Some (most?) people are unable to comprehend that someone else is actually a better person than they are. Take this guy, who's greedy, and knows it, figures that there isn't anyone who's a better person than he is, so he concludes that everyone is really greedy.
Reading the old testament isn't always as easy as it appears. Because of the mixtures of genres in there it can be easy to come to some inaccurate conclusions. The writers of the narrative books, for example, assumed that the reader would make the right connections between stories usually by alluding to elements from earlier stories while not openly saying, "This was just like that one time in Ur..."
While there are definitely some racy parts of the old testament, I don't know of any place where incest or rape is okey'd by God, but there are a few places where God's silence on the issue leads people to assume he's ok with it. Other passages usually make it quite clear that he isn't. But there is still the question of Adam & Eve's kids, and I'm not sure biblical scholars really agree on what that's all about.
The times where mass-murder is advocated are interesting. God establishes the precedent in Genesis (when he floods the world and when he tells Abram that his descendants will come back and destroy the Amorites in 400 years because their evil was not yet fully grown) that he waits until a people group is wholly, completely, evil before wiping them out. In other passages he isn't as explicit, but in those cases there are examples of individuals within those societies who turned to God and were spared from being destroyed (this happened in Sodom & Gomorrah and in Jericho, and in the Exodus some of the Egyptian slavers left with the children of Israel, etc). The point being, that while it isn't as explicit as most of us would be comfortable with, there is a precedent there of still allowing individuals a chance to repent if they were really open to it.
Not that I can explain away every strange passage in the Bible; I don't think anyone can. I just wanted to mention that when it comes to a text that was written thousands of years ago in a culture that none of us were a part of, in a language most of us don't speak, it needs to be read with a little more care than most (including myself) usually want to put into it.
As for cruelties that have been afflicted in the name of God (some of them even in biblical times but without his blessing), I don't think there is any justification for them. Just a bunch of religious leaders who decided to abuse their power like any human would be tempted to do. And I know they like to justify their actions by finding passages in the Bible, but if you're going to just take verses out of context you can really make the Bible say anything you want.
Also, knowing that about the Bible makes me hesitant to take a passage from any other religious text (the Qur'an included) out of its context and make judgements based on it. Someday maybe I'll have the time to study the Qur'an, but not yet.
With all the time-travel and mirror universe stories they've had, they could easily claim *everything* is cannon -- in some time-line/universe combo...
Exactly. My sister, who was a little overweight, was advised by her doctor not to worry about losing the weight because the stress of doing so would do more harm than the weight itself. She was otherwise healthy and active. I'm sure you could apply the same idea to a lot of news items like this. The stress of worrying about it is often more damaging than the thing you're worrying about.
Also, having their training videos available to the public would probably make it easier for the rest of us to anticipate their techniques and strategize against them.
Now, if only we can get the terrorists to make their plans available on YouTube!
lots of song and dance oriented quests... every other person choosing the race of "horse"... and the most popular user name being some variation of "t3hH4MM3RizMYp3n15"
Sorry if this is duplicating anything on this thread -- don't have time to go through it all right now. Just thought you might find these articles interesting...
But it's useless for studying something that cannot be empirically demonstrated.
I think all religious teachings can be reasoned about. In fact, you did so yourself in your post, numerous times.
I was referring to the scientific method, not to reason in general.
And, as you said, the person would try to apply the scientific method to religion and would come up with the philosophical equivalent of a null pointer exception.
Why don't you believe in Zeus? Is it a null-pointer exception, or because of reasoning? If somebody claimed to be the prophet of God, how would you judge their claims? Would you apply reasoning?
Of course I'd apply reason. Never heard a reasonable argument for the existence of Zeus. If someone claimed to be a prophet of God, they'd have their work cut out for them to prove it to me.
Which leads me to think that there are, in fact, very very few true atheists.
The world isn't black and white. Lots of people who consider themselves Christians have varying degrees of doubt and uncertainty. As for me, I firmly believe that nobody on this planet has any knowledge of the divine, except that which we can all experience -- that is, if you look at the world and wonder, maybe you think there's a creator and a purpose.
I do look at the world and wonder -- I think we pretty much all do. Everything in my experience points to death being the end. If there's a purpose to this world, or my existence, I don't see any sign of it. However, rationally, I can't rule out the possibility of some kind of divine power, but it's not something that brings me hope or carries me through the day. It's just an intellectual possibility, if you see what I mean.
Yup.
But I do believe that, after all the arguments, all the philosophy, all the reasoning, all the evidence, and all the speculation, reasonably intelligent people can choose either path without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. I chose to believe.
Depends on what you believe and why. When faced with this question in my teen years, I realized it would be easier to just believe, and I kind of wanted to, but I knew I would be lying to myself just to make life easier. That's motivation.
Sometimes believing does make life easier. Sometimes not. In America, believers have a fairly easy time of it. The most we face as far as persecution is a little harassment and little inconveniences (a student in my home town got a zero on his art assignment because he included a cross in the picture, and the teacher, who kept a Buddha displayed in her room, said that religious symbols don't belong in a public school). But it's nothing too bothersome. In other countries it is quite a different story.
As for the "what", if somebody intellectually accepts something like Christianity and The Bible as divine knowledge, I cannot reconcile that at all with intellectual integrity. That's just latching on to what they were raised to believe in.
Well, there's no doubt that a lot of people believe just because they were raised to. But that doesn't cover everybody. Some have actually come to the conclusion that God exists by using their reason.
If I didn't have that belief, I'd find the "alternative" we talked about above very appealing, every day, especially when everything's going wrong.
I think you mean appalling, not appealing:) I'll be honest: Life would be a whole lot easier if I had religion. And sometimes I feel guilty about tearing into what people believe. If somebody has inner peace it doesn't bring me joy to destroy it. However, I can't accept what I consider mythology as truth, and when religion is discussed I will vigorously dispute it.
Actually, I did mean appealing. Why go through the junk of life when there's no ultimate payoff?
and then you apply that scientific thinking to religious beliefs, atheism naturally appears.
I'm not sure about that. Science is the perfect tool for understanding everything that can be observed by our five senses, and extensions of those senses. But it's useless for studying something that cannot be empirically demonstrated. I think where we might agree (and maybe this is what you meant) is that a lifetime spent focused on the application of the scientific method would tend to make one fall into thinking that there is no other source of knowledge. And, as you said, the person would try to apply the scientific method to religion and would come up with the philosophical equivalent of a null pointer exception. And since they aren't used to coming to conclusions without science, they default to atheism.
It's also human nature to want something to carry on after you die, even if logically it all seems futile.
Then wouldn't that be irrational, by definition? But I think I have a bigger question:
You have to do something with your life.
I'm not convinced of that, for an atheist. Yes, we start out with a will to live, but when we get better at thinking, we start asking "What's the point?" I think that's when the will to live can take a back seat if we want it to.
I think you were right: the alternative is to kill yourself. And that's what gets me. I just don't see what keeps people (hard-core atheists, mostly) from doing exactly that. If it's all ultimately futile, then why bother with it? You came from nothing, you'll be nothing, just like everyone else; none of it matters. And believing that nothing matters can have significant consequences, if that belief is really fully lived out.
I think it's what Shakespeare said, "The dread of something after death." Which leads me to think that there are, in fact, very very few true atheists. But I guess you'll never know if someone's a real atheist until they're faced with their own death. And you could say that same thing for christians.
Yes, I believe in God. And, as/.ers love to point out, I cannot prove that he exists any more than anyone could disprove it. But I do believe that, after all the arguments, all the philosophy, all the reasoning, all the evidence, and all the speculation, reasonably intelligent people can choose either path without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. I chose to believe.
I want to mention that, when I say that to someone, they automatically assume I mean God as they think of him. Past experience shows that there are significant differences. But to be honest, I'm not sure how I'd summarize it.
Your question about if I believe it just because that's what I was taught is a valid one. If I had never been taught about God, I can't be sure about what I would believe. I think I'd still believe in something, but it'd probably be a lot more vague than the beliefs I have now. I could be wrong, of course. It's highly speculative.
I can say that I certainly don't swallow every teaching whole. My beliefs about God, creation, and just about everything have changed since I left my home church and they continue to change as I learn more. I've changed to the extent that I now share relatively few beliefs with the people I grew up with.
So, why? At the risk of over-simplifying things, and to be totally honest, I believe because I want to. And I know that's not enough to convince anyone to convert or anything, but I'm not trying to do that anyway. As for why I want to believe? To be honest, sometimes I don't, but that's pretty rare. The big selling point to me to believe in God (the Judeo-Christian God, to narrow it down a little -- but not completely) is that it means we are significant to something greater than ourselves, that we have intrinsic value that transcends or lives, that we are loved by an omnipotent
It's difficult to remember completely, but I was taught (by an atheist science teacher) that all of science is based on three assumptions:
There is a reality.
It's a reality that we can make sense of. That is, it has rules/laws that don't change.
It's a reality that we can know completely using our senses and extensions of our senses. Meaning, telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators, etc.
I'm pretty sure that last one not only allows, but forces scientists to ignore religious-based hypotheses.
fwiw, I think that's the way it should be. It just means that, if there is a God, or any kind of reality that cannot be observed with our senses or their extensions, then science is the most ill-equipped field known to man for studying it. Not that there are very many well-equipped fields...
Actually, I think there are some fairly prominent christians that do begin with the premise that there is no controlling intelligence, but that there is an intelligence that is in control. Sounds funny. The difference, as I understand it, being a God who forcefully controls every action and it's outcome (I think Calvinist is the term - though that's usually used in a free-will/predestination debate - maybe Christian Scientists fall into this category?), as opposed to a God who has set things up to run pretty smoothly and intervenes when necessary (I'm not sure what they're called -- Anti-Calvinists?).
Anyway, I think I understand your point. Atheism drives scientific progress because someone who believes in an intelligent controller will just say, "It's God. What ya gonna do?"
But I'm not sure I buy it. Two things come to mind:
I think historically a lot of prominent scientists have been believers of some sort, if not full-on christians. Maybe not most -- I wouldn't know percentages. But I don't think it was historically very rare. If believers in an intelligent controller (BIAICs?) automatically would throw up their hands and not do anything to try to improve their lives, then BIAIC-scientists would be unheard of. Because of that, it doesn't seem like being a BIAIC encourages a person to give up on trying to learn, understand, or investigate. In fact, for some modern-day biochemists who believe, I've heard them say that it deepens their appreciation for the wisdom, intelligence, and creativity of God when they learn more about the universe.
Second, what's to stop an atheist from saying, "It's just luck. What ya gonna do?" I'm pretty sure you'll find people of any belief (or anti-belief?) system finding some kind of excuse to be lazy. The BIAIC's have a convenient excuse if they want to abuse it, but I don't think anyone's who's seriously committed to doing nothing will let a measly little belief system (or lack thereof) stop them.
I think you made an interesting argument, though. It does bring up another question, however (and still, I just really want to know): what motivates the atheist to strive for progress anyway? Fame? Pride? A legacy? Some altruistic motive for the betterment of humanity? Why would any of those things have significance for the atheist if he honestly believes that nothing of his mind or personality will survive his own death?
(Sorry if we're getting off-topic here... hopefully some of this may end up answering the claim of irrationality that was brought up a few posts ago.)
Out of curiosity -- serious, I'm not trying to troll. I've always wanted to ask, though. What's the rationale for atheism? And maybe more interesting, what's the end result as it applies to one's life?
Yeah, I'm assuming you're atheist. Apologies if I'm wrong.
I've read a little from this site: Christian Thinktank and it seems to have some decent info. A little long-winded, tho. I'm sure there are others.
Should probably emphasize gp's point that it's a defense based on reasonable (solid) premises. If you're looking for air-tight proof that cannot possibly be denied, you won't find it I don't think. I haven't, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Some (most?) people are unable to comprehend that someone else is actually a better person than they are. Take this guy, who's greedy, and knows it, figures that there isn't anyone who's a better person than he is, so he concludes that everyone is really greedy.
While there are definitely some racy parts of the old testament, I don't know of any place where incest or rape is okey'd by God, but there are a few places where God's silence on the issue leads people to assume he's ok with it. Other passages usually make it quite clear that he isn't. But there is still the question of Adam & Eve's kids, and I'm not sure biblical scholars really agree on what that's all about.
The times where mass-murder is advocated are interesting. God establishes the precedent in Genesis (when he floods the world and when he tells Abram that his descendants will come back and destroy the Amorites in 400 years because their evil was not yet fully grown) that he waits until a people group is wholly, completely, evil before wiping them out. In other passages he isn't as explicit, but in those cases there are examples of individuals within those societies who turned to God and were spared from being destroyed (this happened in Sodom & Gomorrah and in Jericho, and in the Exodus some of the Egyptian slavers left with the children of Israel, etc). The point being, that while it isn't as explicit as most of us would be comfortable with, there is a precedent there of still allowing individuals a chance to repent if they were really open to it.
Not that I can explain away every strange passage in the Bible; I don't think anyone can. I just wanted to mention that when it comes to a text that was written thousands of years ago in a culture that none of us were a part of, in a language most of us don't speak, it needs to be read with a little more care than most (including myself) usually want to put into it.
As for cruelties that have been afflicted in the name of God (some of them even in biblical times but without his blessing), I don't think there is any justification for them. Just a bunch of religious leaders who decided to abuse their power like any human would be tempted to do. And I know they like to justify their actions by finding passages in the Bible, but if you're going to just take verses out of context you can really make the Bible say anything you want.
Also, knowing that about the Bible makes me hesitant to take a passage from any other religious text (the Qur'an included) out of its context and make judgements based on it. Someday maybe I'll have the time to study the Qur'an, but not yet.
thought maybe two swirling pools of stars merging together would make a good desktop wallpaper. alas....
With all the time-travel and mirror universe stories they've had, they could easily claim *everything* is cannon -- in some time-line/universe combo...
The nice thing about monkey armies is they make their own ammo.
That's not irony. That's my reality.
I bet ya the command they send up is "Delete Virus".
... you have 20 seconds to comply.
And I'd hack up chinese mods, but I heard you're full of crackers.
It would be nice if we could unmask the other canditates personal accounts too, to have a more balanced exposee
Nah. Let's just assume that our favorite party is perfectly innocent (or, at least more innocent than the other guy) and try not to look too closely.
I would want someone who is motivated to do the right thing, no matter what their beliefs about the origins of life.
3 out of 4 people make up 75% of our population.
And the other spends his time posting on /.
Exactly. My sister, who was a little overweight, was advised by her doctor not to worry about losing the weight because the stress of doing so would do more harm than the weight itself. She was otherwise healthy and active. I'm sure you could apply the same idea to a lot of news items like this. The stress of worrying about it is often more damaging than the thing you're worrying about.
Now, if only we can get the terrorists to make their plans available on YouTube!
I'm saying that would have been worse.
lots of song and dance oriented quests... every other person choosing the race of "horse"... and the most popular user name being some variation of "t3hH4MM3RizMYp3n15"
Some turn violent in GOP convention protests
Antiwar protesters cross line and get arrested
But it's useless for studying something that cannot be empirically demonstrated.
I think all religious teachings can be reasoned about. In fact, you did so yourself in your post, numerous times.
I was referring to the scientific method, not to reason in general.
And, as you said, the person would try to apply the scientific method to religion and would come up with the philosophical equivalent of a null pointer exception.
Why don't you believe in Zeus? Is it a null-pointer exception, or because of reasoning? If somebody claimed to be the prophet of God, how would you judge their claims? Would you apply reasoning?
Of course I'd apply reason. Never heard a reasonable argument for the existence of Zeus. If someone claimed to be a prophet of God, they'd have their work cut out for them to prove it to me.
Which leads me to think that there are, in fact, very very few true atheists.
The world isn't black and white. Lots of people who consider themselves Christians have varying degrees of doubt and uncertainty. As for me, I firmly believe that nobody on this planet has any knowledge of the divine, except that which we can all experience -- that is, if you look at the world and wonder, maybe you think there's a creator and a purpose.
I do look at the world and wonder -- I think we pretty much all do. Everything in my experience points to death being the end. If there's a purpose to this world, or my existence, I don't see any sign of it. However, rationally, I can't rule out the possibility of some kind of divine power, but it's not something that brings me hope or carries me through the day. It's just an intellectual possibility, if you see what I mean.
Yup.
But I do believe that, after all the arguments, all the philosophy, all the reasoning, all the evidence, and all the speculation, reasonably intelligent people can choose either path without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. I chose to believe.
Depends on what you believe and why. When faced with this question in my teen years, I realized it would be easier to just believe, and I kind of wanted to, but I knew I would be lying to myself just to make life easier. That's motivation.
Sometimes believing does make life easier. Sometimes not. In America, believers have a fairly easy time of it. The most we face as far as persecution is a little harassment and little inconveniences (a student in my home town got a zero on his art assignment because he included a cross in the picture, and the teacher, who kept a Buddha displayed in her room, said that religious symbols don't belong in a public school). But it's nothing too bothersome. In other countries it is quite a different story.
As for the "what", if somebody intellectually accepts something like Christianity and The Bible as divine knowledge, I cannot reconcile that at all with intellectual integrity. That's just latching on to what they were raised to believe in.
Well, there's no doubt that a lot of people believe just because they were raised to. But that doesn't cover everybody. Some have actually come to the conclusion that God exists by using their reason.
If I didn't have that belief, I'd find the "alternative" we talked about above very appealing, every day, especially when everything's going wrong.
I think you mean appalling, not appealing :) I'll be honest: Life would be a whole lot easier if I had religion. And sometimes I feel guilty about tearing into what people believe. If somebody has inner peace it doesn't bring me joy to destroy it. However, I can't accept what I consider mythology as truth, and when religion is discussed I will vigorously dispute it.
Actually, I did mean appealing. Why go through the junk of life when there's no ultimate payoff?
and then you apply that scientific thinking to religious beliefs, atheism naturally appears.
I'm not sure about that. Science is the perfect tool for understanding everything that can be observed by our five senses, and extensions of those senses. But it's useless for studying something that cannot be empirically demonstrated. I think where we might agree (and maybe this is what you meant) is that a lifetime spent focused on the application of the scientific method would tend to make one fall into thinking that there is no other source of knowledge. And, as you said, the person would try to apply the scientific method to religion and would come up with the philosophical equivalent of a null pointer exception. And since they aren't used to coming to conclusions without science, they default to atheism.
It's also human nature to want something to carry on after you die, even if logically it all seems futile.
Then wouldn't that be irrational, by definition? But I think I have a bigger question:
You have to do something with your life.
I'm not convinced of that, for an atheist. Yes, we start out with a will to live, but when we get better at thinking, we start asking "What's the point?" I think that's when the will to live can take a back seat if we want it to.
I think you were right: the alternative is to kill yourself. And that's what gets me. I just don't see what keeps people (hard-core atheists, mostly) from doing exactly that. If it's all ultimately futile, then why bother with it? You came from nothing, you'll be nothing, just like everyone else; none of it matters. And believing that nothing matters can have significant consequences, if that belief is really fully lived out.
I think it's what Shakespeare said, "The dread of something after death." Which leads me to think that there are, in fact, very very few true atheists. But I guess you'll never know if someone's a real atheist until they're faced with their own death. And you could say that same thing for christians.
Yes, I believe in God. And, as /.ers love to point out, I cannot prove that he exists any more than anyone could disprove it. But I do believe that, after all the arguments, all the philosophy, all the reasoning, all the evidence, and all the speculation, reasonably intelligent people can choose either path without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. I chose to believe.
I want to mention that, when I say that to someone, they automatically assume I mean God as they think of him. Past experience shows that there are significant differences. But to be honest, I'm not sure how I'd summarize it.
Your question about if I believe it just because that's what I was taught is a valid one. If I had never been taught about God, I can't be sure about what I would believe. I think I'd still believe in something, but it'd probably be a lot more vague than the beliefs I have now. I could be wrong, of course. It's highly speculative.
I can say that I certainly don't swallow every teaching whole. My beliefs about God, creation, and just about everything have changed since I left my home church and they continue to change as I learn more. I've changed to the extent that I now share relatively few beliefs with the people I grew up with.
So, why? At the risk of over-simplifying things, and to be totally honest, I believe because I want to. And I know that's not enough to convince anyone to convert or anything, but I'm not trying to do that anyway. As for why I want to believe? To be honest, sometimes I don't, but that's pretty rare. The big selling point to me to believe in God (the Judeo-Christian God, to narrow it down a little -- but not completely) is that it means we are significant to something greater than ourselves, that we have intrinsic value that transcends or lives, that we are loved by an omnipotent
I'm pretty sure that last one not only allows, but forces scientists to ignore religious-based hypotheses.
fwiw, I think that's the way it should be. It just means that, if there is a God, or any kind of reality that cannot be observed with our senses or their extensions, then science is the most ill-equipped field known to man for studying it. Not that there are very many well-equipped fields...
Anyway, I think I understand your point. Atheism drives scientific progress because someone who believes in an intelligent controller will just say, "It's God. What ya gonna do?"
But I'm not sure I buy it. Two things come to mind:
I think historically a lot of prominent scientists have been believers of some sort, if not full-on christians. Maybe not most -- I wouldn't know percentages. But I don't think it was historically very rare. If believers in an intelligent controller (BIAICs?) automatically would throw up their hands and not do anything to try to improve their lives, then BIAIC-scientists would be unheard of. Because of that, it doesn't seem like being a BIAIC encourages a person to give up on trying to learn, understand, or investigate. In fact, for some modern-day biochemists who believe, I've heard them say that it deepens their appreciation for the wisdom, intelligence, and creativity of God when they learn more about the universe.
Second, what's to stop an atheist from saying, "It's just luck. What ya gonna do?" I'm pretty sure you'll find people of any belief (or anti-belief?) system finding some kind of excuse to be lazy. The BIAIC's have a convenient excuse if they want to abuse it, but I don't think anyone's who's seriously committed to doing nothing will let a measly little belief system (or lack thereof) stop them.
I think you made an interesting argument, though. It does bring up another question, however (and still, I just really want to know): what motivates the atheist to strive for progress anyway? Fame? Pride? A legacy? Some altruistic motive for the betterment of humanity? Why would any of those things have significance for the atheist if he honestly believes that nothing of his mind or personality will survive his own death?
(Sorry if we're getting off-topic here... hopefully some of this may end up answering the claim of irrationality that was brought up a few posts ago.)
You're thinking of the Judean People's Front.
Yeah, I'm assuming you're atheist. Apologies if I'm wrong.
Should probably emphasize gp's point that it's a defense based on reasonable (solid) premises. If you're looking for air-tight proof that cannot possibly be denied, you won't find it I don't think. I haven't, at least.
A better analogy: I've got this brand spanking new video card if you want to buy it...