I don't suppose that I fully agree with the "divine right of kings". I believe that someone who is in power has generally been put there as a result of secular circumstances that I may or may not have the right to dispute.
Example: Bush is president. There are people who don't want this to be so, but he is. In general, you have to recognize that he did obtain the presidency legally, and legitimately, and there's little point in fighting that matter. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or you can work with the other parts of the government to get done what you want. (This is what make democracy work. When the losing side loses, they accept the results. Otherwise, you end up with a conflict that threatens the continuity of the country.)
So, while I don't believe that people like Hitler and Stalin deserved to be in power, and that matters should have been taken to bring them down. If I had been subject to their authority at the time, their authority over me would bring drastic consequences to my resistence, and I'd naturally have to weigh my choices on that carefully...
Of course, I'm happy to live in a government where I don't have to worry that my disagreement with the government might cause me lots of trouble.
If you've trained yourself from using religious statements, then why haven't you trained yourself from making superstitious comments such as "Gesundheit" when one sneezes?
and yes I do find the religious references that creep into everything offensive - because they're a prime example of christian ethnocentrism.
I'm so sorry that this is the culture within which you live. I wish you all luck in finding a culture that you're more comfortable with, because you're not going to change other peoples point of view, nor in fact, should you attempt to.
There's things that one can do in order to shape the beliefs that a person has. I'm not refering to choice as in "I choose to eat Cheerios today."
I'm refering to the inherent nature that if we have free-will, then everything we do is our choice.
Example: You're playing chess against someone, and are significantly superior to him. You're greatly restricting his choices by making certain choices very bad and horrible choices with significant consequences. He's still "choosing" to follow your lead though... at any point, he could choose a worse consequence and choose for the battle to end sooner, rather than later.
It's true that children only believe in Santa Claus, and the Toothfairy out of a trust that their parents are telling them the truth. But they're still making the choice to believe what their parents are saying, and thus are choosing to believe in Santa Claus.
Likewise, there's a different meaning to "choose", where one isn't choosing a course of action if they are forced into it. Holding a gun to a person's head and telling them to bark like a dog for example. From one meaning of "choice", if he barks, he has not made a choice, it was forced upon him, but from a different meaning of "choice" and closer to this argument, and is closer to the philosophical root of "choice" and free will, he has chosen to bark, rather than suffer the consequences for his refusal.
You know, I think as a spell checker, you could just post a response with the word on Slashdot, and someone is bound to come in and give you the correct spelling. Thanks:)
And as just a response to everyone attached to yours. Yeah, I know a few decades is fast on a geological timescale... the point is to draw a contrast between overnight, and what people are realling thinking of.
Also, I don't personally have any clue what they actually believe, I was just trying to let the ggp know the reason people are giving for this cooling effect.
I think you're missing the point he was trying to make. Specifically: "I prefer a world where God exists, thus I choose to believe in him." is not a legitimate reason (according the the KJ Bible) to believe in God.
This would be the important thing about using proper grammar to convey your point. And this isn't some Grammar Nazi stink about the misuse of the words effect, vs affect.
The sentence: "even the most cursory reading of the christian bible (King James) come pretty clear that that is not a reason to believe in god." contains a grammatical syntax error that prevented me from understanding what he was intending to say. "come pretty clear"? This is a real grammatical error, not some stupid failure to adhere to some formalized rule by a grammarian somewhere.
I thank you for your explaination.
As for my "choice" to believe in God. I believe that all people choose to believe in God. Since, I believe in the existance of free will, it requires one to make a choice to believe in God.
The reason for my choice is the important thing. If my reason were nothing more than "whatever... just 'cause", then I certainly would not still be believing in God... it's significantly easier from a logical standpoint to avoid the whole question of a diety, and just deal with what we can prove, or plausibly infer.
I choose to believe in God, because I need to believe in God.
Stop and ask yourself, do you really, honestly believe in god? Or is it possible that you tell yourself this because the alternative is frightening?
I ask myself this every day. In fact, I fear that I might be wrong. Problem is that my benefits from my belief in God are such that I can't really "quit" believing in him.
Thus, I work on crazy amounts of logic and rationalization around it. Some might consider it something akin to "epicycles"... making things way more complex than it need be. But, it's something that I need.
I have a lot of trouble believing that global warming (however caused) will _decrease_ ocean currents.
The idea here is that it's not the temperature that will destroy the ocean current, but rather the decreased salancy of the ocean surface.
It's something that real climatologists are considering... but they're certainly not of the opinion that it will suddenly and dramatically flip the global warming to global cooling... unless you consider a decade or two fast.
I've been an atheist for three decades now and that has to rank as the least insightful rebuttal to common religious tenants I've witnessed.
Congratulations, I'm happy that you've managed to avoid believing in God for 30 years... that's some amazing feet in order to actually break it out and tell everyone about it, like it's some sort of accreditation.
Guess what! I've been a human being for 26 years, and this is the stupidest non-constructive response I've ever received.
See? I can do it, too!
It reeks of an almost perverse pleasure in reducing complex questions and nuance to concepts easily 'rebutted' in purportedly witty, but in truth smug, arrogant and simplistic-to-the-pint-of-blindness comebacks.
So, I take the responses that the original gp to the post had made, and let him know how those don't match up with Christian theology, and I talk to the parent and explain certain points of Christian theology, in a simplistic manner, because I don't want to go into the depths of meaning about why Job suffered, etc etc etc, and you call this a "perverse" pleasure... I do so enjoy your connotational spin to your response...
In the future please keep your thoughts private, atheists have a bad enough image already.
In the future be aware that I don't care if you disagree with my comments. Actually, wait. I do care if you disagree, because if you find something that really should be pointed out to me, because I've got something wrong, or I'm just way off base, let me know.... constructively.
You know, that way I develop as a human being, rather than degrade further into this "slime pit" of stupidity that you seem perscribed to just let me continue into.
I don't mind having a good conversation about religion with anyone, as long as it's conducted with the intent of increasing our knowledge of our personal beliefs, and strengthening our personal beliefs.
I'll give you a real smug, arrogant and simplistic-to-the-pint-of-blindness comeback now: If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all.
Funny you should use this phrase, because that's the part of the universe that can, by definition, have no physical effect on the universe. Look up "Planck" in a good scientific dictionary.
So it's just as well that you defined your god previously as "not omnipotent". Because it would appear that he/she/it cannot do _anything at all_.
Prove sufficiently that just because we can't interact with something that some non-physical universe that we cannot observe cannnot interact with us. Argumentum ad ignoratum. I've made my choice, I choose to believe in God. I started off the argument saying that my belief is squarely based on a fallacious belief.
If you want to attack my beliefs you don't have to go SEARCHING for my fallacy, I said it up front.
"Something that doesn't do anything at all and that can't be measured or observed" -- is in the dictionary under the definition of "nothing".
I just said that I place God in a state of existant such that he *can* do stuff to the physical universe; and thus does not match your definition of "nothing". Just because you refute the point that this cannot exist proves nothing, because... uh... you don't believe in God in the first place, and your only position on that is that you don't believe in him.
By the way, if your god is not omnipotent, not omnipresent, etc. then you're talking about something that cannot be labelled with the word "god". That's another definition you should probably look up before you start debating about things you refer to using that word.
What? Like the Greek, and Roman gods who were neither omnipotent nor omnipresent?
Perhaps you should consider a little more carefully the definitions that you choose to attack.
Your "god" then, is something that can't be measured, has no measurable effect, cannot by definition effect the material universe, doesn't know anything at all with anything approaching certainty (because that would, as you correctly point out, be a paradox). So what is it you're believing in again?
My God then is something that we cannot observe, has no effect that we cannot otherwise attribute to coincidience, and by definition can interact with the universe, but we can't verifiably interact with him. (Remember, I defined God as being a non-physical being that can interact with the physical world, yet we cannot intentionally cause an interaction that would otherwise make him observable, and testable)
He also is not limited from knowing essentially everything up until now, but couldn't know past, as this would, as I said, result in a paradox. I simply said that he is not omnisciencent (all knowing) simply, mostly-knowing, you could call it.
So, how would you define this part of the universe that somehow isn't physical? Oh--and do please indicate whether and how these physical and non-physical ``universes'' interact.''
The non-physical part of the universe is composed of at least God, and it is the part of the universe that is not observable by physical experimentation.
It would obviously require interaction with the physical universe at least in the begining of the universe, such as to allow for God to create the physical universe. Allowing for standard Christian beliefs, God would have to have been able to interact with the physical universe after its creation also, and thus, he is still capable of interacting with the physical universe.
But there is no condition that it need be the other way. That anything we do in the physical universe can effect anything in this non-physical universe. In fact, it would be a requirement, such as to fit with existant phenomena that God cannot be experimentally valided.
Thus, in order to "prove the existence of God", you would have to demonstrate a change in the universe that was not prompted by physical law. Oddly, this would align pretty well with "coincidence", and we don't hardly have sufficient data (nor do I think such sufficient data could ever be obtained) so as to prove that coincidence would not be God would not be coincidence. Such that the experimental validity of God remains indefinitely undeterminable.
Even were it provable that all observed phenomena coincides with physical law, there is no way to make such a guarentee back through the progression of time, and thus it would be possible to make the assertion that God has simply stopped interacting with the physical universe, and we need only wait until such evidence appears that something has occured outside of physical law, in order to prove that he does exist. Effectively setting up a stalemate of unverifiable assertions.
Or are you just one of those who delights in movable goalposts?
No, I don't delight in movable goalposts... but I believe in adjusting my beliefs when they are shown to be insufficient or wrong... same as any scientist should be capable of doing.
Then where'd your god come from? Any argument you could posit that says that the universe had to have had a creator will equally demand that your god had a creator, as well. And that the god's creator itself had a creator, and that one and the next as well. Turtles all the way down, as we like to say.
My belief is that God was eternally "here" even when "here" wasn't here.
My God doesn't require a creator, because he just "is", as you like to put it. To use the words of the Bible somewhat paraphrased: I am the "I am".
But, you know what? The curious thing is that the meta-process of creation would, itself, be creator-less, infinite, and eternal. No matter what way you turn, the only answer to, ``Where'd it all come from?'' is, ``It simply is.''
Agreed.
Besides, ``the universe'' is best defined as the set of all things that exist. If your god exists, then it's part of the universe and was already part of the universe at the point where your god started its existence. If your god has always existed, then so has the universe, and thus your god didn't create it (even if, at some point, he was all there was to it). If your god is ``outside existence,'' then he's not a member of the set of all things that exist. That is, ``nonexistent.''
Ok, if you take the definition of "the universe" to be the set of all things that exist. Thus, God created the physical parts of the universe, but not the part of the universe which is himself.
At this point, I would have to revise my statement, because my definition of universe was not accurately closed enough. "God created the physical universe."
But you know, if you take the definition of "the universe" to be the set of all physical things that exist. Then such a clarrification wouldn't be necessary.... still waiting for this definitive proof that God doesn't exist...
I guess my comments about being offended by people praying for me stems from the fact that a lot of people just throw it into your face when you refuse to agree with them. I had the misfortune of spending a large part of my youth in the deep American south (read: bible belt). As somebody from the more liberal and secular northeast it was quite a culture shock for me. When I told people that I didn't share their values they would often reply with "I feel pity for you... I'll pray for you" I regard that as offensive and insulting.
Ahh.... context puts everything in place.
Yeah, that's just damn rude. I can see how people can take an attitude of contempt in their "non-prostelitizing" actions that just make them wrong for all cases.
Take for example, my argument in another article about "believing in God is insanity." I'd kind of relate that as the athiest equivalent to "I pity you... I'll pray for your soul."
I'll make you a promise... I'll do my best to never say to someone that they're pitiful for not believing in God, and you try your best never to tell something that they're a loon for believing in God. At least then I can sleep better at night knowing that there's at least one person out there who's not actively seeking to be a dick.
No, it wasn't directed at you. I was referring to the fact that a lot of non-religious things that are intolerant bear a striking similarity to certain fundamentalist interpretations of religion that demand unquestioning devotion. The best example (at the risk of invoking Goodwin's law) that I could think of would be the Nazi regime in Germany. They demanded unquestioning loyalty and support and were quite intolerant. A lot of religions demand the same kind of unquestioning devotion.
You seem like a fairly reasonable and tolerant person. I hope I've made some more sense and points with this post. I suppose we need a Babelfish that does English->English translation;)
Ahhh... I get you know here, too... Yep, you're right on.
Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist". Also, similar to the aliens in the above example, since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.
So, like... you realize that your whole argument is fallacious, right?
At least I admit that my choice in the matter is fallacious.
We want to prove that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. We show that 2 plus the value 2 is one of 0 (Z_4), 1 (Z_3), or 4 (Z_n, where n > 4), and that there exists no such consistent mathematical system where 2+2 can equal 5. Thus, we prove that 2+2 does not equal 5.
Proving a negative statement isn't impossible, and it most certainly is done.
Note, that we cannot prove that 2 + 2 does not equal 1. Because in the counter-example in the Z_3 system shows that 2+2 = 1.
Second, all test I have conducted returned the results that there is no god.
What tests? What verifiable, scientific, factual tests do you have that could test for the existence of God?
but all testing for god comes back negative. so the thoery there is no god stands, while the hypothosis that there is a god should fall to the way side.
I know of no such experiments that can make any definitive statement that God doesn't exist. If such an experiment WERE to exist, then well damn, I'd have to be an idiot to believe in God.
But such experiments don't exist.
even the most cursory reading of the christian bible(King James) come pretty clear that that is not a reason to believe in god.
Why is that? Does a belief in a higher power suddenly bestow insanity upon the believer? I find that a little odd of a statement to make.
Also, what is it about the Kign James bible in itself that would cause it alone to be the reason to remove reason from belief in God. Are you saying that if you read another Bible other than the King James version, that you're fine, and it's possible to reasonably believe in God? If you are... I'd like to know what's so wrong with the King James version in this respect.
no, it is not. There is no Knowing. There isn't even a testable hypothesys for god. Believing in something that can not be tested for in any way is irrational. Hell, it's practically the definition of irrational.
That's the point. There isn't a testable hypothesis for or against God.
It's not irrational, I already admitted that it's a FALLACY to believe one way or the other, despite not being able to prove it one way or the other, but that I have made my choice.
By your logic, it's irrational to make any assertion as to the existance or non existance of an unprovable God.
My God is neither omnipotent, omniscencient, nor morally perfect. He is also non-coporial, and non-physical. He simply drove the creation of the universe, and set into motion the events that resulted in us.
Why isn't he omnipotent? Because he can't intrude upon freewill.
Why is he not omniscencient? Because this causes too many problems with him knowing the result of a freewill choice before that choice is made, thus leading to a paradox. The only way I can resolve that paradox is with God being less than omniscencient.
Why is he not morally perfect? Because his creation includes us, and all of us at some point perform an immoral act. Thus, ultimately, he would be the cause (as he set everything in motion to drive us.)
Why is he non-coporial and non-physical? because if he were to exist before the universe, he would have to be something beyond the matter of the universe.
So how did you decide to follow this one view of a supernatural deity, rather than one from an opposing religion or belief system?
The society that I was raised in. Were I raised in some other culture, I would have picked a different diety.
This is where I'm at. I choose to believe in a higher power, and the higher power that has the most sway in my situation is the Christian God.
Is it true that there are an infinite number of other supernatural beings that could be here instead of the God I choose to believe in? Yes.
But my view of God isn't what drives my understanding of the world. That's what science is for. Whether I believedin God, or Amaterasu, it'd be the same functionally. My religion is my choice. I "rolled some dice", and this is where I'm at.
At some point, I have to say that chance drove me to my choice of diety. I don't deny that. But since it's not my driving view of the physical world, and thus my personal choice about a supernatural universe that is unprovable. There's no point in choosing to believe in a different diety... I can't prove one is a better choice than the other.
Sorry, I read an anti-religious tone into your comments. Rereading it, you are equivocal about it. I'm accustomed to negative religious feedback being irrationally negative... as I'm sure many are used to positive religious feedback being irrationally positive.
I recall saying that I was sick of people who use religion to pretend that they are morally superior to everybody else. I've also said that I'm sick of people using religion to push their beliefs on other people.
I can respect that.
That doesn't even need to be proselytizing.
Well, I don't hardly know what one could even do to even accommodate a request such as this though. At this point, you're saying "Stop being religious." In fact, you're saying not to put up nativity scenes in public.
By saying that you're sick of people "pushing their beliefs on others" just by being an example of their religion, you're saying that you don't think people should be religious at all. This is where my confusion started stemming from. I don't understand what you're trying to say by saying that you want people to stop "pushing" their religion on you even without proselytizing.
I just don't know how that could be done without not being religious at all.
If you mean, "stop saying 'I'll pray for you.'", I don't know what to say. To many people it's a simple idiom, and I personally don't expect people to pray for me even when they say this. I say it to other Christians mostly as a form of comfort, rather than any actual intention to physically do so.
Honestly speaking, and not meant offensively, would you take offense to someone saying "God bless you" when you sneeze? I mean, it's a religious statement, that is not seriously intented to be proselytizing, but it's still the same sort of statement as "I'll pray for you." Would you feel differently if it were an atheist/agnostic, who is simply saying out of social convention?
Last, I'm having difficulty understanding this: No, but most of your non-religious things that are intolerant (certain political thoughts come to mind) bear a striking similarity to religion in the unquestioning devotion they demand of their followers.
I assume you mean, "you" as in the indefinite personal pronoun, which most Commonwealth speakers would replace with "one"... as I'm at least hoping here, that you've bothered to do a little more investigation on me, than I had done on you. I feel that I'm reasonably tolerant, (one could never say that they're perfectly tolerant.) of course you may disagree with me.
The thing is that if you mean the indefinite personal pronoun, then you're effectively saying that the intolerant nature of religion bears striking resemblence to unquestioned religion. Which is true, but it's like saying that a circle is round because it resembles the round parts of a circle.
If you intend specifically to be speaking towards me about being intolerant... Hm... I honestly don't see what you're refering to, but I'm willing to listen to them.
I understand your reasoning. I don't know if my personal meanings of respect line up with yours. But I will say that when I was using "respect" I meant more what you're meaning here with "honor". It all depends on where you slice your semantic cake.
Because in my world the creator of the world looks something like this. Or perhaps this.
Ok... you share differing beliefs than us. I agree that if I thought that the Big Bang were the original creator of the earth, and that this is all just random chance that there is no particular reason to care for it over my family.
But seeing as how I believe in God, and that he's the creator of the world. I feel a strong emotional response to place him first in my life.
I feel no obligation to praise your God.
Nor do I express any compulsion for you to feel so. I'm stating that the gp's post saying to always praise God, because if life sucks, it's your fault is flawed, according the the holy script that he perscribes to.
I wasn't even intended to make comment on the parent's response, as he raises a good point. "How do you protect yourself from a mugging?"
Oh really? Perhaps your view would change if you dated a social worker for awhile. You tell me that a kid that grew up being burned by cigarettes and sexually abused shouldn't spit on his parents. Such parents deserve nothing but contempt from the community and the kid.
In the Bible, Christians are taught that those who are put in power over us are there for a reason, and it is not our position to question why.
Also, we are taught to love all people, even those who do not deserve it from us, for we are all the creation of God, and each deserve love as much as any other.
Do I think that these parents should not be punished for their actions? No, they should be punished. Our society dictates how they should be punished, and that is how things should be done. But there is no reason to have contempt for a person like that.
I have faith in science and the innovativeness of the human race. I would argue that every leap humanity has made forward has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
You have every right to feel that way. But just remember that your intolerant attitude sounds eerily similar to what your gripe is against intolerant religions.
That said, if people want to buy into this stuff then it isn't really my place to tell them not to do so. But I get really sick and tired of the morally superior attitude that a lot of religious people have. Even the ones that aren't busy proselytizing are usually doing me favors like "praying for me" -- or thinking to themselves about how I'm going to hell.
I'm sorry that my religion makes you feel uncomfortable. Did you ever think that maybe your anti-religious attitude makes others feel uncomfortable the same way you're made uncomfortable by their attitudes?
I'm sick of hearing people talking about how religion is so intolerant, and unsympathetic, then watching them turn around and be the same back towards those that do express religion, no matter if they are acting reasonably or not.
At least with Christians, I can tell them that they're not acting in a very loving or Christianly way. With those that don't believe in Christian beliefs, I can't tell them they're wrong, just that they're being hypocritical.
Religion has no monopoly on hypocracy, or intolerance.
This is correct... Microsoft was using X-Box as a codename internally, until they had hyped it so much as X-Box, that they decided to change the name would be a bad idea.
They had to buy a license to use the name, too, because someone else already had X-Box. So they got an agreement on it, and went forward.
Oh I completely agree there. I was referring to "punishment" in the form of disciplinary action carried out by the employer on the offending staff members. Jail time and heavy fines would be ludicrous.
That's good to hear... unfortunately, that's not what's going on in the legislative environment. They're pushing for criminalization of selling M+ games to children. Essentially, like selling them tabacco or alcohol.
We do need more suits pushing companies to actually consider age when selling a video game, but the legislative bodies are being pressured by lobbyists who are convincing them that the interactive nature of these requires the criminal liability of the companies more so than the civil liabilities that exist in the movie industry.
1. Serve God first (not the flag, not your boss, not the IRS, not your family)
In what brainwashed world is God more important then family? Most people would die to protect their loved ones. Most (sane) people would not die for their god -- although the current situation in the Middle East seems to defy this logic.
The Bible tells one to place God first, and all else is second. I agree that people have a strong desire to protect their loved ones. The point is that if your family is that important to you, why isn't the creator of the world that important to you?
2. Don't have anger towards God. If life is bad, you didn't prepare properly.
Everything in life can't be prepared for. Can you prepare for a mugging? How about a car accident?
This is stupid "you didn't prepare properly". Jobe did nothing wrong and lost everything he had. He prepared the best and still got screwed. That's just life.
BTW, Jobe still praised God, because that's just what you should do... not because he didn't prepare properly for life.
5. Respect your parents
I know a few abused children that would take exception to this rule.
The Bible isn't grey on this. It says respect your parents at all times, or death. (I don't think it need be that far.)
I'd like to just say that it is possible to respect your parents, without talking to them / seeing them. "Dad, if I see you, or talk to you again, I'm just going to say something that I shouldn't. So, I'm not going to see your or talk to you again."
There's no reason for an abused child to grow up chiding his parents for having abused him. He should feel regret and sympathy that life sucks/sucked for them that bad. But there's no reason to show them disrespect because of it.
6. Never kill -- no war is just
That blanket statement is as stupid as people who would assume war is the solution to everything. Fighting aggression is as just as it comes.
God himself justified war in the Bible. Sometimes, it's necessary.
8. Don't steal - Taxation is theft, currency inflation is theft
Taxation is theft? I'll remember that the next time I'm driving on a paved road. Currency inflation is theft? Sounds more like an economic theory to me. Do you think that reasonable interest on a loan is theft? I'm not trolling -- that's an honest question.
I'd like to say to him... "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's." That money isn't yours, it's the governments. They issued the money, they gave it the value that it has.
Don't just be a stupid moron and say "You're taking money from me!"
That's nice. And what I'm about to say may or may not apply to you -- but I'm just as disgusted by people with morally superior attitudes who don't "force" it on other people as I am by people who do. We live in a community of human beings. That community begins with your family includes your neighbors, your countrymen and ultimately the planet. I have a hard time putting a deity that I can't prove exists before that community.
The issue here is *faith*. If you have faith that God as the creator of the universe exists, then you have no other choice but to place him first. You might not be able to prove it, but you are sufficiently certain on your own that he is there, and there's, again, only one reasonable response.
I have to agree with the sibling post. The joke is stupid, and it just makes him look like a moron.
It's not close enough at all to absurd to actually find any humor with it. I mean, there's things like "hookt an foniks werkt for mee!" or something else stupid like that, and we all see the humor in it, because it's all in built.
Putting up a joke in a sig that apparently is only funny to those people laughing at the people, which respond to it is not entirely funny and amusing as a joke except to those who are "in on it", and just laughing at those who don't.
If it were something like, "Grammer tip: learn yourself how to speak English!" then it'd be entertaining... but this "useful" grammar tip disguised with grammatical mistakes isn't funny.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't suppose that I fully agree with the "divine right of kings". I believe that someone who is in power has generally been put there as a result of secular circumstances that I may or may not have the right to dispute.
Example: Bush is president. There are people who don't want this to be so, but he is. In general, you have to recognize that he did obtain the presidency legally, and legitimately, and there's little point in fighting that matter. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or you can work with the other parts of the government to get done what you want. (This is what make democracy work. When the losing side loses, they accept the results. Otherwise, you end up with a conflict that threatens the continuity of the country.)
So, while I don't believe that people like Hitler and Stalin deserved to be in power, and that matters should have been taken to bring them down. If I had been subject to their authority at the time, their authority over me would bring drastic consequences to my resistence, and I'd naturally have to weigh my choices on that carefully...
Of course, I'm happy to live in a government where I don't have to worry that my disagreement with the government might cause me lots of trouble.
If you've trained yourself from using religious statements, then why haven't you trained yourself from making superstitious comments such as "Gesundheit" when one sneezes?
and yes I do find the religious references that creep into everything offensive - because they're a prime example of christian ethnocentrism.
I'm so sorry that this is the culture within which you live. I wish you all luck in finding a culture that you're more comfortable with, because you're not going to change other peoples point of view, nor in fact, should you attempt to.
There's things that one can do in order to shape the beliefs that a person has. I'm not refering to choice as in "I choose to eat Cheerios today."
I'm refering to the inherent nature that if we have free-will, then everything we do is our choice.
Example: You're playing chess against someone, and are significantly superior to him. You're greatly restricting his choices by making certain choices very bad and horrible choices with significant consequences. He's still "choosing" to follow your lead though... at any point, he could choose a worse consequence and choose for the battle to end sooner, rather than later.
It's true that children only believe in Santa Claus, and the Toothfairy out of a trust that their parents are telling them the truth. But they're still making the choice to believe what their parents are saying, and thus are choosing to believe in Santa Claus.
Likewise, there's a different meaning to "choose", where one isn't choosing a course of action if they are forced into it. Holding a gun to a person's head and telling them to bark like a dog for example. From one meaning of "choice", if he barks, he has not made a choice, it was forced upon him, but from a different meaning of "choice" and closer to this argument, and is closer to the philosophical root of "choice" and free will, he has chosen to bark, rather than suffer the consequences for his refusal.
SALINITY.... there we go.
:)
You know, I think as a spell checker, you could just post a response with the word on Slashdot, and someone is bound to come in and give you the correct spelling. Thanks
And as just a response to everyone attached to yours. Yeah, I know a few decades is fast on a geological timescale... the point is to draw a contrast between overnight, and what people are realling thinking of.
Also, I don't personally have any clue what they actually believe, I was just trying to let the ggp know the reason people are giving for this cooling effect.
I think you're missing the point he was trying to make. Specifically: "I prefer a world where God exists, thus I choose to believe in him." is not a legitimate reason (according the the KJ Bible) to believe in God.
This would be the important thing about using proper grammar to convey your point. And this isn't some Grammar Nazi stink about the misuse of the words effect, vs affect.
The sentence: "even the most cursory reading of the christian bible (King James) come pretty clear that that is not a reason to believe in god." contains a grammatical syntax error that prevented me from understanding what he was intending to say. "come pretty clear"? This is a real grammatical error, not some stupid failure to adhere to some formalized rule by a grammarian somewhere.
I thank you for your explaination.
As for my "choice" to believe in God. I believe that all people choose to believe in God. Since, I believe in the existance of free will, it requires one to make a choice to believe in God.
The reason for my choice is the important thing. If my reason were nothing more than "whatever... just 'cause", then I certainly would not still be believing in God... it's significantly easier from a logical standpoint to avoid the whole question of a diety, and just deal with what we can prove, or plausibly infer.
I choose to believe in God, because I need to believe in God.
Stop and ask yourself, do you really, honestly believe in god? Or is it possible that you tell yourself this because the alternative is frightening?
I ask myself this every day. In fact, I fear that I might be wrong. Problem is that my benefits from my belief in God are such that I can't really "quit" believing in him.
Thus, I work on crazy amounts of logic and rationalization around it. Some might consider it something akin to "epicycles"... making things way more complex than it need be. But, it's something that I need.
I have a lot of trouble believing that global warming (however caused) will _decrease_ ocean currents.
The idea here is that it's not the temperature that will destroy the ocean current, but rather the decreased salancy of the ocean surface.
It's something that real climatologists are considering... but they're certainly not of the opinion that it will suddenly and dramatically flip the global warming to global cooling... unless you consider a decade or two fast.
Oh, what was it... oh yeah! Day After Tomorrow.
Is this supposed to be news? Because I thought climatologist have been talking about this potential for awhile. At least before "Day After Tomorrow".
What's next? "Scientist think that Birds evolved from Dinosaur like ancestors?"
I've been an atheist for three decades now and that has to rank as the least insightful rebuttal to common religious tenants I've witnessed.
Congratulations, I'm happy that you've managed to avoid believing in God for 30 years... that's some amazing feet in order to actually break it out and tell everyone about it, like it's some sort of accreditation.
Guess what! I've been a human being for 26 years, and this is the stupidest non-constructive response I've ever received.
See? I can do it, too!
It reeks of an almost perverse pleasure in reducing complex questions and nuance to concepts easily 'rebutted' in purportedly witty, but in truth smug, arrogant and simplistic-to-the-pint-of-blindness comebacks.
So, I take the responses that the original gp to the post had made, and let him know how those don't match up with Christian theology, and I talk to the parent and explain certain points of Christian theology, in a simplistic manner, because I don't want to go into the depths of meaning about why Job suffered, etc etc etc, and you call this a "perverse" pleasure... I do so enjoy your connotational spin to your response...
In the future please keep your thoughts private, atheists have a bad enough image already.
In the future be aware that I don't care if you disagree with my comments. Actually, wait. I do care if you disagree, because if you find something that really should be pointed out to me, because I've got something wrong, or I'm just way off base, let me know.... constructively.
You know, that way I develop as a human being, rather than degrade further into this "slime pit" of stupidity that you seem perscribed to just let me continue into.
I don't mind having a good conversation about religion with anyone, as long as it's conducted with the intent of increasing our knowledge of our personal beliefs, and strengthening our personal beliefs.
I'll give you a real smug, arrogant and simplistic-to-the-pint-of-blindness comeback now: If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all.
Funny you should use this phrase, because that's the part of the universe that can, by definition, have no physical effect on the universe. Look up "Planck" in a good scientific dictionary.
So it's just as well that you defined your god previously as "not omnipotent". Because it would appear that he/she/it cannot do _anything at all_.
Prove sufficiently that just because we can't interact with something that some non-physical universe that we cannot observe cannnot interact with us. Argumentum ad ignoratum. I've made my choice, I choose to believe in God. I started off the argument saying that my belief is squarely based on a fallacious belief.
If you want to attack my beliefs you don't have to go SEARCHING for my fallacy, I said it up front.
"Something that doesn't do anything at all and that can't be measured or observed" -- is in the dictionary under the definition of "nothing".
I just said that I place God in a state of existant such that he *can* do stuff to the physical universe; and thus does not match your definition of "nothing". Just because you refute the point that this cannot exist proves nothing, because... uh... you don't believe in God in the first place, and your only position on that is that you don't believe in him.
By the way, if your god is not omnipotent, not omnipresent, etc. then you're talking about something that cannot be labelled with the word "god". That's another definition you should probably look up before you start debating about things you refer to using that word.
What? Like the Greek, and Roman gods who were neither omnipotent nor omnipresent?
Perhaps you should consider a little more carefully the definitions that you choose to attack.
Your "god" then, is something that can't be measured, has no measurable effect, cannot by definition effect the material universe, doesn't know anything at all with anything approaching certainty (because that would, as you correctly point out, be a paradox). So what is it you're believing in again?
My God then is something that we cannot observe, has no effect that we cannot otherwise attribute to coincidience, and by definition can interact with the universe, but we can't verifiably interact with him. (Remember, I defined God as being a non-physical being that can interact with the physical world, yet we cannot intentionally cause an interaction that would otherwise make him observable, and testable)
He also is not limited from knowing essentially everything up until now, but couldn't know past, as this would, as I said, result in a paradox. I simply said that he is not omnisciencent (all knowing) simply, mostly-knowing, you could call it.
So, how would you define this part of the universe that somehow isn't physical? Oh--and do please indicate whether and how these physical and non-physical ``universes'' interact.''
The non-physical part of the universe is composed of at least God, and it is the part of the universe that is not observable by physical experimentation.
It would obviously require interaction with the physical universe at least in the begining of the universe, such as to allow for God to create the physical universe. Allowing for standard Christian beliefs, God would have to have been able to interact with the physical universe after its creation also, and thus, he is still capable of interacting with the physical universe.
But there is no condition that it need be the other way. That anything we do in the physical universe can effect anything in this non-physical universe. In fact, it would be a requirement, such as to fit with existant phenomena that God cannot be experimentally valided.
Thus, in order to "prove the existence of God", you would have to demonstrate a change in the universe that was not prompted by physical law. Oddly, this would align pretty well with "coincidence", and we don't hardly have sufficient data (nor do I think such sufficient data could ever be obtained) so as to prove that coincidence would not be God would not be coincidence. Such that the experimental validity of God remains indefinitely undeterminable.
Even were it provable that all observed phenomena coincides with physical law, there is no way to make such a guarentee back through the progression of time, and thus it would be possible to make the assertion that God has simply stopped interacting with the physical universe, and we need only wait until such evidence appears that something has occured outside of physical law, in order to prove that he does exist. Effectively setting up a stalemate of unverifiable assertions.
Or are you just one of those who delights in movable goalposts?
No, I don't delight in movable goalposts... but I believe in adjusting my beliefs when they are shown to be insufficient or wrong... same as any scientist should be capable of doing.
Then where'd your god come from? Any argument you could posit that says that the universe had to have had a creator will equally demand that your god had a creator, as well. And that the god's creator itself had a creator, and that one and the next as well. Turtles all the way down, as we like to say.
... still waiting for this definitive proof that God doesn't exist...
My belief is that God was eternally "here" even when "here" wasn't here.
My God doesn't require a creator, because he just "is", as you like to put it. To use the words of the Bible somewhat paraphrased: I am the "I am".
But, you know what? The curious thing is that the meta-process of creation would, itself, be creator-less, infinite, and eternal. No matter what way you turn, the only answer to, ``Where'd it all come from?'' is, ``It simply is.''
Agreed.
Besides, ``the universe'' is best defined as the set of all things that exist. If your god exists, then it's part of the universe and was already part of the universe at the point where your god started its existence. If your god has always existed, then so has the universe, and thus your god didn't create it (even if, at some point, he was all there was to it). If your god is ``outside existence,'' then he's not a member of the set of all things that exist. That is, ``nonexistent.''
Ok, if you take the definition of "the universe" to be the set of all things that exist. Thus, God created the physical parts of the universe, but not the part of the universe which is himself.
At this point, I would have to revise my statement, because my definition of universe was not accurately closed enough. "God created the physical universe."
But you know, if you take the definition of "the universe" to be the set of all physical things that exist. Then such a clarrification wouldn't be necessary.
I guess my comments about being offended by people praying for me stems from the fact that a lot of people just throw it into your face when you refuse to agree with them. I had the misfortune of spending a large part of my youth in the deep American south (read: bible belt). As somebody from the more liberal and secular northeast it was quite a culture shock for me. When I told people that I didn't share their values they would often reply with "I feel pity for you... I'll pray for you" I regard that as offensive and insulting.
;)
Ahh.... context puts everything in place.
Yeah, that's just damn rude. I can see how people can take an attitude of contempt in their "non-prostelitizing" actions that just make them wrong for all cases.
Take for example, my argument in another article about "believing in God is insanity." I'd kind of relate that as the athiest equivalent to "I pity you... I'll pray for your soul."
I'll make you a promise... I'll do my best to never say to someone that they're pitiful for not believing in God, and you try your best never to tell something that they're a loon for believing in God. At least then I can sleep better at night knowing that there's at least one person out there who's not actively seeking to be a dick.
No, it wasn't directed at you. I was referring to the fact that a lot of non-religious things that are intolerant bear a striking similarity to certain fundamentalist interpretations of religion that demand unquestioning devotion. The best example (at the risk of invoking Goodwin's law) that I could think of would be the Nazi regime in Germany. They demanded unquestioning loyalty and support and were quite intolerant. A lot of religions demand the same kind of unquestioning devotion.
You seem like a fairly reasonable and tolerant person. I hope I've made some more sense and points with this post. I suppose we need a Babelfish that does English->English translation
Ahhh... I get you know here, too... Yep, you're right on.
So, like... you realize that your whole argument is fallacious, right?
At least I admit that my choice in the matter is fallacious.
first, you don't prove a negative.
We want to prove that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. We show that 2 plus the value 2 is one of 0 (Z_4), 1 (Z_3), or 4 (Z_n, where n > 4), and that there exists no such consistent mathematical system where 2+2 can equal 5. Thus, we prove that 2+2 does not equal 5.
Proving a negative statement isn't impossible, and it most certainly is done.
Note, that we cannot prove that 2 + 2 does not equal 1. Because in the counter-example in the Z_3 system shows that 2+2 = 1.
Second, all test I have conducted returned the results that there is no god.
What tests? What verifiable, scientific, factual tests do you have that could test for the existence of God?
but all testing for god comes back negative. so the thoery there is no god stands, while the hypothosis that there is a god should fall to the way side.
I know of no such experiments that can make any definitive statement that God doesn't exist. If such an experiment WERE to exist, then well damn, I'd have to be an idiot to believe in God.
But such experiments don't exist.
even the most cursory reading of the christian bible(King James) come pretty clear that that is not a reason to believe in god.
Why is that? Does a belief in a higher power suddenly bestow insanity upon the believer? I find that a little odd of a statement to make.
Also, what is it about the Kign James bible in itself that would cause it alone to be the reason to remove reason from belief in God. Are you saying that if you read another Bible other than the King James version, that you're fine, and it's possible to reasonably believe in God? If you are... I'd like to know what's so wrong with the King James version in this respect.
no, it is not. There is no Knowing. There isn't even a testable hypothesys for god. Believing in something that can not be tested for in any way is irrational. Hell, it's practically the definition of irrational.
That's the point. There isn't a testable hypothesis for or against God.
It's not irrational, I already admitted that it's a FALLACY to believe one way or the other, despite not being able to prove it one way or the other, but that I have made my choice.
By your logic, it's irrational to make any assertion as to the existance or non existance of an unprovable God.
My God is neither omnipotent, omniscencient, nor morally perfect. He is also non-coporial, and non-physical. He simply drove the creation of the universe, and set into motion the events that resulted in us.
Why isn't he omnipotent? Because he can't intrude upon freewill.
Why is he not omniscencient? Because this causes too many problems with him knowing the result of a freewill choice before that choice is made, thus leading to a paradox. The only way I can resolve that paradox is with God being less than omniscencient.
Why is he not morally perfect? Because his creation includes us, and all of us at some point perform an immoral act. Thus, ultimately, he would be the cause (as he set everything in motion to drive us.)
Why is he non-coporial and non-physical? because if he were to exist before the universe, he would have to be something beyond the matter of the universe.
So how did you decide to follow this one view of a supernatural deity, rather than one from an opposing religion or belief system?
The society that I was raised in. Were I raised in some other culture, I would have picked a different diety.
This is where I'm at. I choose to believe in a higher power, and the higher power that has the most sway in my situation is the Christian God.
Is it true that there are an infinite number of other supernatural beings that could be here instead of the God I choose to believe in? Yes.
But my view of God isn't what drives my understanding of the world. That's what science is for. Whether I believedin God, or Amaterasu, it'd be the same functionally. My religion is my choice. I "rolled some dice", and this is where I'm at.
At some point, I have to say that chance drove me to my choice of diety. I don't deny that. But since it's not my driving view of the physical world, and thus my personal choice about a supernatural universe that is unprovable. There's no point in choosing to believe in a different diety... I can't prove one is a better choice than the other.
Sorry, I read an anti-religious tone into your comments. Rereading it, you are equivocal about it. I'm accustomed to negative religious feedback being irrationally negative... as I'm sure many are used to positive religious feedback being irrationally positive.
I recall saying that I was sick of people who use religion to pretend that they are morally superior to everybody else. I've also said that I'm sick of people using religion to push their beliefs on other people.
I can respect that.
That doesn't even need to be proselytizing.
Well, I don't hardly know what one could even do to even accommodate a request such as this though. At this point, you're saying "Stop being religious." In fact, you're saying not to put up nativity scenes in public.
By saying that you're sick of people "pushing their beliefs on others" just by being an example of their religion, you're saying that you don't think people should be religious at all. This is where my confusion started stemming from. I don't understand what you're trying to say by saying that you want people to stop "pushing" their religion on you even without proselytizing.
I just don't know how that could be done without not being religious at all.
If you mean, "stop saying 'I'll pray for you.'", I don't know what to say. To many people it's a simple idiom, and I personally don't expect people to pray for me even when they say this. I say it to other Christians mostly as a form of comfort, rather than any actual intention to physically do so.
Honestly speaking, and not meant offensively, would you take offense to someone saying "God bless you" when you sneeze? I mean, it's a religious statement, that is not seriously intented to be proselytizing, but it's still the same sort of statement as "I'll pray for you." Would you feel differently if it were an atheist/agnostic, who is simply saying out of social convention?
Last, I'm having difficulty understanding this: No, but most of your non-religious things that are intolerant (certain political thoughts come to mind) bear a striking similarity to religion in the unquestioning devotion they demand of their followers.
I assume you mean, "you" as in the indefinite personal pronoun, which most Commonwealth speakers would replace with "one"... as I'm at least hoping here, that you've bothered to do a little more investigation on me, than I had done on you. I feel that I'm reasonably tolerant, (one could never say that they're perfectly tolerant.) of course you may disagree with me.
The thing is that if you mean the indefinite personal pronoun, then you're effectively saying that the intolerant nature of religion bears striking resemblence to unquestioned religion. Which is true, but it's like saying that a circle is round because it resembles the round parts of a circle.
If you intend specifically to be speaking towards me about being intolerant... Hm... I honestly don't see what you're refering to, but I'm willing to listen to them.
Personally, my faith is a perosonal choice about certain things that cannot be conclusively proven either way.
You can't prove there isn't a God, and I can't prove there is a God.
It's technically falacy to make the assumption either way that he does or does not exist.
Still, I prefer a world where God exists, thus I choose to believe in him.
Call it "willful idiocy" if you want, but if it's a knowing, concious and rational decision... I don't see how you can support such an assertion.
I understand your reasoning. I don't know if my personal meanings of respect line up with yours. But I will say that when I was using "respect" I meant more what you're meaning here with "honor". It all depends on where you slice your semantic cake.
Because in my world the creator of the world looks something like this. Or perhaps this.
Ok... you share differing beliefs than us. I agree that if I thought that the Big Bang were the original creator of the earth, and that this is all just random chance that there is no particular reason to care for it over my family.
But seeing as how I believe in God, and that he's the creator of the world. I feel a strong emotional response to place him first in my life.
I feel no obligation to praise your God.
Nor do I express any compulsion for you to feel so. I'm stating that the gp's post saying to always praise God, because if life sucks, it's your fault is flawed, according the the holy script that he perscribes to.
I wasn't even intended to make comment on the parent's response, as he raises a good point. "How do you protect yourself from a mugging?"
Oh really? Perhaps your view would change if you dated a social worker for awhile. You tell me that a kid that grew up being burned by cigarettes and sexually abused shouldn't spit on his parents. Such parents deserve nothing but contempt from the community and the kid.
In the Bible, Christians are taught that those who are put in power over us are there for a reason, and it is not our position to question why.
Also, we are taught to love all people, even those who do not deserve it from us, for we are all the creation of God, and each deserve love as much as any other.
Do I think that these parents should not be punished for their actions? No, they should be punished. Our society dictates how they should be punished, and that is how things should be done. But there is no reason to have contempt for a person like that.
I have faith in science and the innovativeness of the human race. I would argue that every leap humanity has made forward has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
You have every right to feel that way. But just remember that your intolerant attitude sounds eerily similar to what your gripe is against intolerant religions.
That said, if people want to buy into this stuff then it isn't really my place to tell them not to do so. But I get really sick and tired of the morally superior attitude that a lot of religious people have. Even the ones that aren't busy proselytizing are usually doing me favors like "praying for me" -- or thinking to themselves about how I'm going to hell.
I'm sorry that my religion makes you feel uncomfortable. Did you ever think that maybe your anti-religious attitude makes others feel uncomfortable the same way you're made uncomfortable by their attitudes?
I'm sick of hearing people talking about how religion is so intolerant, and unsympathetic, then watching them turn around and be the same back towards those that do express religion, no matter if they are acting reasonably or not.
At least with Christians, I can tell them that they're not acting in a very loving or Christianly way. With those that don't believe in Christian beliefs, I can't tell them they're wrong, just that they're being hypocritical.
Religion has no monopoly on hypocracy, or intolerance.
This is correct... Microsoft was using X-Box as a codename internally, until they had hyped it so much as X-Box, that they decided to change the name would be a bad idea.
They had to buy a license to use the name, too, because someone else already had X-Box. So they got an agreement on it, and went forward.
Oh I completely agree there. I was referring to "punishment" in the form of disciplinary action carried out by the employer on the offending staff members. Jail time and heavy fines would be ludicrous.
That's good to hear... unfortunately, that's not what's going on in the legislative environment. They're pushing for criminalization of selling M+ games to children. Essentially, like selling them tabacco or alcohol.
We do need more suits pushing companies to actually consider age when selling a video game, but the legislative bodies are being pressured by lobbyists who are convincing them that the interactive nature of these requires the criminal liability of the companies more so than the civil liabilities that exist in the movie industry.
1. Serve God first (not the flag, not your boss, not the IRS, not your family)
In what brainwashed world is God more important then family? Most people would die to protect their loved ones. Most (sane) people would not die for their god -- although the current situation in the Middle East seems to defy this logic.
The Bible tells one to place God first, and all else is second. I agree that people have a strong desire to protect their loved ones. The point is that if your family is that important to you, why isn't the creator of the world that important to you?
2. Don't have anger towards God. If life is bad, you didn't prepare properly.
Everything in life can't be prepared for. Can you prepare for a mugging? How about a car accident?
This is stupid "you didn't prepare properly". Jobe did nothing wrong and lost everything he had. He prepared the best and still got screwed. That's just life.
BTW, Jobe still praised God, because that's just what you should do... not because he didn't prepare properly for life.
5. Respect your parents
I know a few abused children that would take exception to this rule.
The Bible isn't grey on this. It says respect your parents at all times, or death. (I don't think it need be that far.)
I'd like to just say that it is possible to respect your parents, without talking to them / seeing them. "Dad, if I see you, or talk to you again, I'm just going to say something that I shouldn't. So, I'm not going to see your or talk to you again."
There's no reason for an abused child to grow up chiding his parents for having abused him. He should feel regret and sympathy that life sucks/sucked for them that bad. But there's no reason to show them disrespect because of it.
6. Never kill -- no war is just
That blanket statement is as stupid as people who would assume war is the solution to everything. Fighting aggression is as just as it comes.
God himself justified war in the Bible. Sometimes, it's necessary.
8. Don't steal - Taxation is theft, currency inflation is theft
Taxation is theft? I'll remember that the next time I'm driving on a paved road. Currency inflation is theft? Sounds more like an economic theory to me. Do you think that reasonable interest on a loan is theft? I'm not trolling -- that's an honest question.
I'd like to say to him... "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's." That money isn't yours, it's the governments. They issued the money, they gave it the value that it has.
Don't just be a stupid moron and say "You're taking money from me!"
That's nice. And what I'm about to say may or may not apply to you -- but I'm just as disgusted by people with morally superior attitudes who don't "force" it on other people as I am by people who do. We live in a community of human beings. That community begins with your family includes your neighbors, your countrymen and ultimately the planet. I have a hard time putting a deity that I can't prove exists before that community.
The issue here is *faith*. If you have faith that God as the creator of the universe exists, then you have no other choice but to place him first. You might not be able to prove it, but you are sufficiently certain on your own that he is there, and there's, again, only one reasonable response.
I have to agree with the sibling post. The joke is stupid, and it just makes him look like a moron.
It's not close enough at all to absurd to actually find any humor with it. I mean, there's things like "hookt an foniks werkt for mee!" or something else stupid like that, and we all see the humor in it, because it's all in built.
Putting up a joke in a sig that apparently is only funny to those people laughing at the people, which respond to it is not entirely funny and amusing as a joke except to those who are "in on it", and just laughing at those who don't.
If it were something like, "Grammer tip: learn yourself how to speak English!" then it'd be entertaining... but this "useful" grammar tip disguised with grammatical mistakes isn't funny.