Science and Theology, the sequel

04/09/2008 12:42:30 AM · #301

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
God will reveal himself to you as he has to me.

Does that mean God condones flashing?

Does God go to Mardis Gras and get beads?

That brought a smile to my face and a chuckle. Cute.

04/09/2008 01:29:00 AM · #302

Finally this discussion is turning in the direction I want. Let me address your points one by one.

Originally posted by Shutterpuppy:

As I stated above, I don't have a problem with you personally. I don't know you. I have a problem with your argument, not your person. Having said that, the arrogance and hubris in your statements and your proselytizing have long worn thin. I never thought I would miss Flash in this debate, but your ravings make Flash's nonsequitors seem like the paragon of reasoned discourse.

In your proselytizing, what you want to claim is special access to not just knowledge, but absolute truth.

It's not special, you can have the same. I would be happy to show you how.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

- You have a personal relationship with God. All others who believe as fully as you do that they have a personal relationship with their god, but who disagree with the particular precepts to which you subscribe must therefore be wrong.

If it is not the Christian God Yahweh, then yes they are wrong as their is only one true God and I know him.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

- You believe that any disagreements with persons from the above can be settle by reference to "scripture." You don't indicate which scripture, but we will assume you mean the Bible and the New Testament. You don't indicate which translation of these books you hold to be definitive, even though there are myriad translations flowing from the ambiguous nature of the ancient language (in which we will make the assumption that you are not fluent) in which the books were originally written. You don't provide a mechanism to resolve doctrinal disagreements that may arise in relation to portions of these books which are inherently ambiguous, or those portions in which these books are internally inconsistent or contradictory.

I have not said that all disagreements can be settled with a simple reference to scripture. This is the place to start when genuine disagreements arise between those who know and have relationship to the one true God. Even the Apostles couldn't agree on everything but yet they still knew the truth of God's existence even before knowing Jesus.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

- You don't indicate whether you believe these books to be allegorical philosophy, literal truth, or some combination thereto. If literal, you don't provide a consistent and reliable method to reconcile the internal contradictions and ambiguities. If not literal, you don't provide a consistent and reliable method to reconcile which portions are to be taken as history versus which portions are to be taken as parable and allegory.

I haven't indicated as such my thought on the Bible and how it was written or came into being in it's current form. Is this necessary to come to a conclusion that it is a possibility that God exists? NO, one can come to a conclusion of possibility without this.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

- You have "figured it out" in regards to the grand questions of belief and religion. Despite millennia of argument, disagreement, war, and rival belief, you have not doubt that you are right, and all those who disagree with you are wrong.

No, I did not figure it out. It was given to me. God imparts knowledge and wisdom to those willing to listen. I was willing. People act in the ways you describe above out of ignorance not knowledge. I have no doubt that God is right and that leaves me out of the equation. It is not me they disagree with. It is God.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

- Being wrong has disastrous consequences for these people, eternal and horrific consequences which should trouble a compassionate and "Christ-like" individual, but you are untroubled by this aspect of your belief because it is not you who condemn them, it is your God, who you have no right to question. There suffering is their own fault because they choose not to accept "the truth" -- a truth which is obvious if only looked at "correctly" but which there oddly seems to be very little consensus to in the whole.

I think you've got it here for the most part. You do understand. One point of contention would be that it does not trouble me. It does. Thus the proselytizing. I want everyone to have the same relationship with God that I do. Will it happen? No. Am I to cry and mourn everyone who is lost. To a degree yes I do but already having the knowledge that there will be few that find salvation I cannot let it cripple me or my witness. I am allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through me with a few snippets of my own crap thrown in because I suppose I can't stop myself being the sinful human that I am from getting frustrated, indignant to some degree. These things do hamper the discourse and I apologize.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

- You seem to want to believe that to be a Christian is a difficult and noble path, for which you and other Christians suffer for your beliefs. You want to claim this is somehow "proof" of the rightness of your belief, but you want to discount the fact that members of other religions (not to mention nonbelievers) have historically and currently suffered just as much, and more, persecution as Christians have. You also seem to want to deny that being Christian in a predominately Christian society gives you benefits, just as being Muslim in an Islamic country would provide benefits, and etc.

Your way off here. I never claimed that Christians had a lock hold on nobility or suffering. In fact I don't think being a Christian is noble at all. It's reality. Now I know you will have a problem with that statement so let me explain further. I don't feel noble for doing what the Holy Spirit wants me to do. I feel obligated. I am not obligated by God. I supply the obligation myself. It comes from Love. He loves me and I trust that he knows what will be best for me and others regardless of what I think. He has given me so much in terms of Love and blessing that I want to please him the way a child wants to please his father. My reality rests on my relationship and not some humanistic need to be right.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

You state that you "aren't losing the argument," and perhaps you are right. But that is only because you haven't engaged in argument. Instead you have proselytized and proclaimed. Argument is persuasion, and to persuade you must provide something outside of personal belief. You provide nothing but personal belief, blind faith, and unfounded claims. If you were as open to the argument as you claim you want others to be, there might be room for a discussion.

Again I think you are on the right track with what you have wrote but let me refine things a little further. I am not engaged in an argument to the end that I be right. I really don't care whether I am judged to be right or wrong from a personal standpoint. I don't even pretend at this point to be capable of persuading you of God's existence. I want you to open your heart to the possibility of God's existence even through all of your life experiences which I do not discount. Like I've said I used to be an atheist. I know about bad life experiences that can bring people to a point of not only complete unbelief but absolute certainty of the lack of existence of a god any god. If you can come logically to the conclusion that there just may be a God, that it is even possible then we can go from there and see where it takes us. I think it would take us to a place where you do not have to accept my word for anything. I will not have to persuade you because you will know for yourself. If it doesn't happen then you are no worse off. right?

04/09/2008 01:50:12 AM · #303

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

I posed these questions in another thread to another member, who basically refused to engage them. I'll post them again for dponlyme, or anyone else who might want to bite on the hook I'm dangling. Some of the questions assume that the Christian believer lives, or was at least born and raised, in North America, Europe, or another predominately Christian country. Since this is an international site, I understand that there may be someone on here who doesn't necessarily fall into that category. The odds are slim, however, so I'll take the chance.

Questions for a Christian:

1) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that there is an afterlife?
2) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that a supreme being exists?
3) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that this supreme is the God of the Christian Bible?
4) Do you claim that this Bible is literal (that is inerrant) truth?
5) If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you claim to know what parts of the Bible are in error or open to interpretation?

If you have answered Yes to any of the questions above, what makes you feel that you have some special access to truth, where others may question, doubt, or disagree?

Part II

6) Where you born into a religious family?
7) If yes, what religion would your parent(s) have identified themselves as at the time of your childhood?
8) Would you consider this religion to be "Christian"?
9) Do you consider yourself to be of the same religious faith as your parents?
10) If not, what prompted you to change your religious identification?
11) If you did change your religious identification, or even if you have never changed your religious identification, did you ever consider a non-Christian religious faith, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or other faith/philosophy that is outside of the main religious tradition of the society in which you grew up?
12) If no to #10, why not?
13) If yes to #10, what made you reject that faith/philosophy?

Part III

14) Why do you think you are so particularly blessed to have been born into a society where Christianity is dominant and it is so easy to practice your beliefs without interference?

15) Why do you think those born into religious societies that are divergent or in opposition to Christianity (a majority of the world's population) are so unfortunate as to be born into a society that makes it so difficult, counterintuitive, and in some cases criminal, to believe and practice the only religious practice that will allow them to enter heaven?

16) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?

17) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards?

edited to correct numbering

I can answer your questions. I have already answered quite a lot of these. Review the thread. I want to see if you will come to a point where you will not be simply trying to catch me in my words like the pharisees tried to do to Jesus. Will you listen with an open mind and not simply be looking to be right but instead be looking to gain knowledge? This discussion doesn't have to be about being right or wrong. It can be an exploration of each other's experiences or Life journey. There is no prize here for 'coming out on top'. It shouldn't have to be a wrestling match. We can be nice to one another despite having these differing life Journeys. I know that I very much want to know what happened or what thought process led you to atheism. You must have considered the existence or nonexistence of God. What led you to even examine the issue? Many do not. They simply fart around their whole lives looking for food and shelter and some toys to play with along the way. Just the fact that you have given this consideration tells me there is more to you than what you have posted so far. Share your life experiences with me. I am willing to share mine and how I came to the current state I am in but not to be ridiculed. Let's have a friendly discourse. What do you say?

04/09/2008 02:40:40 AM · #304

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would be interested to know about our other senses.

There are quite a few, such as thermoception (heat, cold), nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance, gravity), proprioception & kinesthesia (relative sense of location of your body, joint motion and acceleration) and sense of time (eg there have been recent reports that some animals sense time differently).

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I admittedly am not an expert on evolution and all I have said about it is limited by my understanding of it. Hopefully there is something of more substance than that eye video. It was not in my opinion scientific but near pure speculation. Help me out here.

Well there are some elements that should appear to be common sense. I will assume that you understand/agree that genetic traits are inherited by offspring.

Let's take a look at one small aspect of evolutionary theory in the context of your garden.

If you are anything like me, you might grow flowers of a generic kind and forget to water them. The flowers that survive in my garden would be the ones that can live better without being watered. If I let the flowers live and die, then it would not be long before only the hardiest of flowers remained because the less hardy flowers would not survive in the environment of my garden to produce seeds.

If my neighbour were to keep bees (and watered his flowers), then in his garden you might find that it would be the same flowers but those with the scent that the bees most liked that would be most likely to be pollinated and reproduce successfully.

If my other neighbour had a high fence, then his garden might be filled with flowers that survive best and reproduce in low light for the same reasons.

After a few years you would find three gardens with three increasingly different types of flower (eg bigger leaves in the shade, deeper roots in the dry, sweeter smell near the bees).

At its most basic, the plants found in each garden have gradually altered into varieties that have grown genetically more tolerant of different environments.

Looking into the gardens after a few decades, you might see flowers that look different, each attuned to its particular environment. If you did not know better, you might think "what are the chances of there having been these three different varieties of plant here, each found only in the environment for which it is perfectly suited? And one conclusion you might reach might be that the odds are too long for "random chance" to have put these plants in the right places (indeed - the odds if you simply scattered three types of seeds would be millions to one that they fell just so), so it must have been an intelligent gardener. But by looking at the garden in its developed state, you might not realise that the changes were not only naturally occurring, but probable in the circumstances.

Does that make sense? This is only one way in which evolution operates - there is a lot more, but it might be sensible to gain acknowledgement that this bit makes sense first.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
On your final point you have finally admitted to the fact that God might actually exist. I am stunned and very pleased.

The thing is that, assessed objectively, the odds are almost infinitely small. However, it is impossible to say that they are zero if one is to be strictly accurate (which is why fanatics like to challenge atheists to disprove god: they know that it is impossible to do so, and that atheists tend to be intellectually honest enough not to be able to fudge it in the same way that, for example, you do when you talk about "knowing" that god exists).

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Would you be interested in exploring this possibility further? If so I would love to. This would of course require you to set aside science and look at things in a totally different way.

Rather than thinking of science as something arcane, perhaps it would be better to think of it as facts for which there is evidence for all to see. You are asking me if I would be willing to set aside facts for which there is evidence for all to see in order to believe in "facts" for which there is no evidence.

Why would I ignore things that I can see for myself in order (per your assessment) to suffer the miserable trials of belief in a notional being?

Thank you so much for not ridiculing me. I appreciate that beyond all measure. In regards to the portion about evolution I am happy to say that I agree and understand 100%. One point here though. Didn't the gardener in each of the three scenarios have a dramatic impact on each of the gardens? I look forward to more on the subject if you care to share. Science is a great tool and should never be discounted as arcane. It helps us to know how to manipulate our environment and understand how we can best manipulate things to our liking and comfort as well as to our own survival (ie air conditioning, internal combustion engine, medical science(though this does kind of throw natural selection on it's ear anymore doesn't it). All of these are wonderful uses of science. (out of order) As far as the senses goes, the first ones are just portions of the same sense of touch (i was including them even if science does make a differentiation. The others I have no problem with either but I don't think they add all that much to the mix as far as expanding our ability to perceive the universe. I see that logically you feel the same way about God that I do about the evolution of the eye and I can certainly understand that. That is why it is necessary to suspend for a time looking at the possibility of God from a strictly scientific standpoint. If indeed he is the Creator as you have said is a possibility even infinitesimally small then wouldn't it follow that he created all of the processes and phenomenon that are studied in science? If he did create these processes(natural selection etc) and phenomenon that we see at work in the universe would it not then make sense that since he would have to have been in existence before he made them and thus outside of the realm of scientific inquiry? Isn't that sort of like asking an ant to find the truth of the existence of the person who made the ant farm in which he now resides without the ant farm maker being present to be found. Maybe that's not a great example but I hope you will get the idea I'm going for here. What I am trying to say is that the only way one can come to proof of God's existence is to invite him into your life and see if he comes. It is my contention that if you do he will. proselytizing? well yeah. From my point of view it's the only reason to have the discussion. Sorry if that is offensive(as others have stated). I certainly don't mean it to be. If he doesn't come into your life and make himself known to you then you have lost nothing right? The key question in this is one I have posed before, perhaps not to you but IF God does exist (as you admit is a possibility) then would you want to worship and serve the Creator of the universe who loves you beyond all measure (in this scenario you are his child after all) and seeks for your ultimate good by giving you eternal life? If the answer is yes then I know that he will reveal himself to you if you do invite Him into your life and at that point you don't have to take my word for it or rely on statistical probabilities. You will know.

04/09/2008 02:49:15 AM · #305

Originally posted by Louis:

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. You want me to say something like, "Well, if God DID exist, and he's a big ole CHRISTIAN, I would WORSHIP him!!" Is that it? Sounds like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Anyway, I don't throw away hard-earned moral code and a lifetime of a developing weltanschauung on request so that some anonymous navel-gazer on some website can play weird head games, sorry. Oh, and nice one, belittling my views with your half-baked rant. Very Christ-like. And I mean that.

Sounds like to me you won't answer the question. It's a simple question. Could you answer this question? If so you can answer the other: If the fossil record showed beyond doubt that evolution theory did not pass muster would you still argue it's correctness or would you move on and endorse another theory? Both questions have a presupposition and a question then regarding what you would do assuming that presuppositions correctness. Answer the question.

scalvert

04/09/2008 08:55:51 AM · #306

Somebody hit dponlyme. His record player is stuck. Would you open your heart to the possibility that Mithra exists? If you will only let the faithful show you the way, great Mithra will reveal himself to you! If you would only let yourself believe, you will know he's real (duh- if you believe something, then it's true to you). What about Osirus? Zeus? How about 1000 other deities you have apparently cast aside as foolish mythology? At some point, every one of them had a large group of followers who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that their particular god du jour was absolutely real, as described in the writings and oral traditions he handed down for his chosen ones. You see... we already agree on over 99.999% of the deities we don't believe exist. We only disagree on one, and your method of persuasion is even weaker than trying to convince a competing believer since you would be asking us to accept magic and miracles in lieu of rational explanations. No thanks.

chalice

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/09/2008 09:01:08 AM · #307

I'll take a shot at this too. My answers are also at the bottom. I have renumbered the questions to avoid confusion.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Questions for a Christian:

1) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that there is an afterlife?
2) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that a supreme being exists?
3) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that this supreme is the God of the Christian Bible?
4) Do you claim that this Bible is literal (that is inerrant) truth?
5) If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you claim to know what parts of the Bible are in error or open to interpretation?

If you have answered Yes to any of the questions above, what makes you feel that you have some special access to truth, where others may question, doubt, or disagree?

Part II

6) Where you born into a religious family?
7) If yes, what religion would your parent(s) have identified themselves as at the time of your childhood?
8) Would you consider this religion to be "Christian"?
9) Do you consider yourself to be of the same religious faith as your parents?
10) If not, what prompted you to change your religious identification?
11) If you did change your religious identification, or even if you have never changed your religious identification, did you ever consider a non-Christian religious faith, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or other faith/philosophy that is outside of the main religious tradition of the society in which you grew up?
12) If no to #10, why not?
13) If yes to #10, what made you reject that faith/philosophy?

Part III

14) Why do you think you are so particularly blessed to have been born into a society where Christianity is dominant and it is so easy to practice your beliefs without interference?

15) Why do you think those born into religious societies that are divergent or in opposition to Christianity (a majority of the world's population) are so unfortunate as to be born into a society that makes it so difficult, counterintuitive, and in some cases criminal, to believe and practice the only religious practice that will allow them to enter heaven?

16) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?

17) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards?

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. I believe the Bible is inerrent in that it's message is without error. That is not to say that I think everything in the Bible needs to be taken as "literal" if by that word one means that there is no room for interpretation of the message. For example, at one point Jesus is talking about adultry and lust and says something to the effect that if your eye offends you, gouge it out. The passage does not stand for the literal instruction to "gouge out" one's eye for having lustful thoughts. However, the underlying message that a heart/mind/thought process can be as negative as a pattern of behavior is valid. Intrinsically, and because one can lead to the other.

I realize that once one leaves the door open to interpretation some people will take license with that idea to attempt to drive a truck-load of extreme views through the Bible. What people do with that is their business. I am more interested in keeping the interpretations to a minimum that supports the basic inerrent message of the Bible. I don't claim to have all the answers. Christianity does not require "me" to be inerrant. In point of fact, it maintains just the opposite.
5. N/A (But see my answer to 4.)

6. No.
7. N/A
8. N/A
9. No
10. N/A I didn't "change" any identification. I simply became a Christian.
11. Yes. I have studied many major world religions, including variations not named in your question, and have contemplated atheism. For about 15 years or so (as an adult) I was an agnostic.
12. N/A
13. The others did not make as much sense to me or seemed to be more of a prescription for moral behavior (with which I have no particular quarrel) without directly dealing with the issue of a Creator, afterlife, and such issues, or by dealing with those issues in a way that was less persuasive to me. Christianity made sense to me, and the more I studied it, by reading the Bible and external materials, including the Gnostic and other noncanonical writings, the more sense it made. The others seemed to place the burden on people to live in a rigorously moral manner to try to gain favor through works (similar to what DrAchoo indicates) or attain a higher level of afterlife by reason of works, whereas Christianity makes it clear that God does the heavy lifting in the first instance (grace/justification/atonement/etc.) and my moral conduct and works are a response based upon the authenticity of my beliefs. There just isn't any way I can "work" myself up to God's standards, no matter how "moral" I may be. God can cut me some slack, but I can't work it the other way around. (I'm going to stop here before I start getting "dogma" comments. The question asks me to provide an answer that is suitable for "me". The fact that others think it is insufficient, irrelevant, or otherwise, is beyond the scope of "my" response to the various religions or belief systems I have studied.)

14. I agree with DrAchoo, so I will restate his quotation. "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:29-30) I would also add that my life is not over. I may yet end up in some other society where Christianity is not welcome. Perhaps even this one...if events run that way.
15. See 14 for the short answer. I also could say the same with any crisis of life. Why do some people get sick or are born with a physical or mental disability? Why are some people killed or maimed in an accident? etc. etc. etc. Possible answers include... (a) beats me, I don't have all the answers, (b) we are spiritual beings in a physical body, and what goes on here has a bearing after death, and in the scheme of things what seems like a travesty here may have a purpose later, (c) "...suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." If I end up with cancer or if I am the victim of a maiming accident, that's how I intend to deal with it, to the best of my imperfect abilities.
16. The short answer for some people is the "...no one comes to the Father except through me" statement of Jesus. Yet that passage was dealing primarily with Jesus' divinity. "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." So I am not sure it stands for the proposition that those who have not heard of Christianity will be barred from heaven. As I recall, there are texts that stand for the proposition that those who don't have an opportunity to hear are not kept out of heaven (I can't recall the texts at the moment, though.) On the otherhand, I think there are plenty of texts to suggest that those who don't believe in God won't end up with God. But I guess if one does not believe God exists, then there is no expectation to be in his presence after death. It would be a non sequitur, wouldn't it.
17. N/A See answer to 16.

Having answered these questions, however, I hasten to add that whatever I believe is really not germaine to what in reality may occur or be "truth". I don't claim to have all the answers, and I am willing to admit that I may be wrong in some respects (remember there is some interpretation involved). Christianity doesn't require me to have all the answers to all the questions. It doesn't require me to prove any thing to anyone. I need only accept the core message of the Bible, and to live my life authentically, morally, and consistent with that core message by applying the teachings of the Bible to my life to the best of my ability, recognizing that I do not know the Mind of God and I will make mistakes along the way. It does require that I be ready to share my reasons for the beliefs I have with anyone who is interested. It does not require me to go around and constantly push my beliefs on those who are uninterested. Finally, and at the risk of over-simplifying things (so as not to get into dogma), the core message is John 3:16 and the ten Commandments. (And to whomever quips that the Bible could be boiled down to a few paragraphs, it's more developed than those two texts. I'm just sparing you the dogma recitation.)

I also think that the Big Bang, with it's emphasis on a singularity beyond which science has not yet ventured (and may or may not ever be able to venture) is compatable with the notion of a Creator. That is, the Creator initiated the singularity and all that has resulted from it as the mechanism for the universe we find ourselves in. To those who take the position that a finite universe created by an infinite God seems implausible for one reason or another, or is unprovable, or the like, I simply say none of us knows for sure. But it is not implausible for me that whatever passes for "physics" outside the boundaries of the universe may be a different set of realities. The analogy I make is that science is inside the box of the universe and can not see beyond the box. It therefore can not rule out anything beyond the box. The Bible says God is spirit. Spirit is a very different "physics" (for lack of a better word) than the material world we see around us. Scientists often say that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, that it was created along with the mass of the singularity. Chritianity says God is the Great "I Am", the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end), implying that God is outside of and not restricted by time. Since science can add nothing to this issue and the Bible proposes an answer, I'll go with the proposal that may work rather than the process that is mute (at least until science can measure something beyond the universe).

My belief system, is based upon faith, but it is a "reasoned" faith. I don't check my brain at the door. I read scientists like Hawkings, Paul Davies, Francis Collins, Einstein, and others. These are well respected scientists. They are either Christians or they are willing to posit that there may be a Creator. I think I am in good company by relying on these eminent scientists. It is also the reason I am willing to read Dawkins. I think it is the intellectually honest thing to do, given Louis' assessment that he is one of the foremost evolutionists, but from what I have read of him about his hostility to religion he undermines himself by being hostile (I am not in favor of extremists from either side of the aisle). But regardless of Mr. Dawkins' hostility, I am ok with evolution. It is just one more aspect of the mechanism God used by exerting his creative genious. Maybe Mr. Dawkins can change my mind. We'll see. I don't think he can refute or replace Hawkings, Davies, Collins, Einstein and others I have read. But we'll see.

I also respect the right of others to make up their own minds. We all live with the consequences of our decisions and actions. If Christianity turns out to be totally wrong then all that can be said is that I lived a moral life, being charitable to others, and with a degree of humility and tolerance for others. If Christianity turns out to be totally right then I can say the same thing, plus I will one day be in heaven. If the Atheist position turns out to be right, then I will still have lived the same way and Atheists will have the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so." And there will be no afterlife. No harm, no foul. If the Atheist position turns out to be wrong, then the atheist can live a moral life, being charitable to others, and with a degree of humility and tolerance for others, or not. Since the Atheist doesn't believe in God, then there is no reason to call "foul" if one didn't want to accept him anyway. And if some other religion ends up being the truth, then...well that's why I studied them. I went with what was most persuasive to me based upon all the facts and the internal logic of their respective teachings.

Que sera, sera.

(edited to correct a number referring to an earlier paragraph)

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 13:09:04.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

04/09/2008 09:48:39 AM · #308

Just my contribution, as it is a slow morning and I don't mind others knowing my heart.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes and no...I believe that the overall MESSAGE of the bible is inerrant but I also believe that many of the stories are more figurative than literal, or in some cases, embellished or dramatized for the purpose of teaching a specific lesson.
5. No, I'm not a biblical scholar so I couldn't tell you which ones are literal and which ones are figurative as fact. I just have my own opinions, which is OK.

I feel I know the truth due to my salvation through Jesus Christ. It's not special access, as anyone can know the same truth.

6. Not particularly religious...my parents didn't attend church regularly but went sometimes. I went very often because it was fun and something to do besides sit at home.
7. Baptist
8. Yes
9. I still identify with the principals of the Baptist church but am a member of a non-denominational church right now.
10. I think that as I matured as an adult and was able to visit many churches and experience several denominations, such as Catholic (my grandmother was Catholic), Lutheran, Episcopalian, Pentecostal (my aunt is Pentecostal), Presbyterian, Church of Christ, and non-denominational, I have been able to find a place where my heart feels at home. I believe God leads his people to a church home where they feel comfortable and can do His work with joy.
11. Yes...in college my husband and I both studied about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Universal Unitarianism, as we searched for our place in the spiritual world.
12. n/a
13. We never felt 100% comfortable with losing sight of our past Christian upbringings and the teachings that were developed in us over a long period of time. We never for once thought those other religions were wrong, but we just felt they weren't for us. They were out of our comfort zone, I guess you could say.

14. I believe that God has a plan for everyone. His plan was for me to be born here, and experience all the things I have experienced so far so that I can be who I am at this moment in time.
15. Same answer as 14...everyone is put on this Earth as part of His plan. Some may not live where the teachings of Jesus are readily available or in places where worship of Him is punishable by death...but Christians work to spread the Word to the far corners of the Earth so that everyone can know Jesus.
16. I think the bible is fairly clear (IMO) in expressing that when Jesus died on the cross for our salvation, his salvation was given in retrospect to those who died before him, and in advance for those who died afterwards. We just studied that in my Sunday school class last weekend, ironically enough. If someone has never been exposed to Christ, either before his death or afterwards, salvation is still there. I think that those who are exposed to Jesus and willfully choose NOT to accept the gift of salvation are the ones who "are condemned to be barred from entering heaven" as you stated. Again, just my opinion.
17. No one has to do anything to earn God's rewards...He has already done the work by sacrificing His only begotten Son. All people have to do is accept his gift. So many non-believers have a misconception that Christianity is about guilt...giving up things and doing things as a tradeoff for Heaven...it's not about that at all. It's about loving one another as Christ loves us. I think people try to make it a lot more complicated than it really is.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/09/2008 10:09:48 AM · #309

Originally posted by L1:

Just my contribution, as it is a slow morning and I don't mind others knowing my heart.

I just want to point out that your answers to questions one, two, and three are incompatible with the second sentence in your answer to question thirteen.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/09/2008 12:49:22 PM · #310

OK, our turn. These are pretty easy, but interesting.

1. Do you claim to know, without a doubt, that no Supreme Being exists?
1a. If you are a Weak Atheist (ie. you said â��noâ�� to #1), how do you consider yourself to be different from an agnostic?
2. Can science provide the answer for all of lifeâ��s questions?
3. Which of the following most represents your attitude about the remaining areas of discovery science has not yet been able to tackle (ie. pre-Big Bang, abiogensis, consciousness, etc.)
a) I donâ��t think much about it
b) The question is poor because we do know the answers
c) I assume science eventually will be able to provide explanations
4. Were you born into a religious family? Would you consider religion to have been an important part of your familyâ��s life?
5. If so, what caused you to change your mind?
6. How has this decision improved your life?
7. Is atheism worth â��spreading the wordâ�� about? Why or why not?

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/09/2008 01:23:39 PM · #311

Originally posted by chalice:

I realize that once one leaves the door open to interpretation some people will take license with that idea to attempt to drive a truck-load of extreme views through the Bible. What people do with that is their business. I am more interested in keeping the interpretations to a minimum that supports the basic inerrant message of the Bible.

Given the inherently ambiguous and contradictory nature of the Bible and New Testament, this seems like the only reasonable approach if one is going to believe. I would point out, however, that this approach should, necessarily, lead to a high level of tolerance on the part of Christians in general to a wide degree of practices, lifestyles, and doctrinal interpretations. The core message of the Bible/New Testament is pretty simple, yet the usual attitude of professed Christians (as well as other members of other faiths in regard to their equally ambiguous scriptural resources) is to claim some sort of special access to interpretive knowledge and condemn all others who choose to practice their faith on other ways.

Originally posted by chalice:

The others seemed to place the burden on people to live in a rigorously moral manner to try to gain favor through works (similar to what DrAchoo indicates) or attain a higher level of afterlife by reason of works, whereas Christianity makes it clear that God does the heavy lifting in the first instance (grace/justification/atonement/etc.) and my moral conduct and works are a response based upon the authenticity of my beliefs. There just isn't any way I can "work" myself up to God's standards, no matter how "moral" I may be.

Doc and I have worried this question in the past, but I'm still not sure why you wouldn't want people to approach life in a "rigorously moral manner"?

I don't think that any Christian faith discounts belief, but I do think that the Protestant Christian exclusive emphasis on grace alone (with works being acknowledged, if at all, as simply a reflection of belief) is incredibly problematic and worrisome as it can (note, I do not say "does") lead to a strange sense of "theological immunity" -- for lack of a better term -- in which the "saved" believer actually feels justified in engaging in immoral behavior as a consequence of their "saved" state due to a sense of moral superiority and of being removed from earthly consequences. I'm not trying to paint all "saved by grace" Christians in this light, but there has been some very interesting psychological research in this area of late, specifically looking at what has been termed "authoritarian conservatives" -- which admittedly need not, but often are, also self-identified Christians.

As an atheist, I would much rather have a Christian religion that emphasize works, or at least treats works and belief equally, rather than an exclusive or predominate emphasis on belief. The person who does good for the wrong reasons is still doing good.

Originally posted by chalice:

I don't claim to have all the answers, and I am willing to admit that I may be wrong in some respects (remember there is some interpretation involved).

This already puts you ahead of the fundamentalist Christian community, which inherently believes to have not only all the answers, but to also have a list of the acceptable questions.

04/09/2008 01:24:32 PM · #312

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by L1:
Just my contribution, as it is a slow morning and I don't mind others knowing my heart.

I just want to point out that your answers to questions one, two, and three are incompatible with the second sentence in your answer to question thirteen.

So true.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/09/2008 01:34:32 PM · #313

I'll bite, but not inline

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1/ nope. I don't think that even the most ardent atheists do. I know for example that Dawkins leaves that particular door open when he talks.

1a. This isn't really a meaningful question, more one of degree. The 'atheist' label has perhaps more negative connotations (for example this quote from the previous president Bush No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. Other than that, I think most of the 'positions' on the scale of atheism to theism are questions of degree. As keeps getting trotted out in this thread, most people disbelieve in the majority of gods that have been postulated. Some just vary in the number and degree.

2. Probably not. Not all questions are framed in a meaningfully provable way. Philosophy is a littered with fine examples. Others may be beyond the scope of our ability to analyse or test, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are not analyzable or testable.

3. I like Hawkins answer on what happened before the Big Bang. What's north of the north pole ?

4. Yes. Yes. Was christened, spent maybe 18 years attending church, extra bible study classes, comparative religions at school.

5. Lack of meaningful answers or lack of logical reason. I don't see a need to stop asking questions just because we don't have an answer. More often than not the underlying 'answer' from religion to any tough question is essentially 'it is just because it is. You can't understand it. So stop asking questions' I feel that's intellectual laziness and/or dishonest. Some of those sorts of answers keep popping up in this thread too.

6. I have more free time on Sunday. I live in awe of the world and how lucky I am to have won this particular lottery to be here to experience it. I'm not waiting on the next life to really start enjoying myself.

7. Reason isn't such a terrible thing to educate people about. It seems to take religion for good people to do evil deeds, while thinking they are right or just. I don't see a similar path for good people to perform evil acts, based upon reason alone.

04/09/2008 01:56:39 PM · #314

Originally posted by chalice:

I'll take a shot at this too. My answers are also at the bottom. I have renumbered the questions to avoid confusion.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Questions for a Christian:

1) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that there is an afterlife?
2) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that a supreme being exists?
3) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that this supreme is the God of the Christian Bible?
4) Do you claim that this Bible is literal (that is inerrant) truth?
5) If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you claim to know what parts of the Bible are in error or open to interpretation?

If you have answered Yes to any of the questions above, what makes you feel that you have some special access to truth, where others may question, doubt, or disagree?

Part II

6) Where you born into a religious family?
7) If yes, what religion would your parent(s) have identified themselves as at the time of your childhood?
8) Would you consider this religion to be "Christian"?
9) Do you consider yourself to be of the same religious faith as your parents?
10) If not, what prompted you to change your religious identification?
11) If you did change your religious identification, or even if you have never changed your religious identification, did you ever consider a non-Christian religious faith, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or other faith/philosophy that is outside of the main religious tradition of the society in which you grew up?
12) If no to #10, why not?
13) If yes to #10, what made you reject that faith/philosophy?

Part III

14) Why do you think you are so particularly blessed to have been born into a society where Christianity is dominant and it is so easy to practice your beliefs without interference?

15) Why do you think those born into religious societies that are divergent or in opposition to Christianity (a majority of the world's population) are so unfortunate as to be born into a society that makes it so difficult, counterintuitive, and in some cases criminal, to believe and practice the only religious practice that will allow them to enter heaven?

16) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?

17) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards?

1. No
2. No
3. No

As much as I am reluctant to want to say this... because you have defended me. How can you answer no to the first three questions and still consider yourself to be Christian?
The same goes for DrAchoo. Do you believe in Christ and that he was crucified for your sins and rose again three days later? If you do and if there might not possibly be an after-life then where was he at after he died. Where did he come back from and where did he ascend to. If you are not 100% sure of God's very existence then was Christ a liar? If you are not sure that God is the Christian God why not favor Buddha or Zeus for that matter? If you have no assurance why would you choose the Christian God to worship. Did you just like his ideas on what was right and wrong. Is it merely because he is what you were exposed to as a child? Seriously not trying to attack either of you and hope you don't take it that way. Your statements of a lack of faith and assurance are troubling to me. People who identify as Christians and then make statements lacking any true conviction in the Christian God are not much of a help to God in helping further His Kingdom. It seems you are neither hot nor cold. How can God answer your prayers when you doubt his very existence? or how can you Love God with all of your heart and soul and still doubt his existence?
I can appreciate your candor and am certainly not asking you to spit out things that for you are untrue but as I said I find it troubling.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 14:04:21.

scalvert

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/09/2008 02:00:25 PM · #315

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1. Do you claim to know, without a doubt, that no Supreme Being exists?
1a. If you are a Weak Atheist (ie. you said â��noâ�� to #1), how do you consider yourself to be different from an agnostic?
2. Can science provide the answer for all of lifeâ��s questions?
3. Which of the following most represents your attitude about the remaining areas of discovery science has not yet been able to tackle (ie. pre-Big Bang, abiogensis, consciousness, etc.)
a) I donâ��t think much about it
b) The question is poor because we do know the answers
c) I assume science eventually will be able to provide explanations
4. Were you born into a religious family? Would you consider religion to have been an important part of your familyâ��s life?
5. If so, what caused you to change your mind?
6. How has this decision improved your life?
7. Is atheism worth â��spreading the wordâ�� about? Why or why not?

Fair is fair. I'll bite.
1. No, but it's no more likely than fairies, mermaids or other mythology, and the chances of picking the "right" god out of thousands bring the likelihood down to near zero.
1a. Given that agnostics generally consider the above question unknowable, we may be in agreement.
2. No, but I don't consider magic and miracles an answer either. With regard to "meaning of life" philosophical questions, there may not BE an answer.
3. C, although I'm fine with the idea that some things we may never know (can the Bible explain who shot JFK?)
4. Extremely (to both questions)
5. Math and reason. Too many biblical accounts don't add up, and often conflict with common sense, morality and the laws of nature.
6. Woo... common sense, morality and an appreciation of nature! I'm not a slave to someone else's ideals, and can spend my time and money on better things than indoctrination speeches and grand cathedrals. I can focus on this life rather than fret about what happens after I'm dead.
7. It's not my place to ruin Santa Claus, and my kids all attend "religious education" so they'll have the cultural background and knowledge to form their own opinions some day. Just don't insist that we'll all burn in an alternate dimension for eternity unless we follow the particular beliefs that only your group has special access to and we'll get along fine. A reminder: YOU are an atheist with regard to belief in almost every god ever claimed to exist.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/09/2008 02:13:25 PM · #316

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Okay, fair enough.

1) No, as the answer is inherently unanswerable. I also cannot without a doubt know that a giant, completely invisible tea kettle is in orbit around Mars. However, the probability of the tea kettle is infinitesimally small. I would hazard that the probability of a god or gods existing is perhaps slightly higher, but given my learned knowledge about the way the world operates and the scientific evidence (that is, testable and verifiable evidence) of that operation, I feel very confident in asserting that the probability of any god or gods existence is virtually zero.

1a) Technically, I guess I am an agnostic as I cannot definitively state that there is no possibility of a god/gods. However, under the layman's use of the term I am most definitely not an agnostic, since I have come to a conclusion about the existence of god/gods based on the probability of such given the available evidence. Contra-evidence could, potentially change my mind. But I have yet to see any that gives me pause.

2) Yes, I believe that scientific inquiry is the key to discovering the answers for all of life's questions. I acknowledge that science still has answers to find (and likely has questions to uncover), but this is what is exciting about the scientific adventure. I also think that the human drive for answers -- the source of our creation of religion in the first place, in my opinion -- will be the reason that religious faith must either eventually fail or change so drastically as to be unrecognizable as such for current believers. I suppose that the possibility that faith could triumph and suppress scientific inquiry also exists, but I have more "faith" in humanity than that -- perhaps my one irrational belief that I hold despite a lack of evidence ;) -- no matter how many sunday school meetings they hold, or how many science classrooms are made to teach creationism as science, there will always be the child in the back that holds up his or hand to ask why, how, and how come

3) c

4) Yes. Religion was very important, I would say central, to my family and my childhood and early adult life. Religion remains central to life of a majority of my family. I will acknowledge that I've always been the boy in the back asking why, however.

5) See 4 for part of it. As Karen Armstrong has said, "I learned to much for my faith to survive." As I've said, I've always been the boy to ask "why?". It did not escape me that the religious around me did not appreciate this attribute. Nor did it escape me that this discomfort and disapproval with this attribute was not limited to the practitioners of my mother's religion. (It was not universal, true - but the ones most open to my questioning always turned out to be those who the fundies would label as agnostics, and not literal theists.) As I learned more about science, history, and humanity all that knowledge pointed me towards my atheism.

6) For me, my atheism as been quite liberating and rewarding. To remain a Christian would have meant arresting and cramping further intellectual growth. As an atheist, I am able to relate to people and events without the baggage of in group/out group hierarchy that naturally accompanies a literal belief in any deistic tradition. Morality becomes not a question of interpretation of ancient texts and traditions, but rather a question of suffering and compassion. I never feel the need to close myself off from some aspect of the world because it is "sinful." I am not ashamed of my own humanity. My life is much fuller, richer, and varied as an atheist than it would have ever been as a Christian.

7) I think atheism is worth talking about because it challenges the irrationality of faith-based thinking in the social and political arena. However, I am less concerned about "spreading the word about atheism," than I am with challenging the imposition of faith-based thinking on individuals, societies, culture and politics. I am an advocate for critical thinking, rational argument, evidence-based persuasion, and scientific inquiry. On an individual level, I don't care if you believe without evidence in creed X. The problem is not that individuals have faith. The problem is that faith (belief without evidence) is being used to justify certain political and social outcomes, irrespective of whether those outcomes (on the basis of testable evidence) provide a net benefit to the society as a whole.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 14:34:38.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/09/2008 02:14:55 PM · #317

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1. I'm a "strong atheist". I would define that as someone who is not willing to be agnostic, or one who takes a firm position on the non-existence of supreme beings. The notion of an infinitely complex supreme being having created the universe, with us as its ultimate expression of its creativity, contains so many fundamental flaws that the idea begs rejection. To suggest further that this supreme creator is exactly the entity described in the bible stretches credulity to the breaking point. It's not a tenable idea and falls apart rapidly on the merest inspection, at least for some.

2. Given time, tools, and the right questions, yes.

3. c)

4. Yes, and yes.

5. Initially, basic problems with the canons of the Catholic church that were diametrically opposed to what my personal experience of the world was. I turned to other Christian faiths, especially evangelicalism, but the issues merely changed. A study of history revealed the hubris of the evangelicals and the superiority complex of the Catholics, and didn't answer the most basic questions, and actually didn't even seem concerned with them. Lots of begging of the question. I found solace in history and in the simplicity of older civilizations than ours, and over the course of several decades transformed from a non-Christian that believed in the sincerity and hopefulness of Jesus, to an agnostic, to a soft atheist, to a hard atheist and whatever lies beyond that.

6. Vastly. I can't begin to tell you. The transformation into a life of rational thinking (as far as the questions we concern ourselves here with) has been completely liberating, completely freeing. I feel centred. It's been the cause of much happiness and satisfaction. (Incidentally it was less a decision and more a transformation.)

7. Insofar as there is a need to prevent the intrusion of religion into civil life, absolutely. Yes, as long as people equate atheism with amorality or worse. Yes, as long as atheists are disenfranchised (for example, no openly declared atheist could ever hope to attain high public office in the US). Yes, to help borderline believers see that abandoning whatever is left of their belief has a very positive effect on one's life. Yes, so long as the opposite -- religion -- is used to manacle people and entire societies, or so long as religion is used as a weapon, or so long as religion is not a private affair that nurtures one's relationship with other people, but remains a public nuisance that intrudes in ways small and large on people who don't want to be intruded on.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/09/2008 02:25:31 PM · #318

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

5) ... I've always been the boy to ask "why?". It did not escape me that the religious around me did not appreciate this attribute. Nor did it escape me that this discomfort and disapproval with this attribute was not limited to the practitioners of my mother's religion. (It was not universal, true - but the ones most open to my questioning always turned out to be those who the fundies would label as agnostics, and not literal theists.) As I learned more about science, history, and humanity all that knowledge pointed me towards my atheism.

This sounds more than passingly familiar to me. I was essentially asked to stop attending bible study because I was asking too many questions that couldn't be answered, because I wouldn't just accept answers that were 'it just is'

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/09/2008 02:28:02 PM · #319

I'd go further and say that I've identified with all the responses, each point.

scalvert

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/09/2008 02:31:49 PM · #320

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

5) ... I've always been the boy to ask "why?". It did not escape me that the religious around me did not appreciate this attribute. Nor did it escape me that this discomfort and disapproval with this attribute was not limited to the practitioners of my mother's religion. (It was not universal, true - but the ones most open to my questioning always turned out to be those who the fundies would label as agnostics, and not literal theists.) As I learned more about science, history, and humanity all that knowledge pointed me towards my atheism.

This sounds more than passingly familiar to me. I was essentially asked to stop attending bible study because I was asking too many questions that couldn't be answered, because I wouldn't just accept answers that were 'it just is'

Ditto. Apparently the flock is not supposed to ask questions. Just follow the shepherd.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/09/2008 03:07:14 PM · #321

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1. No. No knowledge is absolute knowledge. I suppose that God is possible, though highly unlikely. It's also possible, but highly unlikely that tongiht while I'm alseep, the sun will explode, destroying all life or a giant asteroid will strike the earth or I will simply die before I wake as well, but I still set my alarm clock. The question is: At what point does extreme improbability become impossibility? I also don't think that the Christian God is any more likely to exist than any other deity that has been worshipped.

1a. To which flavor of Agnosticism do you refer?

2. No. As Gordon posted, look to philosophy for a variety of such questions.

3. Now you're asking for predictions? I left my crystal ball at home.

4. Yes. Yes.

5. Several things. The thing that caused me to first question the veracity of religious beliefs was the inconsistency of the vast majority of those that claimed to be the most pious. Religious leaders on TV, preaching in huge, ornate cathedrals, driving expensive cars, living in giant mansions sucking money through their TV ministries. It seemed to me that rather than using that money to support a rock star lifestyle, it would have been more in line with their message to their flock to feed a small African nation and live more modestly. Add to that the scandals, like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart. Religious leaders guiding their flocks astray like Jim Jones in Guyana etc.
Anyone remember Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority"? They really pissed me off with their high and mighty posturing, condemnation of others and outright xenophobia packaged for mass consumption as a message of God's love. BAH! With love like that, who needs hate?

Those things made me question the value of simply following along and made me ask, "Why?" over and over. I never got, and still haven't gotten, any good answers. The answers all required some leap of faith, blind acceptance that some highly unlikely thing was true.

Heck, I even want there to be a God, it'd make life so much easier, but I can't want something into existence. I want lots of other things, but that doesn't make them so. "Shit in one hand, wish in the other and see which one fills up first kid."

6. I take responsibility for my own moral and ethical decisions. When I help someone, it's because I want to help them, not because it's written that I should to help ensure my salvation.

7. I regard religious beliefs or the lack thereof as a very personal matter. I'm offended when people that I don't know approach me in public, or worse, come to my door, unsolicited, to proselytize, especially when their position, no matter how subtly posited, is that what I believe is wrong and if I don't believe as they do, I am damned to hellfire for eternity. They might as well ask me to discuss the details of my sex life and then tell me all about how they've discovered that they like dressing up as Bozo the clown then tying up and spanking their wife before sticking it in her butt as if I should go try that right away. TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI! TMI!

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 15:21:22.

chalice