Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[GostHacked]

[carepov]

You said: "Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear". By your reasoning "some force" is more plausible than the Gummy Bear because you didn't name it. Yet, in this thread we've been talking about the Christian god. We know a lot about God. He's a dude, he's fond of killing people, he takes Sundays off, etc. So you believe the Christian god is less plausible than the Gummy Bear then?

A dude-god that is fond of killing people and takes Sundays off, etc, is about as unplausible as a Gummy Bear god.

The Christian (Abrahamic) God is not so easily defined. I already suggested "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong. AFAIK, most beleivers think that this God is mysterious and unknowable.

[Mighty AC]

What I said is true. If logic were absolute, then one cannot use logic to argue that there is no god - as there is no absolute answer to that question.

Logic is not absolute.

No I think you're off the mark on this. Logic is a system of correct reasoning. The system of reasoning is not invalidated by a question that cannot be answered at a given time, the answer is just unknown.

It is hard to prove a negative so your task of 'argue that there is no god' is an irrational one, which is why the burden of proof lies with those making a positive claim. For example it's not your job to prove that a Gummy Bear overlord does not exist, it would be mine to prove its existence. Anyway, nonsensical questions or tasks can still be attempted logically.

Feats attributed to gods like responses to prayer and miracles can be tested. Scriptural accounts of events attributed to god's can be investigated. Consideration can be made for events that once were attributed to gods and now are understood to be natural. The number of knowns can be compared to the unknowns and a probability of the existence of gods can be estimated.

Of course, claimed evidence for a god would have to be stated and tested. So what is the evidence for a god that you claim I dismiss?

[Mighty AC]

A dude-god that is fond of killing people and takes Sundays off, etc, is about as unplausible as a Gummy Bear god.

The Christian (Abrahamic) God is not so easily defined. I already suggested "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong. AFAIK, most beleivers think that this God is mysterious and unknowable.

We agree that the god of the bible is equivalent to my Gummy Bear god then. However, I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of what 'most' Christians believe.

According to the bible, the apparent word of the Abrahamic God and the basis for the many Christian religions, we know quite a lot about the dude. Your impressions of Christianity suggest that believers have a great deal of freedom to invent their own belief system on the fly. However, I don't think this is the case for the majority. Over time each sect has tweaked and invented its own tale, cherry picking and ignoring various biblical bits. However, most followers of that sect tend to accept the resulting story as more or less true.

[kimmy]

Thanks, very interesting.

I wonder what percentage of prisoners know what "atheist" means?

Sorry if I gave the impression of "moving goalposts" I did not mean to establish any goalposts. As I described in my previous post - I think that there needs to be a distinction between self-identified religious affiliations and those people that actually are active practitioners of a religion.

Yes it is fair to say the self-identified non-religious and atheists are underrepresented in US federal prisons. So far I know nothing about whether or not practicing religious people (those people that were practicing their religion lets say 12 months before they committed their crimes) are over/under represented. My money is on under.

Many people receive religious/moral/values teachings that goes in one ear and out the other. Is this any different than learning Canadian history or trigonometry? Would the fact that Canadians are largely ignorant of trigonometry and their own history dispute anyone's claim that public education is the best way of teaching these subjects? I think that there are so many upsides to a moderate amount of religious/moral teaching/practice for children (1-2 hours per week) and no downside.

If people really believed in religion, would the message go in one ear and out the other? If they really believed in it, would they stop going to church all together? Not listening to your girlfriend is one thing, but not listening to the rules of an all-seeing all-powerful judge who can sentence you to an eternity of torment for ignoring his rules is entirely different. If people really believed in an eternity of torment, would they stop going to church?

Certainly there are some who do, but as we've been discussing there are significant numbers who act against the rules of their professed religions, and there are significant numbers who quit practicing their religion.

I think the answer is fairly obvious... many people just stop believing.

If the only reason your kids behave themselves is because they're afraid Santa Claus won't bring them a present on Christmas morning... what happens when they find out there's no Santa Claus?

If all your moral lessons are bound up in the premise that people who refuse to play by the rules will face the wrath of the Cosmic Gummy Bear, what happens when people stop believing there's a Cosmic Gummy Bear and decide there's not going to be any wrath if they break the rules?

The world would be really simple if everybody did believe in the same Cosmic Gummy Bear, and we all had a comprehensive set of rules written down that left very little room for interpretation. But not everybody believes in the same gummy bear. And even those who do believe in the same gummy bear can't agree on what the rules really mean.

But leaving that aside, what is it that really keeps you safe when you walk down the street? How can we leave our homes without fear that all the other humanoids we live amongst will kill us and steal our things and worse?

Ultimately, it's not the existence of a Cosmic Gummy Bear. It's that we all subscribe to a set of rules.

It's the agreement amongst all of us to follow those rules that keeps you safe when you walk down the street. Did the rules come from the alleged writings of a Cosmic Gummy Bear? Did the rules come from a bunch of Englishmen with powdered wigs? Both and neither.

Do people obey the rules because they're afraid of going to jail, or because they're afraid of an eternity of Gummy Bear wrath? Both and neither.

While some people think that people who stop believing in God will go around robbing and raping and killing...

...the truth is that atheists aren't really that big on robbing and raping and killing either.

-k

[carepov]

We agree that the god of the bible is equivalent to my Gummy Bear god then.

No.

However, I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of what 'most' Christians believe.

Probably not, but probably more than you. IMO, most Christians do not read the bible and know not much more than a few stories. Most Christians do not take these stories literally. Most Christians understand that the bible was written by humans and therefore flawed.

According to the bible, the apparent word of the Abrahamic God and the basis for the many Christian religions, we know quite a lot about the dude.

No. If we "know" so much then there would be no need for books like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God. There would ne no need for Departments of Theology.

Your impressions of Christianity suggest that believers have a great deal of freedom to invent their own belief system on the fly. However, I don't think this is the case for the majority. Over time each sect has tweaked and invented its own tale, cherry picking and ignoring various biblical bits. However, most followers of that sect tend to accept the resulting story as more or less true.

First, there is no "resulting story" - there are a bunch of stories. Second, there is more to religion than stories.

Some people "practice" a religion and don't believe any of the stories. Some believe them all. Most are somewhere in between.

[Mighty AC]

So what evidence separates the mysterious unknowable god you speak of from the Cosmic Gummy Bear? BTW, the kids are calling it the CGB these days. "You down with C G B? Yeah, you know me! Who's down with C G B? Every last homie!"

[carepov]

If people really believed in religion, would the message go in one ear and out the other? If they really believed in it, would they stop going to church all together? Not listening to your girlfriend is one thing, but not listening to the rules of an all-seeing all-powerful judge who can sentence you to an eternity of torment for ignoring his rules is entirely different. If people really believed in an eternity of torment, would they stop going to church?

Certainly there are some who do, but as we've been discussing there are significant numbers who act against the rules of their professed religions, and there are significant numbers who quit practicing their religion.

I think the answer is fairly obvious... many people just stop believing.

If the only reason your kids behave themselves is because they're afraid Santa Claus won't bring them a present on Christmas morning... what happens when they find out there's no Santa Claus?

If all your moral lessons are bound up in the premise that people who refuse to play by the rules will face the wrath of the Cosmic Gummy Bear, what happens when people stop believing there's a Cosmic Gummy Bear and decide there's not going to be any wrath if they break the rules?

The world would be really simple if everybody did believe in the same Cosmic Gummy Bear, and we all had a comprehensive set of rules written down that left very little room for interpretation. But not everybody believes in the same gummy bear. And even those who do believe in the same gummy bear can't agree on what the rules really mean.

But leaving that aside, what is it that really keeps you safe when you walk down the street? How can we leave our homes without fear that all the other humanoids we live amongst will kill us and steal our things and worse?

Ultimately, it's not the existence of a Cosmic Gummy Bear. It's that we all subscribe to a set of rules.

It's the agreement amongst all of us to follow those rules that keeps you safe when you walk down the street. Did the rules come from the alleged writings of a Cosmic Gummy Bear? Did the rules come from a bunch of Englishmen with powdered wigs? Both and neither.

Do people obey the rules because they're afraid of going to jail, or because they're afraid of an eternity of Gummy Bear wrath? Both and neither.

While some people think that people who stop believing in God will go around robbing and raping and killing...

...the truth is that atheists aren't really that big on robbing and raping and killing either.

-k

If I understand your post correctly, I pretty much agree with all your points. I certainly agree that there are plenty of wonderfully virtuous non-believers and there are plenty of believers whose actions and ideas I will not defend.

a.) Marginalizing harmful religious ideas is good and should be a the goal of secular and non-secular society

b.) Marginalizing all religious people/ideas is counter-productive towards achieving goal a)

[cybercoma]

True, but the logic is still constant, provided the variables are defined. Now trying to get people that deal in relativistic mysticism to nail down their variables is damn near impossible.

exactly

[cybercoma]

...the truth is that atheists aren't really that big on robbing and raping and killing either.

-k

And quite possibly even less so, according to a 2005 report by Kripke Center:

Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

AND

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.

The full report here: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf

Oh and for the record...they're a religious outfit.

Edited October 3, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

So what evidence separates the mysterious unknowable god you speak of from the Cosmic Gummy Bear? BTW, the kids are calling it the CGB these days. "You down with C G B? Yeah, you know me! Who's down with C G B? Every last homie!"

That's amazing! Kids these days are still using slang from two decades ago.

[Bob Macadoo]

That's amazing! Kids these days are still using slang from two decades ago.

"Don't have a cow man!"

[dre]

Logic builds on assumptions. People starting with different assumptions can come to different logical conclusions. i.e. 2+2 only equals 4 if one assumes base 10 math. Assume base 3 math and 2+2=10

Sure but in this case we dont even get to the point where we could run any numbers. Some people are making a claim, and then not providing a shred of empyrical evidence to support it.

So for people who live in an evidence-based reality, theres simply no need to even consider these claims from the standpoint of logic/math/reason. You could refute empirical evidence...but you cant start doing that until some evidence has been presented.

[Guest American Woman]

No I think you're off the mark on this. Logic is a system of correct reasoning. The system of reasoning is not invalidated by a question that cannot be answered at a given time, the answer is just unknown.

No, I'm not off the mark. Again. If there is always a correct, ie: concrete, answer when logic is used, then the question of whether or not there is a god would have a definite answer, as in mathematical equations.

As it stands, both sides claim logic in their reasoning. Logic, as I said, is not an absolute.

It is hard to prove a negative so your task of 'argue that there is no god' is an irrational one, which is why the burden of proof lies with those making a positive claim.

I've never said that anyone has to 'argue that there is no god.' I've simply pointed out that those who believe there is no god have no definitive proof. As for those making the claim needing to provide proof, they have. That you reject their proof doesn't mean that they haven't provided any. You keep saying that people who believe 'believe without proof/evidence,' but that is flat-out wrong. That you reject their proof/evidence doesn't wipe it out of the argument/existence.

For example it's not your job to prove that a Gummy Bear overlord does not exist, it would be mine to prove its existence. Anyway, nonsensical questions or tasks can still be attempted logically.

Both sides of the 'is there a god' question have used logic to come to their conclusions. Therefore, logic is not absolute. That has been my point, not that it can't be argued logically. I'm simply asking who gets to determine what's logical? What's logical to one view isn't necessarily logical to the other.

Feats attributed to gods like responses to prayer and miracles can be tested. Scriptural accounts of events attributed to god's can be investigated. Consideration can be made for events that once were attributed to gods and now are understood to be natural. The number of knowns can be compared to the unknowns and a probability of the existence of gods can be estimated.

"Probability" is far from an absolute, and usually dependent on one's view.

Of course, claimed evidence for a god would have to be stated and tested. So what is the evidence for a god that you claim I dismiss?

If you are truly ignorant of all the evidence that people have claimed regarding the existence of a god, I can't help you. It would require much more time and effort than I am willing to put forth. If you truly were interested in what evidence people base their beliefs on, there is enough literature/books to keep you busy for a long time.

Often, too, beliefs are personal and the 'evidence' for which one believes is personal.

All you have to do is recognize that people have evidence; that they don't have blind faith. You don't have to agree with their evidence, but that doesn't mean that they are believing without evidence. That is the bottom line.

[BubberMiley]

Odd that you would say:

I've simply pointed out that those who believe there is no god have no definitive proof.

And then in the next sentence say:

As for those making the claim needing to provide proof, they have. That you reject their proof doesn't mean that they haven't provided any.

There is more definitive proof that there is no god than proof that there is, and just because you reject that proof doesn't mean it hasn't been provided.

To make it simple, here is one simple scientific test: Look at objective statistical analyses of the benefit of praying. You will find it has zero effect.

[eyeball]

What a complete @#$%^&* waste of time.

[dre]

As it stands, both sides claim logic in their reasoning. Logic, as I said, is not an absolute.

No the religious side generally claims "faith".

Its a completely different kind of belief. Its not based on logic, its based on a doctrine that has been handed down over many generations. No child is ever going to sit there and logically analyze the evidence around them, and come up with "Jesus is the son of god". The child believes these things because in most cases their parents or other people they respect told him they were true. Its really the same reason children believe in Santa Clause.

Theres a huge diference. Logic is based on empiricism. Doctrinal beliefs are based on some accepted body of knowledge/belief that may or may not be based on empirical logic or oberservation.

Faith and Logic are opposing paradigms. If religious belief was based on logic and observation then no "faith" would be required.

Edited October 4, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

I believed Santa Clause was real when I was a kid. He was on TV, in the malls, even tv specials were made about him. When I was growing up, some friends claimed Santa was not real. I told them that Santa was real because I heard him say HO HO HO from the basement. All that evidence was false.

All that evidence can convince a child that Santa is real. But later in life we discover that Santa is not real. So why do we go with this charade that is Santa Clause? Easter Bunny as well. Christian manifestations. Mainly marketing tools for those who want you to buy their stuff.

[eyeball]

Ever watched/listened to younger kids being disabused of their faith in Santa? A tragicomic process that's nowhere near as painful to watch as this thread.

Mine were pretty certain he was able to jimmy the door to the old airtight stove after coming down the chimney but my granddaughter is more than a little worried about him being ground up into pieces when he tries to pass through the auger in my new pellet stove.

Edited October 4, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

No the religious side generally claims "faith".

Sorry, but not "no," as the religious have applied "logic" when explaining their beliefs, their views, too. As I said, both sides have, and that's a fact.

Its a completely different kind of belief. Its not based on logic,

That's your opinion. Those who have explained their belief in god through logic would disagree.

its based on a doctrine that has been handed down over many generations.

Some religious people's beliefs are based on that. Not all.

No child is ever going to sit there and logically analyze the evidence around them, and come up with "Jesus is the son of god". The child believes these things because in most cases their parents or other people they respect told him they were true. Its really the same reason children believe in Santa Clause.

I'm generally not speaking of children's beliefs in this thread. Are you?? Because children generally don't know how to deduct the Big Bang theory all on their own, either. You keep equating a belief in a god to a belief in a Santa Claus, to children's beliefs, and that's not relevant to adult's belief in a god.

Theres a huge diference. Logic is based on empiricism. Doctrinal beliefs are based on some accepted body of knowledge/belief that may or may not be based on empirical logic or oberservation.

The bottom line is that some religious people do use logic to explain their beliefs.

Faith and Logic are opposing paradigms. If religious belief was based on logic and observation then no "faith" would be required.

Not true. Logic says the sun is going to come up tomorrow and we have faith that it will.

[guyser]

What a complete @#$%^&* waste of time.

This bears repeating.

Especially in light of this bon mot...."as the religious have applied "logic" when explaining their beliefs, their views, too"

As if any religious person has ever successfully applied logic , reasoned or otherwise, to what thier faith tells them. I suppose some just cant stand the thought that they are wrong. This is obviously one of those times.

[GostHacked]

Sorry, but not "no," as the religious have applied "logic" when explaining their beliefs, their views, too. As I said, both sides have, and that's a fact.

They may consider it logic, but it is simply faith. No logic is required for faith. No logic is required to explain faith.

Some religious people's beliefs are based on that. Not all.

If you had grown up in a different religion, you'd have a different view. Indoctrination.

I'm generally not speaking of children's beliefs in this thread. Are you?? Because children generally don't know how to deduct the Big Bang theory all on their own, either. You keep equating a belief in a god to a belief in a Santa Claus, to children's beliefs, and that's not relevant to adult's belief in a god.

It's quite relevant. I'll say God is a fairy tale for adults.

The bottom line is that some religious people do use logic to explain their beliefs.

No they use faith to explain their beliefs. Logic is not a prerequisite for faith.

Not true. Logic says the sun is going to come up tomorrow and we have faith that it will.

It does not so much come up, as we rotate on our axis in orbit of our sun in a helical motion as we collectively plow our way through the outer rim of our galaxy.

[GostHacked]

Might be a bit to pretentious to say our galaxy. Other intelligent life might say something different. But we can always say it's just their opinion.

[BubberMiley]

If you believe strongly enough in a new definition of the word "logic," you can say anything is logical.

[Guest American Woman]

They may consider it logic, but it is simply faith. No logic is required for faith. No logic is required to explain faith.

Yes, they do consider it logic, and that's my point. Logic is not absolute. You say it's simply faith, and that's simply your opinion. While logic isn't required for faith, some faith is based on logic.

If you had grown up in a different religion, you'd have a different view. Indoctrination.

Yet many people who grew up in a religious household don't believe in a god as an adult, while many adults who didn't grow up with religion do believe in a god. Also, many who grew up in one faith switch to another as an adult. Many people's beliefs don't parrot their parents'. Belief does not = indoctrination.

It's quite relevant. I'll say God is a fairy tale for adults.

And I'll say that comment shows ignorance and bigotry. The other side of the coin that I speak of.

No they use faith to explain their beliefs. Logic is not a prerequisite for faith.

You're saying "no" doesn't change the reality.

It does not so much come up, as we rotate on our axis in orbit of our sun in a helical motion as we collectively plow our way through the outer rim of our galaxy.

So there's no such thing as "sunrise?" I'll take that (non)response as an inability to refute what I said. Edited October 4, 2013 by American Woman