and not the default. Even in cultures in which the concept of "god" is very different, children utilize god to explain complex causal relations the same way. - DemonWasp, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1Your reply-argument makes a lot more sense than your original one did (I think I was parsing the original in terms of the insanity in some of the other threads above it).
However, it's clear that this study cannot assert that every child is religious, as I certainly wasn't, and neither were my siblings. Instead of assigning intractable causal links to "God", we assigned them to "I have no idea". This is, in my mind, because we were never told that there was a mighty magical all-powerful God that we could then use to fill in the gaping holes in our understanding. - blakestah, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Don't confuse science and anecdote. It is not credible for you or anyone else to claim they have a personal recollection of their religious beliefs before age 5. Professor Petrovich studies this for a living, at one of the most esteemed institutions in the world, and her opinion on her science bears a lot of weight. If you know of relevant comparable work that says that similar studies have been done and found that lots of children are agnostic or atheist, that would be something different.
- mb96net, on 08/20/2008, -1/+4WOW...what an amazing claim. All the children you know have parents that teach them about god before the age of 5. They also teach them about Santa Claus. Does that make it true?
- Opiate, on 08/20/2008, -4/+2Philosophy must really make your head explode.. I can't prove that killing you is wrong, so is it? You disregard religion using that logic you may as well toss out reason and everything else.
- jeremyduffy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1You seem not to understand that philosophy is a mental exercise. Even if philosophy "proves" killing is ok, if you jump me in a dark alley, I'm still going to fight you.
- Albion01, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2If the slave is happy being a slave, what makes you think he'd be happier being the master? Religion, true or not brings hope to billions of people. Would you pilfer that hope from under them because you have faith (there's that word again) that it will make them and the world better? How selfish of you!
Where's your evidence or proof that atheism and science will make the world a better place? Do you think war, hunger, disease and evil will all end when everyone converts to atheism? Humans will kill each other whether it's over a god or oil or land or who stole whose chicken, it's just in their nature. No conglomeration of science is going to change that.- jeremyduffy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1You are also confusing a mental exercise with reality. In your case, you're arguing that religions help people whether true or not. So what? We're not arguing that religion should be abolished (at least I'm not). All we (I) are saying is that if you were to ask the question "is X religion right" the answer would be "no".
- macweirdo42, on 08/19/2008, -9/+68No proof? Hell, there's no evidence. That's what boggles my mind. It's not like "Hey, I had a talk with a dude who claimed to be the Son of God, and he said all these really profound things and performed miracles that I can't explain. I can't prove he's the Son of God, but I have reason to believe he is." It's "I read in a book about some guy 2,000 years ago who claims to have met someone who claims to be the Son of God."
- luzai, on 08/19/2008, -21/+89Imagine
- hansk, on 08/20/2008, -8/+23Boobs.
Who needs religion when you have boobs?- Risingashes, on 08/20/2008, -0/+13It's not like it's an either/or.
- DestroyFascism, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6new digg class()
new boobs (int Boobies)
boobies = b
Set boobs = yes
if (boobs > Religion)
echo "Yes boobies all the time"
else
echo "My god is better than yours, get guns make war"....
- dullnation, on 08/20/2008, -0/+410 Print "Boobs"
20 Goto 10
run.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(Any interested I had with programming ended at BASIC)
- FiveAlive, on 08/20/2008, -6/+1Imagine that John Lennon lived in a huge mansion?
- govsucks, on 08/20/2008, -4/+3IMAGINE there were no collectivists to force people to do things. Collectivists are simply taking up the "lets force people to live the way we want" idea directly from the religious.
- cdelwood, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1"lets force people to live the way we want"
Wait, you just described a Liberal.
- cdelwood, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1"lets force people to live the way we want"
- eggsovereasy, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5We would probably just find something else to fight about.
- hansk, on 08/20/2008, -8/+23Boobs.
- Ajjah, on 08/19/2008, -27/+141Without religion, America would not have the atrocious lack of knowledge about Science. Over 50% of the population believes in Intelligent Design, and that Evolution is false?
- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -52/+6No, over 50% of the population believes that there is God in some form and that He engineered life on this planet...and that ALL evolution from proto-bacteria to human being is bullcrap.
Most people see natural processes randomly creating all life as highly unlikely...and they'd be right.- alphgeek, on 08/20/2008, -3/+35"Most people see natural processes randomly creating all life as highly unlikely...and they'd be right."
What information source are you basing this assertion on? It sounds like a ludicrous assertion as it runs counter to the multitude of evidence in favour of evolution. - StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -2/+32I see supernatural processes randomly creating a God as highly unlikely. And I'd be right.
And since I don't see life as anything other than the extension of natural processes, it doesn't seem all that unlikely to me. Citric acid cycle and central metabolism is not ALL that unlike geochemical processes. Compare it to the autocatalytic oxidation of mineral substrates such as occurs in acid mine drainage, even before the bacteria accelerate it, and its not all that exotic. - kayala, on 08/20/2008, -2/+26Spaz, you know you've been shown how wrong you are many times before, so why do you keep at it? After we show you statistical thermodynamics and how the field demonstrates that your little improbability claim is infantile at best, an intelligent person would accept the facts - but you keep lying. Why is this? Do you get points for dishonesty and douchebaggery?
- StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -2/+15I think that when you die, they give you extra hookers and blow in heaven if you are dishonest and douchebagish in defense of Yahweh.
- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -25/+2@kayala
You never showed any of that which you claim has been demonstrated. I think that you might have me confused with someone else, especially concerning the thermodynamics reference. - JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -24/+2"What information source are you basing this assertion on? It sounds like a ludicrous assertion as it runs counter to the multitude of evidence in favour of evolution."
The creation of the first DNA strand, for example. You can search for some previous posts of mine where I lay out the math involved if natural processes created the first DNA strand randomly. - kayala, on 08/20/2008, -2/+18Improbability is not the same as impossibility, and you know this. What those awfully big words, "statistical thermodynamics," mean is that even if all the possible outcomes of an event have a probability of 1x10^150000, one of those outcomes has got to occur - probability is 1.
- StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -2/+20The first *RNA* strand didn't have to be very complicated. A couple of bases would do, and of any sequence. You make a lot of assumptions Spaza.
- dx74a19, on 08/20/2008, -2/+12Here we go, the same never-too-worn-out "argumentum ad ignorantiam" to make the day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoran ...
- baithe, on 08/20/2008, -2/+17Jimmy, I hereby nominate you for the Digg Lifetime Troll Achievement award.
- flashback99, on 08/20/2008, -3/+9Spazza, there just aint no god. Do you want me to hold your hand an make you feel better?
- Supergaxx, on 08/20/2008, -2/+6"Most people see natural processes randomly creating all life as highly unlikely...and they'd be right."
Of course,randomly created life in the universe is rare (as far as we know) but it is not impossible, hell, WE ARE HERE RIGHT NOW
Yes, I did decide to disregard what you really meant. - macweirdo42, on 08/20/2008, -1/+10You know, I'm gonna humor your for a moment and take your assumption that there is a God. Isn't it insulting to suggest that God is incapable of anything more than a simple "Abra Cadabera" magic trick? Has God no subtlety? Is it not possible that, being the designer of this universe, He lovingly created the rules in such a meticulous way that sentient life would be a natural product of that universe?
For myself, I am infinitely more awe-struck by the concept that human intelligence is not simply a freak occurance, as Creationists would have us believe, but rather it is a natural consequence of the rules of the universe. - nitsuj, on 08/20/2008, -2/+7"The creation of the first DNA strand, for example. You can search for some previous posts of mine where I lay out the math involved if natural processes created the first DNA strand randomly."
And if you look just after your posts, you'll see posts of others that destroy this naive argument.
Please Spaza, the theory of evolution does not specify that DNA spontaneously lept into existence (this is a creationist belief!) so why the hell do you cling to this straw man? - DemonWasp, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5Actually, he *is* right - but we have to be very careful with wording here. Jimmy said "natural processes randomly creating all life [are] highly unlikely". He is, in fact, correct: natural processes aren't terribly likely to generate life over a given time-span of a few hundred years, or even a few thousand years.
What he fails to account for is that the time frame permitted is billions of years, and over billions of different worlds. Let's just consider the "billions of years" part of the deal for now. Let's assume that there's a 0.0001 (1% of 1%) chance that the first life will be created per 100,000 years. Now, over the next billion years (that's 10000 such lengths), the probability that life will NOT occur is 0.9999 ^ 10000 = 0.367 ~= 37%. So it's actually MORE likely that life will have started sometime in those billion years than that it wouldn't. Also note that those are some pretty low-ball estimates for the chance of life starting.
The problem gets even more ludicrous when you include the multitude of planets available in the galaxy, let alone the universe.
- alphgeek, on 08/20/2008, -3/+35"Most people see natural processes randomly creating all life as highly unlikely...and they'd be right."
- 4ntigravity, on 08/20/2008, -19/+20I don't understand what the correlation between believing in God and not being well educated is.
Some of the best scientists the world has seen pursed their discoveries with a belief in God. (Pick up a history book and check for yourself.)
All there is to be said about this discussion is that 'real science does not make man ignorant.'- WoollyMittens, on 08/20/2008, -9/+16Religion only works when the subject is kept ignorant. Has it occurred to you that all those "religious" scientists you mention were only faithful to keep their heads from being chopped off?
- macweirdo42, on 08/20/2008, -0/+14Many people use God as a substitute for knowledge. Frankly, I find this view to be insulting, and one of the prime reasons I have a general mistrust about religion. After all, I think God would like nothing more than for us to attempt to better understand His Creation.
- bsmang, on 08/20/2008, -1/+3Has nothing to do with education. You can educate any idiot. It has to do with mental facilities and the ability to use them.
- BrandonWicks, on 08/20/2008, -4/+4@WoolyMittens
I wasn't aware that they were chopping people's heads off in the thirties... Einstein believed in God, though it did cause him to come up with the cosmological constant, so it's as much an argument against as for. Just saying: get your facts straight. - mb96net, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5@BrandonWicks
Get YOUR facts straight, Einstein did not believe in a personal god.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) - mb96net, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3@ BrandonWicks
Get YOUR facts straight.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) - DemonWasp, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3As I recall, though, Einstein's belief as rather unlike most modern religious beliefs. He believed in God, but it was more an abstract concept than some creator-that-watches-judges-and-guards. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- estvir, on 08/20/2008, -19/+10> Over 50% of the population believes in Intelligent Design, and that Evolution is false?
It's so disappointing that if one does not believe in evolution they suddenly also hate science and find progress in other areas evil.
And the generalising continues on.- Owwmykneecap, on 08/20/2008, -9/+13It's so depressing that you are a moron with a broadband connection.
- Murdats, on 08/20/2008, -6/+14well their must be some flaw in your understanding of science if you don't believe that the mountains upon mountains of evidence at least lend strong credibility to evolution, that or you are compiling your own evidence so you can seriously put forward your own hypothesis
- estvir, on 08/20/2008, -7/+6Murdats, stop assuming things and stop pretending that every religion is the same.
I have never commented about MY understanding/belief of evolution so your comment is full of silly assumptions. I merely made a sarcastic comment regarding people who try to frame religious people who do not believe in evolution as hating all science, a common falsehood put forward by hypocritical anti-religion folk.
Now, I guess I will slightly mention what I believe. I do not disbelieve in evolution and through some little understanding I have I would say that is 'compatible' with my belief. Also, I am not a subscriber to the 'young Earth' folk who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old or so, through my belief and understanding (Which may be wrong), I think that a 'old Earth' (It not being thousands of years old but rather millions) is more correct.
Also, the religion of which I am does not say "Evolution is completely false" but rather, they are seemingly neutral/quiet about the topic? Now, that may seem like they're just trying to avoid but one thing that atheists and other people do not bother to recognise that religion does not provide the answer for everything for we (Or rather, I and other religious people I know) have not had everything revealed to us - so I will admit, I do not have a complete knowledge but from my oh-so-small understanding of certain things, I would not say that evolution disproves the religion I am of and my beliefs.
I find it silly how quickly some of you are so quick to attack and apparent religious person and put forward all these things you think they believe when you don't know ESPECIALLY when you have as much as a few comments on the Internet to form your basis for what you think the other person believes. Also, if you want religious people to be more open minded, tolerant, etc it may be a good idea to present those things to them -- lead by example, do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you, etc. - Murdats, on 08/20/2008, -2/+8I never said anything about your belief in evolution.
but if you disbelieve the theory of evolution you better have a good reason, and it better not be "I don't like it" because unless you can provide some rational reason or evidence, you either accept the scientific method and the theory of evolution it produced, believe the scientific method and community are garbage but coincidently get it right every other time, have no true understanding of the topic or you have some solid evidence to show that the evidence in support of evolution is wrong.
you can not rationally disbelieve evolution without either ignorance or the disbelief of science on your side.
I also fully realise that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive as even the catholic pope has stated that the churches position is that evolution is correct. - estvir, on 08/20/2008, -3/+4> well their must be some flaw in your understanding of science if you don't believe that the mountains upon mountains of evidence at least lend strong credibility to evolution
There, that's you saying something about my belief evolution though I guess you could've been making a general statement not completely directed at me? A little clarity could do as yeah, I now realise I may have misunderstood your comment -- my mistake.
I more or less agree with what you've said, if you're going to actively oppose something it's good to have some form of a basis instead of whimsical "I don't like it" statements.. though, the part where I see myself possibly having a problem with this is that there are some things I believe which I may not intrinsically be able to 'prove' (As far as science is concerned) and instead believe things based upon faith, an understanding of scriptures, knowing that not everything has been revealed unto us, etc.
I can't think of any examples though but I'm sure there's some common ones (Like evolution, for example) that people could bring up.
The pope said that, really? Interesting.. I think if more pro-evolution, atheists, and other people realised that not all religion is "OMG SICENCE IS BAD" there'd be much better conversations and much less contention. - Murdats, on 08/20/2008, -1/+3yes it was a general statement, I was wondering where you got the personal attack from, but yes, the catholic church supports evolution and a large amount of science, young earth creationists however oppose the pope and science, unfortunately YEC are an unsettlingly large group, and growing at that.
add to that the fact that people misunderstand creationism as 'belief that a god created stuff' and from there are easily led further away from rationality then there is a large, and important battle going on over evolution by a certain subset of the religious population.
but the of course some people see all catholic groups as the same catholic group, so this noisy radical group gets the rest of the catholics, or religious as a whole with their colour. - macweirdo42, on 08/20/2008, -1/+8Evolution is a cornerstone of biology. The Big Bang is a conerstone of astronomy. The age of the Earth is a cornerstone of geology.
There are two things Creationists fail to understand - the absolute mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and the fact that there's hardly a field of science that isn't in some way influenced by it. Perhaps it's wrong to simply assume that anyone who is anti-evolution is anti-science, but really, considering how much of our understanding of the universe around us would have to be thrown out the window in order to deny evolution, it's a natural conclusion to make.
- ozodin, on 08/20/2008, -1/+5I think you mean without MTV right?
- gcopenhaver, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1I think he means "Without public schools"
- govsucks, on 08/20/2008, -5/+5Yeah, and the other 50% believe that collectivism is gonna work (this time) and that although they have failed at everything else, government will manage the health of 200+ million people correctly. Both groups of collectivists sound pretty stupid to me.
- roodammy44, on 08/20/2008, -1/+7A degree of collectivism (not complete collectivism) actually works for society. And you can argue about a degree of individualism helps too.
Europe's governements do a fairly good job managing citizen's health.
Just because you believe the US government is corrupt and incompetant, it doesn't mean all governments are. - macweirdo42, on 08/20/2008, -0/+4You know, it's funny - it's always the ones who bitch about things like national health care that are the first to embrace Big Brother and sacrifice their rights to the very same government they're always arguing can't manage anything.
- govsucks, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1roodammy44, I must disagree. I don't believe that I have the right to tell anyone how to live their life or what to do with their body and if you do that is your problem. When people, especially those in power, start to believe they have some right to command others then you end up with tyranny. No one individual or group has all the answers and therefore, no group, regardless of the mobs size, should be dictating to others how they live. When you do you end up with things like, drug wars, terror wars, poverty wars all going on in your name whether you like it or not.
freedom > (collectivism*1000)
- roodammy44, on 08/20/2008, -1/+7A degree of collectivism (not complete collectivism) actually works for society. And you can argue about a degree of individualism helps too.
- bsmang, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2Please don't lump me together with the stupid half.
- Fanboy88, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2Stupid is as stupid does. You are what you do.
- zantos420, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1what about those who believe evolution was part of the intelligent design? you forgot us -.-
- jzuska, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8Have you seen the creationist Museum? That place is hysterical.
We rode dinosaurs, gimme a break. - detokaal, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2Absurd.
The only thing that may be considered beyond science is miracles. That is, we accept scientific study and research as 100% correct, useful, and factual. But we also believe that God has the power to bend these rules as He sees fit.
Theists can study evolution and produce quality research and still believe God created Adam and Eve. Theists can lead their field in reproduction and still believe in a virgin birth. All of these areas are the study of God's rules. And whoever makes the rules can also break them.- Cyberen, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6so the scientific LAWS of the universe can be bent at any time according to the whim of some weird super-entity beyond the boundaries of the universe? With no proof it even exists? How the hell is that scientific?
- detokaal, on 08/20/2008, -1/+1It isn't, and never can be. But belief in them doesn't preclude someone from being a top notch researcher or scientist. Only a fool would eliminate 1/2 the mathematical, scientific, genius on this planet from research because of a belief in God.
"You believe in Jesus, that He is alive?"
"Yes"
"You are not qualified to search for a cancer cure."
"But I have an M.D. from Harvard and solved a long-standing genetic problem."
"Belief in God means you are a stooge, no matter your real-world achievements..."
- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -52/+6No, over 50% of the population believes that there is God in some form and that He engineered life on this planet...and that ALL evolution from proto-bacteria to human being is bullcrap.
- Haoie, on 08/19/2008, -18/+67People from around the world would get along a lot better without religious divide.
- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -33/+13Yeah, that whole deal with Jesus teaching us to love each other, including our enemies, must really drag you down, huh?
- alphgeek, on 08/20/2008, -3/+49People managed to love each other before Jesus came along. People who don't follow Christianity manage to love each other all the time.
It's arrogant, as well as factually incorrect, to suggest that Christians have a monopoly on love and compassion. - kayala, on 08/20/2008, -4/+20Did Jeebus also teach that we are to hate science and lie about it at every opportunity to try to drive people away from otherwise well-known and commonly accepted facts?
It's funny how when it suits your purpose, Jeebus only taught about love and compassion and respect - but when we turn that back around on you, Jeebus said that you're to be WARRIORS OF GAWD! Lying, hypocritical scum. - StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -1/+19Really? If Jesus' followers were as good as the teaching, maybe you wouldn't be so reviled of late.
- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -29/+5Liberals and atheists on Digg seem to revile those with whom they disagree. I cannot help that. It's their problem. If they revile others so much, then it's not me...it's their own conscience kicking in.
- kayala, on 08/20/2008, -2/+19Thinking in generalities is the sign of an intellectually lazy person. ("Liberals and atheists")
- StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -2/+17"it's not me...it's their own conscience kicking in."
You've got an egocentric answer for everything don't you Jimmy. You must be the wisest, most arrogant person on the planet. - estvir, on 08/20/2008, -9/+5> Thinking in generalities is the sign of an intellectually lazy person. ("Liberals and atheists")
You mean.. like basically every 'anti-religion' person on here does towards religions? Holy hypocrisy Batman! - Murdats, on 08/20/2008, -1/+13damn those atheists and their hate of gays.
damn those atheists and their oppression of women.
damn those atheists and their hate of people of other races.
damn those atheists and their hate of people of other religions.
at least we have religions that tell us to love so that religious people would never do any of that or champion causes in favour of those goals in the name of their religion. - Mnementh2230, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6@Spaza
"Yeah, that whole deal with Jesus teaching us to love each other, including our enemies, must really drag you down, huh?"
Its not that part that stinks about religion, it's the whole "believe or BURN IN HELL" part, the violent parts, the unscientific parts, the downright silly parts (don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk??), and the parts that hold humanity back that most people take offense to when talking about religion... or at least, that's what *I* take offense to. Humanity has outgrown the need for fairytales. - charm803, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5That's right, like when Christians were being persecuted by Christians in the 4th century, because they couldn't agree if Jesus was one in unity with the Father or above humans but below God.
But it's LOOOOOOOOOVE! Now die! - kayala, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3estvir, just to clarify, I do my best when railing against the religious to either specify a certain group (fundies) or a certain person. It's not fair to lump in the decent religious folk with the nutjobs, and I have clarified various times before that I don't mean to do that.
- alphgeek, on 08/20/2008, -3/+49People managed to love each other before Jesus came along. People who don't follow Christianity manage to love each other all the time.
- estvir, on 08/20/2008, -2/+6People who treat the religious divide as something that should cause one to show disdain towards someone of another faith are not true followers of 'religion.'
True followers would not hate someone simply because they are from another religion, they would accept the differences and respect each other.
There are scriptures about loving thy neighbour, that contention is of the devil, etc. All of these fly in the face of your claim about religious divide. Of course, humans are not perfect so people, many of them, will not follow these things that are taught and you somehow feel that gives you the liberty to lump every religious person together and to ignore what those hypocrites claim to believe.
There is also much hate people between with different understandings and 'belifes' in secular related things, would all those people magically get along much better if religion was to not exist? No.- secrity, on 08/20/2008, -1/+4Slavery, sexism, and homophobia in the US was justified, and is still is being justified, by Christians using passages from the Christian bible.
- thelizardreborn, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2@estivir - I would agree with you about many religions, including Christianity, but not all religions are peaceful.
@secrity - Just because a small number of Christians can isolate biblical passages and twist the meaning to fit their own agendas doesn't make the Christian religion intended to divide.
People cause division and conflict, and use religion to justify it. Without religion, they'd just find another argument.
Example: A homophobe may claim that "gays are inferior" based on a twisted understanding of survival of the fittest (a man with a man or a woman with a woman can't reproduce).
Also, don't forget that Christianity fueled many of those who fought against slavery and sexism. If homosexuals are ever persecuted to the degree blacks and women once were, I believe you'd find Christians on both sides of the civil rights debates that would result. - PennFarmer, on 08/20/2008, -2/+0@secrity - You are incorrect about all three. In fact it was Christians in the North who started the anti-slave movement and were its most ardent champions. Yes, there was a divide in the church over slavery, but there was a divide in the wider society as well. Also, if you care to check history examine who it was that ended slavery in the British Empire. Once again you will find Christians leading the charge.
Christians are not sexist for believing that women should be at home any more than feminists are for believing they should be out of the home. Many women now are leaving the workforce and staying home, even those without children, because they find it to be more fulfilling. These women are not being forced to and many of them are not Christian. Maybe there is more to the idea that women should be home than you think.
Homophobia is the unreasonable fear of homosexuals. Christians by and large are not any more afraid of homosexuals than they are of adulterers or liars or thieves. All of these things are also listed as wrong in the Bible, yet you do not scoff at them. Funny how if the Bible matches what you want it to it's perfectly okay and morally upright but if it goes against your grain it is outdated and only idiots believe in it. Christians are not homophobes though. This is false slander due to the fact that gay activists don't care to actually discuss the issues and what the Bible really teaches.
- chillypacman, on 08/20/2008, -1/+9Yes, yes they would.
When they fight over oil, money and power all the same you could just call it business. - GrantTLC, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10Really? Don't you think we'd just find other reasons to fight, Land, resources, differences of opinion or philosophy...?
/devils advocate - govsucks, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6People in this world would get along better if they simply stop being so arrogant that they think they can tell other people what to do and how to live their lives. I don't care if its the religious collective of the social collective, both can ***** off.
- atact88, on 08/20/2008, -4/+7Actually, most of the conflicts of history and the present day world are results of politics and commerce. Religion was only used later on as the explanation. Slavery didn't start because the Europeans wanted to bring Christianity to Africans; it started because Europeans wanted free, cheap labor to maximize their profits. Later on, they made up the bit about bringing Christianity to the Africans. Islamic extremists aren't blowing themselves up to glorify Allah - they're doing it over politics.
You want people to start getting along a lot better? You'll have to remove our competitive instincts to secure limited resources. You'll have to get rid of politics, business, and the varied interests of different people. Religion is only the facade. Human nature is what lies underneath. - robinthehood, on 08/20/2008, -1/+5Idealist at best. I would love to agree with you but if it's not religion it's something else. People love to be in groups, and when people are in groups they have a tendancy to feel threatened by other groups.
- gcopenhaver, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1Over-sized governments are the source of the vast majority of conflict in the world. An over-sized government would be a government that violates the rights (forcefully restricts freedoms) of individuals at any scale, whether their own or of another country.
I'm not sure about other religions, but Christianity (the largest religion in the world, with around 2 billion people) teaches that freedom, peace and justice are good/right, and to love others (even your enemies), and that slavery, coercion, violence, injustice are bad/wrong.
I suspect that the other Abrahamic religions (Judiasm and Islam, accounting for almost 2 billion more people) teach similar things, although there may be questionable ideas/practices in those other religions as well.
Basically, you can't truthfully blame religion...you can only blame people who don't follow some of the very simple and basic the teachings of their religion and allow their governments to do the bad things their religion teaches are bad.
And if you don't like your governments doing bad things, stop voting for people who are trying to make the government bigger (like the two main U.S. presidential candidates) through "government programs" that we "need" to "help" people. If you want to help people so bad, do it out of your own pocket...it's less wasteful (more efficient without bureaucrats and their cronies sucking up the money themselves), and doesn't violate the rights of the rest of us. The bigger the government, the more resources/power it has to do bad things (and it always does...ALWAYS...that is the very nature of government).
Our governments are unjust as soon as it adopts a law or policy that violates the freedoms of individuals, including but not limited to:
* violating the freedom to own property (as in social "welfare" programs, financial aid [student and other types], that confiscate property [usually money] from one person and give it out to another person, based on arbitrary criteria, and in taxes [more wealth/property confiscation] to support other government programs and institutions that violate other rights of people, and to support/bail out/keep alive bad businesses [which are poorly run, and inefficient, and would not last in a free market, since they obviously are not providing what people want])
* violating privacy (invading another persons property or country)
* violating the right to let live (killing/murder, mainly in other countries that the government had already [unjustly] invaded, but it happens here as well, probably mostly by law enFORCEment officers [those are the people that handle any resistance to the government's legal injustice against you and others, and are trained/allowed to commit further injustice to enforce the legal injustice])
etc, etc...
Of course these ideas are almost opposite of what Liberal Democrats and "Conservatives" believe, but they do match up with the teachings of the Christian Bible and as well with Libertarian philosophy.
- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -33/+13Yeah, that whole deal with Jesus teaching us to love each other, including our enemies, must really drag you down, huh?
- EatingPie, on 08/19/2008, -43/+98While there are certainly evils done in the name of religion -- that certainly includes Christianity -- the article erroneously assumes it's all bad.
* Slavery in England was ended due to work of William Wilberforce, a Christian who concluded that within his religious belief slavery was wrong.
* Martin Luther King fought for Civil Rights built upon his belief in God, and that God created all men equal. He worked as a *Christian pastor* for civil rights.
* Programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and The Salvation Army, which have helped millions, are Christian based -- the 12 steps are literally pulled straight from the Bible.
* The statement "all men are created equal" pre-supposes the existence of God, and has no meaning if you remove a creator from the equation.
Francis A Schaeffer also gives a three-fold logical argument for the existence of God, involving Metaphysics, Morality and Epistemology. The Moral argument in particular is an iff (if and only if), meaning that morality requires the existence of God, and vice versa.
-Pie- StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -11/+21"meaning that morality requires the existence of God"
Sure it does. The if and only if makes it so. - esfisher, on 08/20/2008, -24/+33I would say that MLK did what he did because he was brave, not because he was a Christian. AA and the Salvation Army do what they do because they are Christians who happen to be charitable and want to help others. Removing religion does not remove charity, bravery, and kindness toward others.
"The statement "all men are created equal" pre-supposes the existence of God, and has no meaning if you remove a creator from the equation."
I would contend that if God has a purpose for everyone, then we are not created equal. If we are born without a specific purpose and free to make the best of our situation, then we are equal.- JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -25/+8We all have equal value and worth in God's eyes. Our various situations on this planet don't change that.
- EatingPie, on 08/20/2008, -1/+1"We all have equal value and worth in God's eyes. Our various situations on this planet don't change that."
Why is this getting dugg down? That's exactly the answer to his question.
We all have different skills, abilities, desires, passions. But we all have equal *value*. That is the point of the statement "all men are created equal."
-Pie - gcopenhaver, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1"all men are created equal" is not talking about a persons ability to do certain things, or a persons motivations or desires, or their personality or anything like that...it means that you have the same freedoms/rights as everyone else, and you are accountable to God, not some other man that claims to be superior to you in an eternal way. You like every other person are 2nd only to God, and therefore we should treat each other the same way that you would want others to treat you, since with everyone being 2nd to God only, you have no reason to treat them greater than you (they aren't God) or less than you (you aren't God, nor are you superior to them in any eternal way), and you have no reason to treat yourself in a negative way, or in a self-worshipping manner. We are all equal, but unique, individuals, each created by God. Everyone is equal in the way that they are participating in a universal purpose, but each has varying unique purposes that lead to the realization of the more general purposes...that's why freedom is so important...the less freedom you have, the harder it is to fulfill your purpose, and the harder it is to help others fulfill theirs. With freedom, you have the unlimited opportunity to create wealth, which definitely helps provide resources to fulfill purposes, and improves the lives of everyone it touches. Wealth is not a bad thing at all, and no where in the Bible does it state that wealth is bad. There's the often misquoted (rarely fully quoted) and misunderstood line "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Wealth is not bad, but good. Doing bad things to aquire wealth is bad, but it doesn't make wealth in general bad. Everyone has some degree of wealth by just merely being alive. And those that trust in Jesus Christ as their savior can be considered the most wealthy of everyone in an eternal sense, with no matter to how much physical, non-permanent wealth they may have. Creating wealth is good for everyone, and helps everyone fulfill their purposes and have a better life, and Christianity spreads because of it. If Satan wanted to attempt to slow the progress of people fulfilling their individual purposes or larger collective purposes, destroying wealth, and preventing the creation of wealth would likely be the most effective way, because that alone can slow communication of Christian ideas to non-Christians, lower the quality of life for everyone, create more conflict between people instead of peace, and cause more violation of freedoms that effectively provide a downward spiral effect on everything it touches. What prevents the creation of wealth? Man-made governments and their man-made laws, both of which are inherently flawed, due to being created by imperfect man. Such laws that prevent/slow the creation of wealth are laws that confiscate wealth, like welfare laws, student financial aid laws, laws that create public schools (which are the most expensive type of school you can have, yet the lowest quality school you can have), etc. What do governments do that destroy wealth? War...law enforcement recklessness...creation/manipulation of fiat currencies, and artificial market places. Then all those things cause more and more anti-wealth problems...when you have a 'welfare' system, you are essentially subsidizing poor people, which only creates more poor people. When you subsidize bad businesses, you get more bad businesses. When you subsidize bad loans, you get more bad loans.
Since Satan cannot harm God in any way, he goes after the second best thing, Man, who God created in His Image. And he deceives people through nearly unlimited ways into doing things that God warned us not to do, on top of our imperfect selves who come up with some pretty stupid things on our own. And some very bad things have come from it. Governments that are meant to be just, are unjust through unjust laws. Governments are the most powerful institutions on the planet, which is where Satan would likely focus the bulk of his personal work, though large centralized religious groups (like Catholicism) also have a lot of power and/or influence over people, and would certainly be high priority for manipulation. If you want to prevent Satan from having such a large influence/power over people, don't give him such powerful things like over-sized governments to be manipulated to our destruction.
"all men are created equal" means that you, as an imperfect person, do not have any right to dictate another imperfect persons life, since you, as an imperfect person, will most definitely make imperfect choices for that other person, causing them more harm that they might have caused themselves from their own imperfection, which means that freedom is the best way for everyone.
I'll stop here for now... - Acolyte357, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1EatingPie, I guess you didn't finish the article
"the article erroneously assumes it's all bad."
"I understand that going to church or mosque or synagogue has a positive influence on a great number of people. I suggest though that this has a lot more to do with there being a social congregation of like-minded people than there actually being any spiritual connection or closeness to one deity or another."
AA has a 5% success rate, quiting cold turkey on your own has a....5% success rate. look at the great power of god...
The Salvation Army does a lot off good and I'm sure the majority of it's members are only there to help, but as an organization it is discriminatory. Look it up.
"all men are caused to exist equal", definition of created fits in there fine without god...why does your interpretation of the word yield something different?
Metaphysics should never be used in the same sentence with logic, but I'm curious do you have a link to this "logical argument"?
P.S. Your name appears next to your post. No need to sign it.
- hansk, on 08/20/2008, -19/+24A few good deeds do not override the overwhelming evil an organization does.
ex: Fascists like Mussolini brought about good changes like universal health care for all, nevertheless because of his brutal heavy handed methods he was hung upside down by a meat hook by his own people.- joe122370, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1universally poor health care for all! libs are so stupid
- smedrick, on 08/20/2008, -11/+23"The statement "all men are created equal" pre-supposes the existence of God, and has no meaning if you remove a creator from the equation."
Sure it has meaning. You just have to remove the nonsense from it:
All men are equal.
God only introduces unnecessary complexity to that statement.- secrity, on 08/20/2008, -1/+4Most of the people who signed the document that said ""all men are created equal" were not Christians.
- joe122370, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1no you'd have to say "all men accidentally, because of their environment happened to evolve from retarded fish monkey apes into men equally"
- mikepictor, on 08/20/2008, -0/+23Thank you. I'm an atheist, and frequently feel religion is against the better interest of humanity, but I agree with you fully that even if much evil has been caused in its name, a lot of good has be done as well. There is no point in building an argument against without fairly considering the argument for.
- flashback99, on 08/20/2008, -4/+4The argument isn't about what religion has done, being good or bad, but whether or what religion says is TRUE. This is how theists like the confuse the argument.
- darkstar949, on 08/20/2008, -0/+4Evil has been done under atheist guises as well - read up on the French Revolution. A good portion of the Regine of Terror involved the dechristianize of the country which in turn lead to a lot of people getting killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution#Rei ...
- FiveAlive, on 08/20/2008, -5/+12May I simply state that the Church of England was responsible for teaching many poor children how to read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/748428 ...- secrity, on 08/20/2008, -3/+4... and the Anglican Church in Canada was responsible for atrocities toward Native Americans while teaching them to read.
- FiveAlive, on 08/20/2008, -3/+0There is good and evil in every person.
- Phylodome, on 08/20/2008, -3/+2Wonderfully empty truism, Mr. Alive.
- FiveAlive, on 08/20/2008, -0/+0Do you disagree with the statements in the article?
- Azerael, on 08/20/2008, -17/+7Saying religion "isn't all bad" is like saying, "Well, the paedophile bought the little girl an ice-cream before he raped and killed her, he can't be all bad".
- dharmacrat, on 08/20/2008, -13/+8Thank God those noble white Christians had the moral clarity to take their feet off the throats of the black men. Hallelujah! Lord be praised!
Biblical passages were often used to defend and justify the practice of slavery. Look up the Curse of Ham sometime. Without this external justification, it wouldn't have lasted nearly as long. Moreover, the language of religion constantly reinforces destructive sociological tendencies with repeated themes of the "saved and unsaved," and "children of darkness and children of light". Without this US vs. THEM worldview being poured into the ears and poisoning the minds of the youth, racism would be a paper tiger. - BradOFarrell, on 08/20/2008, -9/+10Good things would still happen in a world where people's morality wasn't arbitrarily tied to a bunch of poorly written stories. Probably more often.
- vignor2003, on 08/20/2008, -8/+5"Good things would still happen in a world where people's morality wasn't arbitrarily tied to a bunch of poorly written stories."
Tell me - where does morality come from? What principles/beliefs/chemistry is it based upon? The concept of morality presupposes a 'correct' or 'right' way of doing things, otherwise we'd have nothing to compare the 'wrong' or 'bad' things to. Where does this measure come from? If the world wasn't created and was instead a chance happening and we have all evolved from lesser organisms, then what exists/existed for us to compare our moral/immoral actions to?
I say that there are two factors to 'religion.' The first and most recognized is the part that we call 'organized religion.' It is responsible for countless good deeds and atrocities alike. It is the perfect example of the inability of humans to be perfect but to want to be - to not be able to always do/act as they say or think they should. The second, but most important, is spirituality. Spirituality is the personal and individual relationship to the universe. I say that the spiritual part of humans is what gives us the ability to discern moral from immoral. And I believe that the only way we can be one or the other and know that we are is to have something to compare it to. And I believe the comparisons are only possible spiritually and not intellectually simply because there is no logic behind right or wrong, there is only a 'built in' knowledge of the difference between the two, and the free will to choose the one you want.
Morality can only be proven by the existence of something else - be it God, or the flying spaghetti monster. Without a basis of comparison, morality could not function, and since morality does function, there is really only one conclusion.- paidhima, on 08/20/2008, -3/+4Your explanation of morality is predicated on a fundamentally unproven assumption: God exists. If God didn't exist, there could be no morality. There is morality, therefore God exists. You're begging the question.
- Phylodome, on 08/20/2008, -4/+3You're obviously in the 50% segment of americans that knows nothing of evolution. Try reading Moral Minds by Marc Hauser...
- WarMachineWCLH, on 08/20/2008, -3/+3Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't help as many people as you would like to believe. Do you know the number of people that leave Alcoholics Anonymous that continue to remain sober for the rest of their life? It's about 5%. Do you know the the number of alcoholics in general that continue to remain sober for the rest of the life? It's about 5%. Do you know what the determining factor in either case is? Whether or not the specific alcoholic in question is committed to quitting. Alcoholics Anonymous does not help at all, it's a religious thing, so the fact that courts order someone to go to AA meetings to get sober is nothing more than a gross abuse of the separation of church and state.
- joe122370, on 08/20/2008, -5/+1there is no law for the separation of church and state. It was a simple phrase written in an editorial by Jefferson that somehow Atheists think is a constitutional right
- WarMachineWCLH, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1You're right and I knew someone was going to burn me on that, but none the less it's one of those "best practice" things. In a nation founded on the believe that you should be free to choose what you would is it really right to mandate that someone must choose to go to a religious organization or face more serve punishment? To say he must seek help from any such organization is one thing, but to order him to go to one that is specifically religious is another.
- bobburn, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2Sorry Joe, but Supreme Court precedent has ruled that there is a "wall of separation" between Church and State. And guess what? The US follows in the English tradition of precedent which makes Supreme Court rulings the LAW OF THE LAND. It's not an expressed right in the constitution but it is the law.
Take a basic US Law class and you'll figure out how the judicial system works---someday. - kittnerrules, on 08/20/2008, -2/+1AA is NOT a religious thing - it's a spiritual thing. There IS a difference. Sure, the vast majority in there believe in the Christian God, but that doesn't mean someone else has to to make it work.
- nycmac247, on 08/20/2008, -4/+1ALL THOSE PEOPLE ALSO LIKED CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM!!!
- dukeochutney, on 08/20/2008, -1/+2i guess creating a few programs helps make up for the millions upon millions of humans who have died in the name of god over the existence of humanity. it doesnt matter how much good they do the plain fact is their hands are covered in so much blood religion has created more woes then advantages for our society.
there is always the necessity for a controlling mindset for most humans though. im betting if religion ever was abolished some other group thought structure would appear to oppress people again. - EatingPie, on 08/20/2008, -1/+1"Alcoholics Anonymous does not help at all..."
This is completely wrong. A 100% falsehood. I have direct experience here and the experience of *millions* of people (AA has been around 80 years or so, and even your 5% number adds up to millions) that are documented cases of success, specifically with people who tried to stop many times outside of AA and weren't successful until they entered AA.
Medical Doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists ALL recognize that AA actually works. These aren't biased religious institutions, but all three are different scientific disciplines.
-Pie - mrkmrk, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1I know they're two different documents, but when Alexander Hamilton was asked why God wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, he said something along the lines of, "Oh, we must have forgotten." Lines like that aren't meant to support religion; the founding fathers were mostly deists.
- StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -11/+21"meaning that morality requires the existence of God"
- dildoolielly, on 08/19/2008, -23/+74
Imagine a world without religion......ANY religion. Man, that'd be GREAT. No major outbreak of pedophilia or mass murder in the "Name of God". Trains and buses would live out their service lives WITHOUT exploding. People wouldn't be so willfully ignorant. Science would flourish. Freedom would reign s