O.k. For the sake of argument, let us agree that it is not by chance. Why does god get credit for the beauty in the world but not the blame for natural disasters? That does not seem the least bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too?
This also sounds somewhat like the argument that the world is beautiful, therefore someone must have made it. Yet, this rests on the acceptance that no one created god. It is an argument that refutes itself.
|
Why is Krishna not the source? Or Woden? Or the Tao? Or Baal? Or Ea? Or Apsu? No offense Moff, but there's nothing you've said there that would make it purely a Judeo-Christian source. Clearly. ;)
I'm not saying that it is.
(I really didn't expect this kind of response from this small point.)
Look, these things didn't happen to me. Ask them. I'm just relating what I've heard. I really don't know why they feel that it came from the Judeo-Christian God -- only that they felt that it did. There is no "evidence". There is nothing "concrete" or consistent. They felt that the source was something specific and other than what you or I would expect them to think.
I did not say anything that "would make it purely a Judeo-Christian source." So I'm not sure why this is a big point of contention.
|
|
O.k. For the sake of argument, let us agree that it is not by chance. Why does god get credit for the beauty in the world but not the blame for natural disasters? That does not seem the least bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too?
I blame God for allowing/causing the earthquake in Haiti that took my friend and many other people.
Do I get cake now?
I blame God for allowing/causing the earthquake in Haiti that took my friend an many other people.
Do I get cake now?
I really did not want to go there, Moff. I apologize if it feels like I am attacking your beliefs. Questioning, yes, but I do not mean to attack you or your beliefs.
|
|
This also sounds somewhat like the argument that the world is beautiful, therefore someone must have made it. Yet, this rests on the acceptance that no one created god. It is an argument that refutes itself.
Not really -- but I understand what you are saying. But it kind of comes across as though 1+1=2. Therefore 2+1=2. But 1=/=2.
I'm actually a little surprised that most scientists (to my knowledge) feel that the universe had a beginning. For some reason that surprises me. Does that mean that the universe will have an end? "God" is not the universe. "God" is not the earth. "God" is not mankind. Why should "God" have the same properties as any of those other things.
|
|
I really did not want to go there, Moff. I apologize if it feels like I am attacking your beliefs. Questioning, yes, but I do not mean to attack you or your beliefs.I blame God for allowing/causing the earthquake in Haiti that took my friend an many other people.
Do I get cake now?
Really, I'm good.
There are a lot of things that don't make sense. People say that "God is good" but what they really mean is that they want God to be "good" in their favor. That's not really terribly Biblical. People try and pick and choose what they want out of the Bible to make God into what they want. That's not right.
There are a lot of things I don't understand. More often than not -- it's because I want things to be different than they are.
|
|
I really did not want to go there, Moff. I apologize if it feels like I am attacking your beliefs. Questioning, yes, but I do not mean to attack you or your beliefs.
Really want you to know that I'm ok. The people here (atheist and Christian alike) all really helped me come to terms with what happened. We spent Mother's day with Renee and her kids. It was good and difficult at the same time.
But more than anything, I really want to say "thank you" to my friends here. You guys helped me through it more than anyone or anything else.
EDIT: Ironic isn't it.
Not really -- but I understand what you are saying. But it kind of comes across as though 1+1=2. Therefore 2+1=2. But 1=/=2.
Well, it is kind of important. It proves that something can exist without a creator. Therefore, just because the mountains are beautiful does not mean there is a god.
Why should "God" have the same properties as any of those other things.
God does not have to have any of the properties of any of those other things. Here is the thing, though, you say there is a god and I say there is not. Neither one of us can prove or disprove either position. Now, you further say that god can violate the apparent rules of the known universe. By simple logic, which position seems more reasonable?
You believe in god and I dare say you would argue it is something more than some indoctrination. So what is it? From where I sit, I see no reasonable explanation for a belief in god.
EDIT: Ironic isn't it.
I do not find it ironic. Lack of belief in any particular god does not make people any less humane.
Or inhumane at times for believers as well. Or those who claim belief.
Including Muslims? :)
I was not going to go there.
Well, that is kind of my point. No one wants to be lumped into the 'bad' group, but everyone has no problem lumping others into it.
One of the comments¹ I read in response to the Draw Mohamed day said something about the history of violence that is Islam. The entire time I am reading this tirade, I am thinking, "Have you forgotten the Crusades and Inquisition?"
¹This was on another website, Yahoo, I think, but I do not remember for sure.
No. Ironic in that I felt like I got better or more support here than at church.
No charge. :)
|
I was not going to go there.Well, that is kind of my point. No one wants to be lumped into the 'bad' group, but everyone has no problem lumping others into it.
Actually my original post on this I was not thinking of Islam at all. My thoughts ran more along the lines of the well take your choice. Mega churches, sex scandals, cover ups.
Still kind of my point, CJ. You do not want to be lumped in with 'crazy' Christians, but how many times have you stood up to those disparaging Muslims as nothing but terrorists?
One of the comments¹ I read in response to the Draw Mohamed day said something about the history of violence that is Islam. The entire time I am reading this tirade, I am thinking, "Have you forgotten the Crusades and Inquisition?"
Tibet under the Dalai Lama was a pretty terrible place to live too. Japanese Shinto-Buddhist syncretists massacred Japanese Christian converts. Nobody has a clean record once they get into power.
No charge. :)
No. Ironic in that I felt like I got better or more support here than at church.
His church asks him to tithe. Wow, we really are the better deal. :P
|
|
An ex-Christian apologizes.
Something about this one rubs me wrong -- and not the obvious. It sounds like (from reading the comments) that he had some real nut-jobs as "Christian" mentors. And because of this, he's decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
|
Sorry you lost me there.
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
Well there is this very very suspicious comparison Krishna and Jesus Be reminded Lord Krishna predates Jesus.
|
|
An ex-Christian apologizes.Something about this one rubs me wrong -- and not the obvious. It sounds like (from reading the comments) that he had some real nut-jobs as "Christian" mentors. And because of this, he's decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm still thinking about this one.
There's something about many of the "evangelical atheists" that rub me wrong. Most that I've seen/come across have a chip on their shoulder that was put there by churches or others of some faith. I don't fault them for their feelings, but they almost seem to imply that they were hurt by the church and if they can only stamp out all religion, then others won't be hurt. Which further implies that no one is helped by religion.
There are a lot of Christians who go about it wrong. I feel that here is an example of an atheist who is going about it wrong.
|
|
Well there is this very very suspicious comparison Krishna and Jesus Be reminded Lord Krishna predates Jesus.Sorry you lost me there.
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
Then of course there is the comparison of the egyptian god Horus and Jesus . Again Horus predates Jesus by a long shot.
|
|
Well there is this very very suspicious comparison Krishna and Jesus Be reminded Lord Krishna predates Jesus.Sorry you lost me there.
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
That wasn't what I was talking about. Looking back at my quote, I can see how I wasn't clear what I was talking about. I was talking about people today and personal experiences that they may have. Sorry about the HUGE amount of confusion related to my post.
|
|
Then of course there is the comparison of the egyptian god Horus and Jesus . Again Horus predates Jesus by a long shot.Well there is this very very suspicious comparison Krishna and Jesus Be reminded Lord Krishna predates Jesus.Sorry you lost me there.
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
Then of course there is the persian savior Mithra who predates Jesus by centuries and Mithra was:
* Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.* He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
* He had 12 companions or disciples.
* Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
* He performed miracles.
* As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
* He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
* His resurrection was celebrated every year.
* He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
* He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
* His sacred day was Sunday.
* Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
* His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
|
|
That wasn't what I was talking about. Looking back at my quote, I can see how I wasn't clear what I was talking about. I was talking about people today and personal experiences that they may have. Sorry about the HUGE amount of confusion related to my post.Well there is this very very suspicious comparison Krishna and Jesus Be reminded Lord Krishna predates Jesus.Sorry you lost me there.
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
Sorry man, I was just responding to the last sentence of the post about miracles pointing toward the judeo christian god. Sorry if I offended you.
Or inhumane at times for believers as well. Or those who claim belief.EDIT: Ironic isn't it.I do not find it ironic. Lack of belief in any particular god does not make people any less humane.
Noooo!!!! Here I thought religion makes someone more or maybe less human.
On a scary note, I just realized some people might actually believe that religion makes a person more or less human. Crazy.
That wasn't what I was talking about. Looking back at my quote, I can see how I wasn't clear what I was talking about. I was talking about people today and personal experiences that they may have. Sorry about the HUGE amount of confusion related to my post.
Well thanks for noticing that my confusion is very massive. I tell you, it sure impresses all the ladies.
Also, Mithra's Secretary of State was named Jesus, who warned him not to go to see a play, and Jesus's Secretary of State was named Mithra, who warned him not to f&&# with the Romans.
AUUUUUUUGHSODAINTHENOSEAGAIN
|
|
Sorry man, I was just responding to the last sentence of the post about miracles pointing toward the judeo christian god. Sorry if I offended you.
Not offended. I was just wondering why "y'all" couldn't figure out what I was actually thinking. ;-)
I'm at least a little familiar with the different correlations/similarities of a "Jesus" figure in different cultures/faiths. I believe that C.S. Lewis wrote something on it. It's interesting. Not sure if I would call many of them "miracles". But regardless, while "curious", I'm not sure that it proves/disproves anything.
No. Ironic in that I felt like I got better or more support here than at church.EDIT: Ironic isn't it.I do not find it ironic. Lack of belief in any particular god does not make people any less humane.
Most of those who go to church are there more for the sense of community and working on their attendance badge for seniority rather than trying to question and/or understand at a deeper level. That's just my opinion.
Also, Mithra's Secretary of State was named Jesus, who warned him not to go to see a play, and Jesus's Secretary of State was named Mithra, who warned him not to f!&~ with the Romans.f&~*in Awesome!!!!!
+2
|
|
Most of those who go to church are there more for the sense of community and working on their attendance badge for seniority rather than trying to question and/or understand at a deeper level. That's just my opinion.
I've got my "attendance badge" -- ain't got no "seniority" though. I rock the boat a little too much.
Most of those who go to church are there more for the sense of community and working on their attendance badge for seniority rather than trying to question and/or understand at a deeper level. That's just my opinion.I've got my "attendance badge" -- ain't got no "seniority" though. I rock the boat a little too much.
I also forgot to mention the "good guy" badge too. :p
|
|
I also forgot to mention the "good guy" badge too. :pMost of those who go to church are there more for the sense of community and working on their attendance badge for seniority rather than trying to question and/or understand at a deeper level. That's just my opinion.I've got my "attendance badge" -- ain't got no "seniority" though. I rock the boat a little too much.
Screw that I'm a DM, I like playing villains they're so awesome.
Screw that I'm a DM, I like playing villains they're so awesome.I also forgot to mention the "good guy" badge too. :pMost of those who go to church are there more for the sense of community and working on their attendance badge for seniority rather than trying to question and/or understand at a deeper level. That's just my opinion.I've got my "attendance badge" -- ain't got no "seniority" though. I rock the boat a little too much.
Maybe it's a neurosis of mine, but if I need a plumber, I purposely avoid any of those that uses the Xtian fish symbol in their ads. I know it's generally part of the trade as an accepted symbol of usage, but it annoys me. It's like a replacement of the BBB to say, "hey, I'm a good guy, so get me to do your job because I definitely won't pull the wool over your eyes". Etc. Do the job right on the merits of your reputation preceding yourself for a job well done and keeping costs affordable ... not because you got a 'good guy' badge.
/off soapbox
|
|
Still kind of my point, CJ. You do not want to be lumped in with 'crazy' Christians, but how many times have you stood up to those disparaging Muslims as nothing but terrorists?
What?!? I do not think I have EVER lumped all Muslims in the same group. If you are thinking I have I suggest you go back and reread the posts. Honestly I am not sure what you are talking about. Hell I haven't even lumped all atheists in the same category.
Still kind of my point, CJ. You do not want to be lumped in with 'crazy' Christians, but how many times have you stood up to those disparaging Muslims as nothing but terrorists?What?!? I do not think I have EVER lumped all Muslims in the same group. If you are thinking I have I suggest you go back and reread the posts. Honestly I am not sure what you are talking about. Hell I haven't even lumped all atheists in the same category.
He's not saying you have. He's asking how many times have you stood up to those who are.
Still kind of my point, CJ. You do not want to be lumped in with 'crazy' Christians, but how many times have you stood up to those disparaging Muslims as nothing but terrorists?What?!? I do not think I have EVER lumped all Muslims in the same group. If you are thinking I have I suggest you go back and reread the posts. Honestly I am not sure what you are talking about. Hell I haven't even lumped all atheists in the same category.
What Orthos said above my msg. And I can vouch you don't lump all atheists in the same category. :p
It's still beautiful and amazing to me that water is forced up out of the ground at around 13+ thousand feet (not at lower elevations) to create streams and rivers that flow all year round that ultimately water huge portions of Western and Southern US. It's wonderful, beautiful, cool, and it works. You believe that it all happened and works due to chance -- I have a hard time believing that.
Sorry -- this particular false dichotomy makes my blood boil. There are more possible mechanisms for things, other than simply "God" or "random chance." Simple example: if I see you with a black eye, I'm going to figure you walked into a door, or that someone whacked you in the eye. Both are perfectly workable. Neither one involves "God did it!" Neither one involves random chance.
Same with springs and waterfalls. There are physical mechanisms like gravity and seepage that in NO way operate according to chance -- they operate according to the laws of physics. Neither one requires divine intervention to work, either. Unless you're simply saying that God set up the laws of nature and then went on sabbatical -- which I can't possibly quibble with, except that it sort of makes one a Deist rather than a Christian.
Sorry -- this particular false dichotomy makes my blood boil.
Ditto.
I also don't get the "what are the odds the world ended up just the way we humans need it to survive -- by chance?" bit. As if the environment conformed to us, instead of the exact opposite...
Haven't we covered this ground (more than once) in this thread?
There's something about many of the "evangelical atheists" that rub me wrong. Most that I've seen/come across have a chip on their shoulder that was put there by churches or others of some faith.
I don't know, is it a chip on your shoulder if you're really treated poorly and have a normal reaction to it? (Sorry, that's just something that bugs me about that old phrase. It seems to cover people with genuine grievances who really were hurt as much as it covers genuine jerks.)
But that's not the case with Luke. To be sure there's a lot of angst in his conversion story, but it's all the normal stuff about discovering that what you've believed in very deeply is just not the case. Certainly he wasn't treated poorly. His family didn't reject him. He apparently didn't lose any friends of significance. He’s been critical of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens on occasion. Fair point that I can hardly expect a random person to know about a random blogger, though. :)
I don't fault them for their feelings, but they almost seem to imply that they were hurt by the church and if they can only stamp out all religion, then others won't be hurt. Which further implies that no one is helped by religion.
I'm not sure, being I don't actually know the guy, but I think Luke's point in the apology is that he was hurt by being taught to do as he describes and then went out and hurt others because of it. That being the case, we can certainly class his list as instances of religion doing harm as he sees it. It doesn't quite follow that all religion is harmful, or that it is never helpful.
Just speaking for myself now, I certainly don't think all religion is equally harmful. The people handing out flowers at the airport are probably not the sorts who will be driving planes into buildings any time soon. But I do think there's harm in teaching belief without evidence is virtuous. Faith seems to be to be a very dangerous habit to be in. This is not because the people who have it are deformed monsters who lurk in the darkness and feast on babies. Some of them, like you, turn out just fine. But say someone is mistaken about something important. Where is the self-correcting mechanism in faith to purge error and accept new evidence? With faith alone, how does one talk someone down from a bad idea? How can one find errors in one’s own reasoning?
A while back I posted William Lane Craig’s claim that even in the face of what he agreed was incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, he would still believe it because, essentially, he sees is faith as infallible. Craig has not, to my knowledge, driven any planes into buildings. But how would you talk down someone who thought driving planes into buildings was the right thing to do, when they come at it with his attitude? I don't see any way at all. That’s the essential harm I see in religion in itself.
That doesn’t, of course, mean that the harm religion does by the aforementioned means necessarily outweighs any good it could potentially do. Believing in some really crazy things doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t also go out and feed the homeless, be kind to children and other small animals, or so forth. I think that as an aggregate, religion at large is a truly terrible thing because of the faith business and a whole range of other things, but if all that other stuff was cut out and all the good stuff remained then I’m not sure if the weight of faith would still be enough to throw the scales towards it being a net negative.
I also don't get the "what are the odds the world ended up just the way we humans need it to survive -- by chance?" bit. As if the environment conformed to us, instead of the exact opposite...
Douglas Adams used to liken it to a race of sentient puddles commenting on how they must have had an intelligent designer to make sure the depressions they rested in fit them so well.