What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

Belief cannot happen at all since the Idea is self-contradictory: Beings, or even beings, such as aliens or ourselves, cannot be fundamental, and therefore cannot be first, planning and creating everything via their system of mind.

Even an apparent miracle could just be that of some higher life form who has evolved further than we have.

Theists expect miracles in conversion, too. They just really want what they want.

And then there is science, too, overturning theology right and left, plus the philosophic analysis of why anything exists at all, which reduce to only two choices, both of which have eternalness, obviating any creation at all, and a Creator.


Other nonbelievers may just note that the Notion is outright claimed with no proof, and is thus of no consequence.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

It's my firm belief that most (not all) theists are, on some level, clinically insane. I've got a few Aunts who profess continuously that God has literally spoken to them, and continues to on a daily basis. They both firmly, and may I reiterate, LITERALLY believe that they hear the physical voice of God in their own heads - that if they ask a question, God literally answers them directly. This is not a metaphor.

And there are others who believe that God shows them things, whether it be a right choice to choose, or something. I find it absolutely amazing the people that feel God communicates with them directly. It's frightening!

"I have a relationship with Jesus."

Do you? Really? And of course when I ask what evidence they have to believe this, they can never show me any evidence, but nevertheless insist it's true because it's their "own personal experiences".

I'm sorry but this is a a key symptom of schizophrenia and dimentia. Believing, without provable evidence, that an imaginary being actually talks to you is frightening.

With that being said, I believe in the possibility of a higher being. But since there is no evidence that either proves or disproves that existence, then I can only go off what my own reason and universably proven life experience.

What would make me believe in God without doubt? Well, I honestly have no idea. Even if a being that claimed to be God appeared and made the sun turn pink or made the oceans hover in mid-air, I would still look to find a logical explination and I would still try to find out if it really is or is not God. I don't really think that there will ever be a way to officially prove God's existence, that is, if it really exists. Throughout the history of existence there has always been an explination for everything in the universe. And as to the argument that God has always existed, I don't believe it. Even if there was truly a God, I would be looking for God's creator, which obviously would be higher than God itself. SOooooooooo in a long, roundabout summary, I don't think, as a free-thinker, that it is possible to ever prove the existance of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
A vision, an appearance, maybe a near death experience, and bad events or traumatic situations can create a belief.
I think you have to be open to the idea or even want to find faith beforehand though.



The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
It a big reason, but not the main one. Some people just can't fathom it out, and it seems a ludicrous idea to many.

There are many atheists who would love to have faith or become religious maybe because they are in a bad place, but you can't just snap your fingers and say "oh OK, I'll believe now" if you just don't.

I wouldn't mind an eternal reward, but it's just not in the house of cards.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

I expect you to see the governing force that controls destiny like I see it . Shit F--ck Me anyway . F--ck I wish some one could? So I figure if me rhetoric is clear enough some ones going to get it . I have made a great discovery whether anybody believes it or not it is still true . It is based in onomastics and is part of governing forces that control actions of humans . I know it sounds ridiculous hocus pocus to everyone , but if it is true everyone's going to get in the end , or possible I could be banned and have to find some others to understand . I know that is always a possibility .
To tell you straight up . I don't tell lies . I know my posts have the appearance of being lies . F---cking fate will do that to ya . I think the creating force is playing a joke on Me . If you can see the hidden language like I see it you would change your mind . I encourage people to read my posts until they start to understand . It is hard I know to read past my conceit and I do understand how offensive it is. Can't help that because I am caught up in the dream just as much as anybody

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

I for one don't expect you or anybody to find faith, so the term, and i'm sure
there are other theists who don't.

jan.

I for one don't expect you or anybody to find faith, so the term, and i'm sure
there are other theists who don't.

How mean of you! You want to keep all the goodies to yourself?!

How can unbelievers come to believe in God.
Simple. Start worshipping.

@Enmos. You could try fetishism for a start.
def. The attribution of religious or mystical qualities to inanimate objects.

How to become a fetishist.
Take an inanimate object such as a stone.
You could make up a ritual for the finding of the stone.
Make an altar for it, and place candles round it.
Every morning and night, after lighting the candles, talk to the stone and ask it for favours.
Tell it what a beautiful and powerful stone it is.

Do this for two weeks, and you will begin to believe that there is some entity within the stone. You will be a fetishist.

How mean of you! You want to keep all the goodies to yourself?!

Nothing ''mean'' about not expecting an atheist to believe in God. :shrug:

jan.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God? The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God. So how do theists expect them to find faith?The conclusion to your premise is, therefore, that the atheist must become irrational in order to abandon his reasoned position.

The most common reason for abandoning rationality is, in my observation, grief. Bereaved people are notorious for becoming unreasonable. Here in the Western world, the most profound grief likely to touch the average citizen is the death of a child.

So look for an atheist whose six year-old child was just killed by a tornado, an auto accident, a drive-by shooting, an exotic pathogen, etc. Tell him that if he puts his faith in a god whom he has always regarded as imaginary, he will one day see that child again, alive and well and happy and waiting for him in heaven.

I have no children but over the course of my life I've had to endure the death of more than ten beloved dogs. I don't for a second equate that with the loss of a child, but nonetheless in my life it's been a lot of grief. Apparently the religionists don't really want me, because they consistently tell me that if against all odds I find my way to heaven, my dogs won't be there because they have no "souls."

Instead, my hateful parents will be waiting for me. Theists really need to work on their marketing skills.

I've just googled the dog question, and I can't find a single site that says it is impossible for dogs to go to heaven.
While researching the dogs in heaven question, I found this cartoon:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqpdd2JmUV1xEvNQm1v_rl3ztOmQVAQ aGnNuLL-w_YfuHzsadU

Heh Heh:)

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

when god introduced himself into my life it was very impactive. if you consider what god is supposed to be, certainly it's not farfetched to think that he could present himself to you in a way that, unless you're purposely in denial, would be a valid reason to believe.

keep in mind that people can deny anything if they really want to. we all know that.

How mean of you! You want to keep all the goodies to yourself?!
Nothing ''mean'' about not expecting an atheist to believe in God.

If you believe that there are unique and important benefits to believing in God, and you yourself believe in God - then it is mean not to at least try to introduce others to those benefits as well.

when god introduced himself into my life it was very impactive. if you consider what god is supposed to be, certainly it's not farfetched to think that he could present himself to you in a way that, unless you're purposely in denial, would be a valid reason to believe.

keep in mind that people can deny anything if they really want to. we all know that.

And we all know that people are, intheir core, evil, rotten, corrupted completely! :rolleyes:

The conclusion to your premise is, therefore, that the atheist must become irrational in order to abandon his reasoned position.

The most common reason for abandoning rationality is, in my observation, grief. Bereaved people are notorious for becoming unreasonable. Here in the Western world, the most profound grief likely to touch the average citizen is the death of a child.

So look for an atheist whose six year-old child was just killed by a tornado, an auto accident, a drive-by shooting, an exotic pathogen, etc. Tell him that if he puts his faith in a god whom he has always regarded as imaginary, he will one day see that child again, alive and well and happy and waiting for him in heaven.

It's not clear how people who have been atheists their whole life, in a time of great need or other severe distress can successfully turn to religion/spirituality/God.

My own experience is that the time of need is the worst, least conducive time for trying to begin to believe in God.

And we all know that people are, intheir core, evil, rotten, corrupted completely! :rolleyes:

speak for yourself signal.

when god introduced himself into my life it was very impactive. if you consider what god is supposed to be, certainly it's not farfetched to think that he could present himself to you in a way that, unless you're purposely in denial, would be a valid reason to believe.

keep in mind that people can deny anything if they really want to. we all know that.

Wouldn't a god know what it takes to make a person believe? Certainly an all powerful being could, if they wanted to, do anything convincing enough for anyone. The biblical god did in the past, although looking at his miracles, they could now be explained by natural phenomena seen by ignorant people, or simulated by modern technology.

But certainly he could set up miracles to be unexplainable to us.

I've just googled the dog question, and I can't find a single site that says it is impossible for dogs to go to heaven.I was once surfing through Christian websites (always pays to see what the enemy is up to) and I found one in which a panel of pastors were counseling parents in how to answer their children's questions about religious matters. One lady said that the family dog had just died and the children were consoling themselves with the promise that he'd be waiting for them in heaven. However, she knew that heaven is for souls and only humans have souls so no other animals could be there, and she wondered how to break the news to the kids, since it would devastate them. The pastor said that since God could do anything he wanted to, he could easily reconstruct their dog right down to the last hair and the last behavior quirk, so that they would be incapable of distinguishing him from the real dog. Since this is a rather complicated thing to explain to a small child, he said it would be okay for her to let them continue believing that their very own dog would be there when they arrived, and wait until they were older to explain the details.

In other words: Lie to 'em, lady. It's the Christian thing to do.

It's generally true that Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Rasta, etc.) specifies that non-human animals have no souls. This is in marked contrast to many other systems. Hinduism, for example, says that if you live an evil life your soul will be reincarnated in some lowly animal like a heartworm and you'll have to work your way back up to humanity by being a really noble heartworm. And your first assignment will be to figure out just exactly how a really noble heartworm should behave--with no brain to do the figuring. ;)

The Christian model of Heaven leaves a lot of details to the imagination, so the various sects and even individuals have their own accretions--so certainly many of them have simply decided that their faithful dog will be there because he is more "Christian" than they are and to have it otherwise would make God unjust.

And that's nothing compared to Hell. In the last poll I saw, the majority of American Christians believe in Heaven but only about 25% believe in Hell at all.
It's not clear how people who have been atheists their whole life, in a time of great need or other severe distress can successfully turn to religion/spirituality/God. My own experience is that the time of need is the worst, least conducive time for trying to begin to believe in God.That's nice to know, I guess. I suppose if they begin to believe in God they have to believe that that same God let this crappy thing happen to them, and it doesn't make for a nice introduction.
Wouldn't a god know what it takes to make a person believe? Certainly an all powerful being could, if they wanted to, do anything convincing enough for anyone. The biblical god did in the past, although looking at his miracles, they could now be explained by natural phenomena seen by ignorant people, or simulated by modern technology. But certainly he could set up miracles to be unexplainable to us.The Christians who have studied the philosophy of their religion insist that God does not want to give them incontrovertible evidence of his existence. He wants them to believe out of faith, not reason.

This, in a nutshell, is why I say that religion--at least Christianity--is antiscience and has no place in our academy. Reason is fundamental to science. Anyone who believes that it's proper to believe something of really major importance simply out of unreasoned faith will never be completely trustworthy as a scientist.

Wouldn't a god know what it takes to make a person believe? Certainly an all powerful being could, if they wanted to, do anything convincing enough for anyone. The biblical god did in the past, although looking at his miracles, they could now be explained by natural phenomena seen by ignorant people, or simulated by modern technology.

But certainly he could set up miracles to be unexplainable to us.

yes, god does and can. that's basically what i said, but then went on to explain that some people don't want to believe no matter what, and god knows that too. surely you've known people who are in denial about things that are so obvious to everyone else around them right?

The Christians who have studied the philosophy of their religion insist that God does not want to give them incontrovertible evidence of his existence. He wants them to believe out of faith, not reason.

Yes, I have heard this one too. "God does not give us evidence, because that would mean we don't need to have faith. But the Bible said we must have faith."
It seems that they were trying to retrospectively (retroactively?) trying to justify having faith.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

Read the Bible and be open to the possibility that God exists.

I believe the Message of the Bible is very powerful in convincing some people that God exists.

If someone does go down this path i suggest they start by reading the New Testament. and then read the Old Testament.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The Christians who have studied the philosophy of their religion insist that God does not want to give them incontrovertible evidence of his existence.

Incontrovertible evidence they can show another person.

But one can be shown personally, Incontrovertible evidence from God.



He wants them to believe out of faith, not reason.

No. It's not a case of absolute no reason and 100% faith. It is a Mix. There are reasons to believe God exists. But they are not incontrovertible others can bring forth counter reasons not to believe.

Believe is never 100% reason, With God there is always a need for Faith because no one knows God fully.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Read the Bible and be open to the possibility that God exists.

I believe the Message of the Bible is very powerful in convincing some people that God exists.

If someone does go down this path i suggest they start by reading the New Testament. and then read the Old Testament.


The common misconception that non-believers must not have read, or even heard of the bible.

There are many who lost their faith only after sitting down and fully reading the bible. Of course the usual excuse is that they didn't read it with the spirit of god in them or something along those lines.


Incontrovertible evidence they can show another person.

But one can be shown personally, Incontrovertible evidence from God.

Sounds familiar. Can't show you, but you'll know it when you see it. So really it's up to god whether anyone sees this sign. So the person who was born with a mind that's rational who sees no reason or need to believe, as well as the person who wants to believe throughout their life, searching every day for that confirmation, they're both out of luck unless god gives them something to work with.

I'll say again...an all powerful god knows what he's given each person to prevent faith in believing, as well as what it would take to give each person that faith. So it's really in his court, if he wants that worship. He's the god, after all.

The common misconception that non-believers must not have read, or even heard of the bible.

There are many who lost their faith only after sitting down and fully reading the bible. Of course the usual excuse is that they didn't read it with the spirit of god in them or something along those lines.

Well i find it is normaly a case of simple disagreement with what God has said and done.

There may be very little input from the Holy Spirit to a person who refuses to take the first step. Just enough for the initial conviction to be resisted.




Sounds familiar. Can't show you, but you'll know it when you see it. So really it's up to god whether anyone sees this sign.

Yes.



So the person who was born with a mind that's rational who sees no reason or need to believe,

Rationalism has nothing to do with it. That’s just a arrogant statement of personal superiority coming from the mouth of an atheist. I see in other threads people reputedly saying that Theists have a superior attitude. The above sentence drips with superior attitude.




as well as the person who wants to believe throughout their life, searching every day for that confirmation, they're both out of luck unless god gives them something to work with.

People can claim they are seeking and wanting to believe, but i find that a lot of people are seeking and wanting to believe in a god that conforms to their wishes, a pet god, someone who snaps to attention and follows their theological orders.




I'll say again...an all powerful god knows what he's given each person to prevent faith in believing, as well as what it would take to give each person that faith. So it's really in his court, if he wants that worship. He's the god, after all.

He will get and is getting that worship. One day you will worship Him too. All will bow down to Him one day, does not matter if you where one who embraced His will or rejected His will.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Rationalism has nothing to do with it.

Rationality has everything to do with it because a rational person will critically examine even the most profound personal experience(s). A rational person is compelled to concede that such experiences do not represent "incontrovertible evidence" of anything, since people can become convinced of all kinds of things through such mechanisms. What you and many other theists will likely never admit to yourselves is that ultimately, you believe in God because you want to believe. In an of itself that does not make you wrong, but beyond the basic awareness of self, rationality and certainty can not legitimately coexist.

Rationality has everything to do with it because a rational person will critically examine even the most profound personal experience(s). A rational person is compelled to concede that such experiences do not represent "incontrovertible evidence" of anything, since people can become convinced of all kinds of things through such mechanisms. What you and many other theists will likely never admit to yourselves is that ultimately, you believe in God because you want to believe. In an of itself that does not make you wrong, but beyond the basic awareness of self, rationality and certainty can not legitimately coexist.

that's absolutely untrue, but you believe that because you want to believe it.

who in their right mind would want to believe in god? and why? knowing god is WAY too consequential and the consequences are WAY too impactive, and all-encompassing. getting to know god is like going through basic training, to get torn down in order to be built up. it's by far the most challenging thing in my life.

you're also assuming in ignorance that i haven't "critically examined" my bevy of spiritual experiences, and i have done exactly that. you don't run a monopoly on critical examination you know.

knowing god is like having someone follow you around 24/7 with a mirror. are you saying that would be desirable for most people? i argue that if it were, a lot more people would know god.

that's absolutely untrue, but you believe that because you want to believe it.

who in their right mind would want to believe in god? and why? knowing god is WAY too consequential and the consequences are WAY too impactive, and all-encompassing. getting to know god is like going through basic training, to get torn down in order to be built up. it's by far the most challenging thing in my life.

knowing god is like having someone follow you around 24/7 with a mirror. are you saying that would be desirable for most people? i argue that if it were, a lot more people would know god.

Most theists I know, and have known, see it very differently. Spiritual life is, for them, something that is much more rich and fulfilling than the life they feel they would be living otherwise. I don't doubt that certain aspects of it may be challenging at times (in fact I know as much from experience) but overall they see it as a positive and desirable reality. Then of course there is the often expressed opinion that life would be utterly meaningless and therefore horribly depressing if there wasn't a God or an afterlife.


you're also assuming in ignorance that i haven't "critically examined" my bevy of spiritual experiences, and i have done exactly that. you don't run a monopoly on critical examination you know.

The critical examination is for the purposes of establishing whether or not your personal subjective experiences can legitimately constitute incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. A rational person is compelled to concede that although such experiences may seem very real, they are not necessarily evidence of the existence of anything external to oneself.

I know you will insist that you are certain, and I am sure that you will further insist that your certainty is indeed rational. But if that's the case, then you're not rational the way I am.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?

Billions of people believe in "god" (or in something analogous) and most of them are kind of born into it, I think. They have an innate tendency to think in religious ways and they kind of accept whatever their community's religious ideas happen to be like they accept other aspects of their native culture.

I was raised in an untraditionally traditional and rather multi-cultural home. (My parents were Americans living in Japan who met and married there.) The general attitude was very respectful to religion and kind of universalistic, with the idea that all religions point towards something transcendent beyond themselves, even if none of them are 100% literally true. It was a kind of an aesthetic approach to religion, I guess. (My mother collected Buddhist art.) And like most other people I guess, that early upbringing shaped me for the rest of my life. My views today are very similar to those of my parents.

But no, I don't believe in God.

What would it take to make me believe? Nothing that I know of, short of God reaching into me and miraculously altering me so that I believe unthinkingly. Maybe the Calvinists are right about it all being a gift of divine grace. If so, I haven't received that grace, nor do I want it.

I can't imagine any divine appearance in the heavens that would convert me, no matter how impressive a light-show it was. It's what I think of as the 'Independence Day problem', from that science fiction movie in which giant 15-mile wide flying saucers appear over the Earth's major cities. Impressive as all hell, but just because something is impressive and totally inexplicable, doesn't imply that it's a suitable object of religious worship.

I don't know of any way that a finite human being can ever know for sure that he or she is confronted by an infinite being. Nor am I entirely sure why an infinite being would deserve to be worshipped, even if it was my omnipotent creator. (Except prudence, perhaps, if that's what it takes to avoid being squashed.)

I can't shake the feeling that "worshipping (a) god" totally misses the point, somehow. That's not what this is about.

Nor am I entirely sure why an infinite being would deserve to be worshipped, even if it was my omnipotent creator.

One idea is that we realize we are small and dependent and it is simply good manners to acknowledge the source that satisfies our needs.
If we follow the source of each thing, we come to the ultimate source, God.

If you are familiar with Japanese culture, there is the practice of Naikan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naikan), and in Buddhism, too, there is a strong emphasis on gratitude.

One element of worshiping God is basically expressing gratitude to God.

Most theists I know, and have known, see it very differently. Spiritual life is, for them, something that is much more rich and fulfilling than the life they feel they would be living otherwise. I don't doubt that certain aspects of it may be challenging at times (in fact I know as much from experience) but overall they see it as a positive and desirable reality. Then of course there is the often expressed opinion that life would be utterly meaningless and therefore horribly depressing if there wasn't a God or an afterlife.

it is more rich and fulfilling, it's just not easier. usually the greater the challenge, the greater the rewards, but i think you'll have to agree that's not exactly the majority of society's mentality or goal. seems like everyone wants an easy answer, a quick fix, a short term gain. we glorify things like greed, sloth, and lust, and telling lies is mainstream. it's a shame, but true.




The critical examination is for the purposes of establishing whether or not your personal subjective experiences can legitimately constitute incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. A rational person is compelled to concede that although such experiences may seem very real, they are not necessarily evidence of the existence of anything external to oneself.

I know you will insist that you are certain, and I am sure that you will further insist that your certainty is indeed rational. But if that's the case, then you're not rational the way I am.

that's...diplomatic. :)

i don't know, i guess everyone has a different way of evaluating things. i tend to see everything like it's a math problem or a logic problem myself. but honestly, this particular endeavor was fairly straight-forward and common sense imo.

The pastor said that since God could do anything he wanted to, he could easily reconstruct their dog right down to the last hair and the last behavior quirk, so that they would be incapable of distinguishing him from the real dog.

Why wouldn't God just resurrect the real dog?
I wouldn't want another dog exactly the same. I would want my real dog.
Sort it out God!

A variation on the dog theme is found at funerals.
The priest always gives the impression that the dead person is in heaven, no matter how big a villain they were. The following never happens:

Father Mulcahy:
This person wiz a tirrible divvel, so he was, and if Dare's anny justice he'll be roasting in the flames of hell.

No, that wouldn't go down too well at all.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

Thorugh logical fallacies, personal biases and cherrypicked anecdotes, often with shallow unsubstaintal promises and threats and wierd moral appeals to duty and reason.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

I dont, God does. "Save as many as you can and don't return until your done."

Magic tricks.

I expect you to see the governing force that controls destiny like I see it . Shit F--ck Me anyway . F--ck I wish some one could? So I figure if me rhetoric is clear enough some ones going to get it . I have made a great discovery whether anybody believes it or not it is still true . It is based in onomastics and is part of governing forces that control actions of humans . I know it sounds ridiculous hocus pocus to everyone , but if it is true everyone's going to get in the end , or possible I could be banned and have to find some others to understand . I know that is always a possibility .
To tell you straight up . I don't tell lies . I know my posts have the appearance of being lies . F---cking fate will do that to ya . I think the creating force is playing a joke on Me . If you can see the hidden language like I see it you would change your mind . I encourage people to read my posts until they start to understand . It is hard I know to read past my conceit and I do understand how offensive it is. Can't help that because I am caught up in the dream just as much as anybody

offensive? you are just a plain lunatic according to my believes.

Yes, I have heard this one too. "God does not give us evidence, because that would mean we don't need to have faith. But the Bible said we must have faith."
It seems that they were trying to retrospectively (retroactively?) trying to justify having faith.

God is proving the power of faith. Keep in mind the angel of faith, Michael is the archangel who commands God's army, not Jesus. Faith is of utmost importance, the only reason God even NEEDED to create life is as a test of faith. What are you going to do when you are born on earth with no recoglation of your angelic past. When you are living your true colors show. Original sin is lust of knowledge, if God gave us evidence of his existence he would be the greatst sinner of all.

Wouldn't a god know what it takes to make a person believe? Certainly an all powerful being could, if they wanted to, do anything convincing enough for anyone. The biblical god did in the past, although looking at his miracles, they could now be explained by natural phenomena seen by ignorant people, or simulated by modern technology.

But certainly he could set up miracles to be unexplainable to us.That was then but now there is 7 billion humans. The exercise would be enormous, might as well just go straight to Armageddon and get it over and done with. Saves time and effort.
:)

I was once surfing through Christian websites (always pays to see what the enemy is up to)

Agreed


and I found one in which a panel of pastors were counseling parents in how to answer their children's questions about religious matters.

Mr. Pastor needs a lesson in sin. Knowingly feeding ones lust is a sin, especialy from a man of understanding.


One lady said that the family dog had just died and the children were consoling themselves with the promise that he'd be waiting for them in heaven.

This is laughable. I hate people who think everything they love is going to Heaven, that dog could have been a real heathen. Have you ever seen All Dogs Go to Heaven? Its bs, but most dogs do, think about traits most dogs share; loyalty, integrity, good parents, and wise.


However, she knew that heaven is for souls and only humans have souls so no other animals could be there, and she wondered how to break the news to the kids, since it would devastate them.

Wait what??? Ever heard of the 4 beast? LUL, animals have souls what kind of crap is that?


The pastor said that since God could do anything he wanted to, he could easily reconstruct their dog right down to the last hair and the last behavior quirk, so that they would be incapable of distinguishing him from the real dog.

With a snap of a finger... but he will not.


In other words: Lie to 'em, lady. It's the Christian thing to do.

Two strikes for the pastor, original sin, and a lie.


It's generally true that Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Rasta, etc.) specifies that non-human animals have no souls.

This is false. Humans are animals. From the dust you were made, to the dust you will return. This applys to anything on earth.


This is in marked contrast to many other systems. Hinduism, for example, says that if you live an evil life your soul will be reincarnated in some lowly animal like a heartworm and you'll have to work your way back up to humanity by being a really noble heartworm. And your first assignment will be to figure out just exactly how a really noble heartworm should behave--with no brain to do the figuring. ;)

Yea. No. You don't get sent down. You get sent back. The first death is of the faithful, the second death is of the ones who gained faith after the first death. After that if you are left one earth its because you are still being reincarnated meaning you have been found in the book yet. Your punishment for evil is living through the worst parts of revelation.


The Christian model of Heaven leaves a lot of details to the imagination, so the various sects and even individuals have their own accretions--so certainly many of them have simply decided that their faithful dog will be there because he is more "Christian" than they are and to have it otherwise would make God unjust.

Dogs, are generaly good people. I have never met a dog who willingly does evil.


And that's nothing compared to Hell. In the last poll I saw, the majority of American Christians believe in Heaven but only about 25% believe in Hell at all.

I hate conformity. 25% of Christians are worried they are going to Hell.


That's nice to know, I guess. I suppose if they begin to believe in God they have to believe that that same God let this crappy thing happen to them, and it doesn't make for a nice introduction.The Christians who have studied the philosophy of their religion insist that God does not want to give them incontrovertible evidence of his existence. He wants them to believe out of faith, not reason.

Do you believe God has good reason for only giving us faith, not evidence?


This, in a nutshell, is why I say that religion--at least Christianity--is antiscience and has no place in our academy. Reason is fundamental to science. Anyone who believes that it's proper to believe something of really major importance simply out of unreasoned faith will never be completely trustworthy as a scientist.

My reason for faith, its what I believe. I don't push my faith onto anyone, but I will defend it until my death. Christianity doesn't even have a place in Heaven lulz.

it is more rich and fulfilling, it's just not easier. usually the greater the challenge, the greater the rewards, but i think you'll have to agree that's not exactly the majority of society's mentality or goal. seems like everyone wants an easy answer, a quick fix, a short term gain. we glorify things like greed, sloth, and lust, and telling lies is mainstream. it's a shame, but true.

that's...diplomatic. :)

i don't know, i guess everyone has a different way of evaluating things. i tend to see everything like it's a math problem or a logic problem myself. but honestly, this particular endeavor was fairly straight-forward and common sense imo.
Thank God for Lori_7. Can you read what she writes and not realise you are being conversed by an Angel? So much wisdom and genuine compassion; don't you sense it too?
:)

I think it requires two things.

First an experience beyond the everyday normal. This is rather more common than generally supposed but is normally kept quiet to avoid embarrassment. Examples include Mendeleyev falling asleep wondering about the elements and waking with the full periodic table in his mind, Crick getting the idea of the double helix for DNA whilst he was stoned on LSD and Einstein having a dream about a waterfall which led to Relativity Theory. I know of somebody who acquired an overwhelming feeling of happiness whilst praying and has subsequently been ordained as a result.

Secondly it requires, as a result of the former, to have, or to acquire, a belief in one of the many fairytales invented by various Homo Sapiens to explain these experiences. You will note that the monotheistic religions immediately hijack these experiences and claim them for their own.

In years gone by and indeed in some places still, a village would have its own specialist in halucinatory substances and if you needed help you went to him. If in another place you used their local man. He would endeavour to make contact with his 'aspect' of this superior intelligence and assist you if he could.

It's a system that served, among others, the Egyptians well for thousands of years. We have come along with our 'modern', 'superior', condescending ideas and murdered millions.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?Well, some people seem to have sudden conversion experiences, even from atheism and/or disinterest. But other than that it would probably take investment in a particular religion and its practices. But this would be silly if such a person had no interest. So I can't see where a theist could expect someone to pursue something they were not interested. Many do, but I can't see it.

The conclusion to your premise is, therefore, that the atheist must become irrational in order to abandon his reasoned position.So a curious atheist who in the spirit of exploratory empiricism tried the practices of, say, Kashmir Shaivism, to see what would happen, would be being irrational?


The most common reason for abandoning rationality is, in my observation, grief. Bereaved people are notorious for becoming unreasonable.That's not my experience. And I am not sure where an adjective like 'notorious' fits in here.


Here in the Western world, the most profound grief likely to touch the average citizen is the death of a child.


So look for an atheist whose six year-old child was just killed by a tornado, an auto accident, a drive-by shooting, an exotic pathogen, etc. Tell him that if he puts his faith in a god whom he has always regarded as imaginary, he will one day see that child again, alive and well and happy and waiting for him in heaven.

I have no children but over the course of my life I've had to endure the death of more than ten beloved dogs. I don't for a second equate that with the loss of a child, but nonetheless in my life it's been a lot of grief. Apparently the religionists don't really want me, because they consistently tell me that if against all odds I find my way to heaven, my dogs won't be there because they have no "souls."Perhaps there are religions you are not considering in this estimation of your rejection by religions as a whole.


Instead, my hateful parents will be waiting for me. Theists really need to work on their marketing skills.see above.

I think it requires two things.

First an experience beyond the everyday normal. This is rather more common than generally supposed but is normally kept quiet to avoid embarrassment. Examples include Mendeleyev falling asleep wondering about the elements and waking with the full periodic table in his mind, Crick getting the idea of the double helix for DNA whilst he was stoned on LSD and Einstein having a dream about a waterfall which led to Relativity Theory. I know of somebody who acquired an overwhelming feeling of happiness whilst praying and has subsequently been ordained as a result.

Secondly it requires, as a result of the former, to have, or to acquire, a belief in one of the many fairytales invented by various Homo Sapiens to explain these experiences. You will note that the monotheistic religions immediately hijack these experiences and claim them for their own.

In years gone by and indeed in some places still, a village would have its own specialist in halucinatory substances and if you needed help you went to him. If in another place you used their local man. He would endeavour to make contact with his 'aspect' of this superior intelligence and assist you if he could.

It's a system that served, among others, the Egyptians well for thousands of years. We have come along with our 'modern', 'superior', condescending ideas and murdered millions.Is this for real? They got their subconscious to work these things out. Did they have an explanation for it? For that is what I want to know. It has happened to me as well.

It is the depth of concern, that does it. You get so bamboozled by the problem you mutter under your breath "God! what the F*^k is the answer?" That night you will get the answer in a dream. But you have to have asked the question the right way first!
:)

Is this for real? They got their subconscious to work these things out.

The concept of the "subconscious" was made famous by Freud. Freud was anti-religion, to put it mildly.
And yet you use a term of his ... :o

Thank God for Lori_7. Can you read what she writes and not realise you are being conversed by an Angel? So much wisdom and genuine compassion; don't you sense it too?

Especially when she went on fuck-you-all tirades ... :rolleyes:

Especially when she went on fuck-you-all tirades ... :rolleyes:Well you were probably picking on her. She then showed her Destroying Angel side???
:)

The formation of memory in the human brain is assisted by aspects of the limbic system. The limbic system is also responsible for emotions and feelings. As such, our strongest memories which store the most data the longest tend to have a strong emotional feeling. A marriage might be a time of strong emotion thereby engraining the memory strongly.

The value of this is the brain is able to store memory in layers based on particular emotional/feelings attached to memory. If we feel hungry, images of food appear in the mind, not poetry, due to the emotional association layer. This allows us to use the entire brain while also being focused to the task at hand.

Say we have a situation of mixed emotions such as love and hate, typically the mind will switch back and forth between layers based on which feeling is active. But say you had the two feeling blend into both at the same time. One result will be blank mindedness, since there may be very little memory with that emotional combination, unless one continues to go there to consciously build this layer.

Getting back to God and faith, faith defines a very specific feeling tone. For those without faith, there may be no memory stored at this potential. To activate this layers it often requires that one have an experience (born again) to know the feeling and then by reproducing the feeling from this memory, the memory builds until it becomes just as real as food or anything else.

There is another consideration, because of the nature of this dual memory storage of feeling/thought, thoughts can induce feelings and feelings can induce thoughts, with feelings connected to specific brain(CSF)/blood chemicals. CSF is cerebral spinal fluid where the chemical are called neurotransmitters. For example, I can think about food and become hungry or I can become hungry first and then start to think about food.

One can think about God and induce a feeling if there is memory storage at that location. Certain brain chemical combinations, built upon other base combinations, can open hidden doors within the brain. These are hidden layers in terms of the conscious mind, but not the unconscious mind. Humility is often important since that dials a certain chemical combo which is added a faith layer. One is dialing a memory layer that is connected to brain firmware. The dynamic experience can be very powerful. Some people seem to do this intuitively without needing to know the layering basis.

Lots of reasons that you might turn to God, but they all stem from one place.. the brain.

Lots of reasons that you might turn to God, but they all stem from one place.. the brain.Without a brain we would be a vegetable. And not a very good one at that.:)

Well you were probably picking on her. She then showed her Destroying Angel side???

There's a reason why I earlier called you a successor of Lori ...

There's a reason why I earlier called you a successor of Lori ...That was a while back right. I had no idea what you were on about. Lori is far more compassionate than I am.:)

Without a brain we would be a vegetable. And not a very good one at that.:)

And with a brain you can still be fairly useless if you waste its storage space. :D

And with a brain you can still be fairly useless if you waste its storage space. :DWe aren't all going to be Einsteins. Singers always seem dumb to me, yet they do the movements and sing a good song, something I can't do. So I tend to go with the flow and not be too judgemental on these aspects. If the whole world was filled with people just like you and I it wouldn't function.
Everyone is suppose to play their part.:)

Is this for real? They got their subconscious to work these things out. Did they have an explanation for it? For that is what I want to know. It has happened to me as well.

It is the depth of concern, that does it. You get so bamboozled by the problem you mutter under your breath "God! what the F*^k is the answer?" That night you will get the answer in a dream. But you have to have asked the question the right way first!
:)

I certainly believe it's for real. Certain aspects are bound to be wrong, however, for how can a three dimensional being understand a 9 (Gnostic Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth) eleven (String Theory) or whatever dimensional universe? I feel the explanation to be that there is another, in most if not in all ways superior to ourselves, level of intelligence in the universe. It seems to 'come through' when the brain blocks out all the normal, everyday concerns of life.

This can be done in many different ways. Meditation, hypnosis, prayer, repetative action (as in the whirling Dervishes for instance), the consumption of halucinogenics or even getting so annoyed that you forget all else!

It goes some way to explaining, among other things;

Antelopes with bleeding noses on ancient cave drawings
Egyptians gods with ibis or crocodile heads etc
Pharoah's mummies being full of drugs and even, possibly, substances for which we haven't tested because we don't know they exist!!!
Moses burning bush
The caves at Qumran, Jesus was supposedly an expert in various substances
Mohammed entering a cave to commune with his God
Modern shamans claiming to find answers in another reality
The direction of development of modern science
And even the ludicous claim the a high percentage of Americans believe they have been abducted by UFO's.

In fact I would suggest that it explains almost all the facts and peculiarities of modern life. This being the strongest argument that it is correct.
Incidentally, you have very eloquently added a little more to my thoughts on the subject. Thank you.

But, then again, I may be wrong.

@ Itseemstome Thank you for thanking me. You must one of the first who has ever thanked me for anything. I try really hard, but on the whole it is a thankless task.:):cool:

As Fraggle said, you have to become irrational somehow.

Denial of bad situations can do it. I'm an atheist, but who knows if I'd still be one after seeing my entire community die in a fire.

As Fraggle said, you have to become irrational somehow.

Denial of bad situations can do it. I'm an atheist, but who knows if I'd still be one after seeing my entire community die in a fire.What made you say that?:)

Do aliens exist? Not until the day this question becomes irrelevant.
Does God exist? Not until the day this question becomes irrelevant.

Do aliens exist? Not until the day this question becomes irrelevant.
Does God exist? Not until the day this question becomes irrelevant.
It is a matter of personal proof then is it? For if I say "yes they do exist" you still won't believe me but I don't have the power to direct the aliens to go to your place. Just in case they are reading this thread, what is you address?:eek:

It is a matter of personal proof then is it? For if I say "yes they do exist" you still won't believe me but I don't have the power to direct the aliens to go to your place. Just in case they are reading this thread, what is you address?:eek:

On the contrary, it is a matter of non-arguable and generally accepted proof. Until that day, encounters of extraterrestrial or religious kind will be claimed to be personal privileges.

As we witness throughout our lives, persons have individual minds that can play tricks to their owners, lie, or simply believe. Therefore, we require proof when we are socially urged to believe the existence of something.

For example, nobody questions the life-saving, or at least `life-repairing`, function of the medical science. Although it does not offer 100% success rate, it is universally accepted as the best option. It is because we all, to a varying degree, witnessed its efficiency.

On the other hand, you cannot convince a cancer patient about the existence of the cure for cancer until that person is cured.

I recently started a post in comparative religion where I tell how I became religious when I was atheist. Its called "my journey from atheism to belief in god". I am not going to paste it here as it was a new thread only a week ago.

As I said before Robittybob added an interesting thought to my search. It occurred to me that this superior intelligence could not read minds! So I mused out loud on what it was like to die! Cheerful subject but one that does not worry me. A few days later I woke with a dream in which something said 'This is what it is like to die'. As clear as that. Could explain why all religions go for audible prayer. Incidentally, unlikely as it might seem, this is completely true. Delightful.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?

Sometimes people have to DIE to experience what they might call GOD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM&feature=related

Interesting video Carcano. I was particularly interested in the guys experience of time while He was experiencing death.

Found this other video similar thing Near death experience and the experience of time during it.

Howard Storm P/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UrqqKguiihg

Howard Storm P/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo4m35zfhFo&feature=related


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Howard Storm P/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UrqqKguiihg

Howard Storm P/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo4m35zfhFo&feature=related

Thats a good one...I never understand people who say they want to 'live in the moment'.

Isnt that what animals do?

The moment is just a blip...passing into oblivion.

The moment is just a blip...passing into oblivion.

Not at all.

People who say they want to "live in the moment" may have various intentions behind that.

Some of those who want to "live in the moment" want to forget a painful past or stop worrying about a painful future.

Some of those who want to "live in the moment" want to enjoy life more - and now and here.

Some of those who want to "live in the moment" do so because they realize that the only solution to misery is proper action, and that the here and now is the only place and time in which one can act.

I am in the rather odd and lonely position of being an "unwilling atheist".

I wish there were a God. It would be an awesome world where someone really were looking out for us, watching us, even judging us, giving us reason not to murder our brethren. It would be a huge burden lifted off our shoulders. It would mean we donlt have to really be grown-ups, we can remain children, who still have parents to provide wisdom and guidance, to pick us up, dust us off and set us one our way again, even to to discipline us. It would mean there is a right versus wrong in the universe, not just our own consciences to guide us to doing good.

Seriously, wouldn't that be awesome? It would make life very simple. It would be a warm, cozy blanket I could wrap myself in every night, knowing someone is looking out for me.

Alas, wishing something to be so does not make it so. It is human nature to seek order, fate, destiny, divine justice and even luck (we all do it, you know you do), even if it isn't really there.

People who say they want to "live in the moment" may have various intentions behind that.

Some of those who want to "live in the moment" want to forget a painful past or stop worrying about a painful future.

The most fundamental worry isnt a 'painful' future...its NO future.

A prospect that can appear close at hand...in a flash.

Some of those who want to "live in the moment" want to enjoy life more - and now and here.
An optimal state of enjoyment for most healthy people is an orgasm...during which it is almost impossible to avoid 'living in the moment'.

I am in the rather odd and lonely position of being an "unwilling atheist".

I don't think this is an "odd" or "lonely" position at all that are you are at; I know many people who are in the same position.



I wish there were a God. It would be an awesome world where someone really were looking out for us, watching us, even judging us, giving us reason not to murder our brethren. It would be a huge burden lifted off our shoulders.


It would mean there is a right versus wrong in the universe, not just our own consciences to guide us to doing good.

Sure.



It would mean we donlt have to really be grown-ups, we can remain children, who still have parents to provide wisdom and guidance, to pick us up, dust us off and set us one our way again, even to to discipline us.

Here', we disagree.
It is not clear how theism would automatically mean immaturity nor a permissive attitude toward immature behavior.


I do think that already the process of thinking about the numerous issues related to that which tends to be called "God" forces one to become more mature. Forces - if one is to make any progress and have any resemblance of peace of mind.



Seriously, wouldn't that be awesome? It would make life very simple. It would be a warm, cozy blanket I could wrap myself in every night, knowing someone is looking out for me.

Being under someone's protection doesn't automatically absolve one of the responsibility for the decisions one makes.



Alas, wishing something to be so does not make it so.

Indeed.



It is human nature to seek order, fate, destiny, divine justice and even luck (we all do it, you know you do), even if it isn't really there.

Skepticism shouldn't simply transform into certainty one way or another.

The most fundamental worry isnt a 'painful' future...its NO future.

A prospect that can appear close at hand...in a flash.

What do you mean by "no future"?
'Non-existence'?

Ending up homeless and on the street is a future, albeit not one that many would desire.

Some of those who want to "live in the moment" do so because they realize that the only solution to misery is proper action, and that the here and now is the only place and time in which one can act.
Life isnt something that is WON...eventually life itself is LOST.

A reality no 'proper action' can amend.

Life isnt something that is WON...eventually life itself is LOST.

A reality no 'proper action' can amend.

This is a view not held by everyone. Traditional Buddhists and Hindus, for example, characteristically do not hold such a view.

Ending up homeless and on the street is a future, albeit not one that many would desire.
Although far more desirable than NO future...non-existence.

This is a view not held by everyone. Traditional Buddhists and Hindus, for example, characteristically do not hold such a view.
Indeed they do...the principle of 'impermanence' is a cornerstone of Asian philosophy.

Indeed they do...the principle of 'impermanence' is a cornerstone of Asian philosophy.

In context, I was referring to their concepts of rebirth / reincarnation - ie. permanence, continuity.

I was referring to their concepts of rebirth/reincarnation - ie. permanence, continuity.
Rebirth and 'samsara' as they call it...is an aspect of impermanence.

There is something which continually is reborn, which continually reincarnates.
That something is permanent (at least in Hinduism), and it can be neither won nor lost.

It's only as permanent as matter.

That sounds like an understanding of energy - that it merely transforms, but can be neither created nor destroyed.

I don't think this is an "odd" or "lonely" position at all that are you are at; I know many people who are in the same position.


Really? I've never met any.




Here', we disagree.
It is not clear how theism would automatically mean immaturity nor a permissive attitude toward immature behavior.

I don't mean like not cleaning their room; I mean like what is right and what is wrong.

Theists have these ethical rules laid out for them, with a higher power (an uber-parent, if you will) to both judge the infractions and enforce the rules.

Do not steal because god says so. And he's way more wise than you.

Atheists have no such luxury. Atheists must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and must police their own moral behavior.

Do not steal because, well, it's a bit more thought involved. And you must question your decision because there's no one wiser than you to tell you.







Being under someone's protection doesn't automatically absolve one of the responsibility for the decisions one makes.

No, but not being under someone's protection does automatically mean one is always responsible for one's mistakes.




Skepticism shouldn't simply transform into certainty one way or another.
Agreed. I do not claim certainty; that's why there's an if in that sentence.

Theists have these ethical rules laid out for them, with a higher power (an uber-parent, if you will) to both judge the infractions and enforce the rules.

Do not steal because god says so. And he's way more wise than you.

There are approaches that suggest that matters of faith are a bit more complex than that.
See, for example, Fowler's Stages of faith development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_stages_of_faith_development).



Atheists have no such luxury. Atheists must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and must police their own moral behavior.

Do not steal because, well, it's a bit more thought involved. And you must question your decision because there's no one wiser than you to tell you.


Why wouldn't there be anyone wiser than oneself?



No, but not being under someone's protection does automatically mean one is always responsible for one's mistakes.

How would being under someone's protection in any way imply that one isnot responsible for one's mistakes?

That sounds like an understanding of energy - that it merely transforms, but can be neither created nor destroyed.

But it can be destroyed. Matter can be destroyed by anti-matter.

But it can be destroyed. Matter can be destroyed by anti-matter.But does that destroy the energy too. Just leaves nothing does it?

I don't mean like not cleaning their room; I mean like what is right and what is wrong.

Theists have these ethical rules laid out for them, with a higher power (an uber-parent, if you will) to both judge the infractions and enforce the rules.

Do not steal because god says so. And he's way more wise than you.

Atheists have no such luxury. Atheists must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and must police their own moral behavior.

Do not steal because, well, it's a bit more thought involved. And you must question your decision because there's no one wiser than you to tell you.





So you don't think morality is innate? I understand that certain moral issues require an understanding of the world that is not innate, but do you not agree that the drive behind moral actions are?

For example, the videos recently posted here posited that witch hunts represented an innate desire to protect our families. Once a person is educated, and learns that witches do not exist and are therefore not a threat, our instinct does not go away, only the perceived threat does.

I suppose that if god wanted to convince me that it exists there would have to be some serious explaining involved. Perhaps it could call a press conference which would reach many(if not all) of the people on the planet. That, combined with some display of "godlike power" and maybe a display of knowledge beyond what we have immediately available would constitute decent evidence in my opinion, and would be well within god's power to do so. Which leads me to conclude that if there is a god then it really doesn't care about the billion or so atheists in the world.

There is something which continually is reborn, which continually reincarnates.

That something is permanent (at least in Hinduism), and it can be neither won nor lost.
Yes, but that 'something' identifies itself with all that is impermanent...namely the body and its relationship with the rest of the material world during its physical lifetime.

In Asian traditions this is 'the problem' to be transcended.

Its really a problem of identification....that must become perceptual, not merely conceptual.

What would have to happen to make him/her believe in God?
The only reason people don't believe in God is that they have no reason to believe in God.
So how do theists expect them to find faith?

There are different reasons why people would become unbelievers. If you value truth very highly then the obvious reason is because there is a lack of evidence / presenc of contradictory evidence to theistic claims of 'God'. For these types of people, the only way for them to believe is with evidence and as we both know that doesn't happen.

There are; however, people who don't put very much value into truth and are unbelievers because of painful life events (e.x. feelings of abandonment by 'God') non-exposure to the psychological satiation benefits of theism. Converting these people is all a matter of fulfilling their needs coming from their highest values (which is often as simple as "how they feel").

There are approaches that suggest that matters of faith are a bit more complex than that.

It was not my intention to suggest matters of faith are simplistic, not at all. It was I who did the simplifying for the sake of this discussion. I simplified the atheistic point of view as well, though it's tougher to do, since in principle, every atheist's rationale could be unique.



Why wouldn't there be anyone wiser than oneself?
To an atheist, the wisest entity in the universe is still only human.




How would being under someone's protection in any way imply that one isnot responsible for one's mistakes?
Protection is fine, but it's the deleterious effects I'm concerned about. A higher power judges and enforces too. When one knows that someone is watching, one who can judge, it tends to change ones actions.

That's one of the primary reasons why children move out of their parent's house.



So you don't think morality is innate? I understand that certain moral issues require an understanding of the world that is not innate, but do you not agree that the drive behind moral actions are?

Regardless of whether morality is innate, if someone you trust implicitly tells you what is right and what is wrong, that is certainly less effort than sussing it out for yourself, perhaps over years of painful mistakes.

If it were innate, theists would not spend a half hour teaching it each Sunday.

Yes, but that 'something' identifies itself with all that is impermanent...namely the body and its relationship with the rest of the material world during its physical lifetime.

In Asian traditions this is 'the problem' to be transcended.

Its really a problem of identification....that must become perceptual, not merely conceptual.

Sure.

It was not my intention to suggest matters of faith are simplistic, not at all. It was I who did the simplifying for the sake of this discussion. I simplified the atheistic point of view as well, though it's tougher to do, since in principle, every atheist's rationale could be unique.

Same for theists.



To an atheist, the wisest entity in the universe is still only human.

The question was whether one has only oneself to look up to, or other humans as well.

You said earlier -


Do not steal because, well, it's a bit more thought involved. And you must question your decision because there's no one wiser than you to tell you.

Surely a person can draw on the great collective wisdom of humans.



Protection is fine, but it's the deleterious effects I'm concerned about. A higher power judges and enforces too. When one knows that someone is watching, one who can judge, it tends to change ones actions.

That will depend on the stage of moral reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development) that a person is at.

Further, for example, traditional Buddhists do not believe in God, but they believe in karma, and on principle, it is the consideration of karma that guides their actions. Although they do not believe that "someone is watching," they in effect act as if that would be the case.
So the traditional Buddhists are an example of being careful about what one does even in the absence of a Personal Higher Power.



That's one of the primary reasons why children move out of their parent's house.

This is not the case in all cultures, nor at all time periods. Traditionally, it was common in many countries for three (or four) generations to live together, and on principle, people would leave their home of origin only due to marriage or business.

Analogies that are strongly context-bound (such as the one that the reason why children move out of their parents' house is so that they can escape the influence of their parents) have only limited use.

Some theists indeed perceive their relationship with God in a manner similar as a small child perceives their relationship with their mother and father; but not all theists are like that.
Theists grow up too in their relationship with God and become responsible adults - and still remain theists.



Regardless of whether morality is innate, if someone you trust implicitly tells you what is right and what is wrong, that is certainly less effort than sussing it out for yourself, perhaps over years of painful mistakes.

People generally do not live in vacuums. As long as they use some form of human language, they are thereby bound to other humans and their wisdom or lack thereof. So we can't say that anyone really figures out their own sense of morality on their own.



If it were innate, theists would not spend a half hour teaching it each Sunday.

The notion that morality is innate and the notion that morality comes from God are not mutually exclusive.
A common theistic notion is that God imparted morality on humans in an innate fashion, but that since people have free will, the actual acting on that innate morality is a bit more complex and people are intended to cultivate an awareness of that (which can be done via religious practice).

There are different reasons why people would become unbelievers. If you value truth very highly then the obvious reason is because there is a lack of evidence / presenc of contradictory evidence to theistic claims of 'God'. For these types of people, the only way for them to believe is with evidence and as we both know that doesn't happen.

There are; however, people who don't put very much value into truth and are unbelievers because of painful life events (e.x. feelings of abandonment by 'God') non-exposure to the psychological satiation benefits of theism. Converting these people is all a matter of fulfilling their needs coming from their highest values (which is often as simple as "how they feel").

So you believe that the vast majority of the human population in the past and in the present
are deluded and/or do not value truth?


(Ironically enough, most theists would agree with the statement that the vast majority of the human population in the past and in the present are deluded and/or do not value truth. Although they probably mean something else by "valuing truth" than you do.)

Same for theists.
Ultimately, it comes from the same place: What the theist believes God's wish is for us. This differs from an atheist's beliefs, who have no centralized body of direction. They may have convergent philosophies, but that's not the same as a centralized philosophy.




The question was whether one has only oneself to look up to, or other humans as well.

You said earlier -

Surely a person can draw on the great collective wisdom of humans.
Yes but humans are equals. One does not have to accept the judgment of another human, and does not have to accept that another is more wise. (Remember, we're talking ethics here, not crime.)





Further, for example, traditional Buddhists do not believe in God, but they believe in karma, and on principle, it is the consideration of karma that guides their actions. Although they do not believe that "someone is watching," they in effect act as if that would be the case.
So the traditional Buddhists are an example of being careful about what one does even in the absence of a Personal Higher Power.
This is splitting hairs. Whether it's a conscious entity or some unconscious force manipulating their fate, it makes no difference. A higher power is a higher power. Same with luck.


Some theists indeed perceive their relationship with God in a manner similar as a small child perceives their relationship with their mother and father; but not all theists are like that.
Theists grow up too in their relationship with God and become responsible adults - and still remain theists.
I never suggested otherwise.

What I am suggesting is that, as long as there is someone inarguably there to judge, and with the power to enforce it (ultimately), a believer is not forced fully realize their own responsibility. They can always defer to the higher power to tell them right from wrong. It doesn't mean they must, or that they always do, but they can defer.



People generally do not live in vacuums. As long as they use some form of human language, they are thereby bound to other humans and their wisdom or lack thereof. So we can't say that anyone really figures out their own sense of morality on their own.
Absolutely. Which is much more work than just being told.




The notion that morality is innate and the notion that morality comes from God are not mutually exclusive.
A common theistic notion is that God imparted morality on humans in an innate fashion, but that since people have free will, the actual acting on that innate morality is a bit more complex and people are intended to cultivate an awareness of that (which can be done via religious practice).
Absolutely agree. That's why God gave Man free will.

A parent can leave a child to her chores, but the child knows the parent will ultimately judge. The child has free will, but is given the expectations.

A child without parents (or parent substitutes) who chooses to clean her room is a child wise beyond her years.

Ultimately, it comes from the same place: What the theist believes God's wish is for us. This differs from an atheist's beliefs, who have no centralized body of direction. They may have convergent philosophies, but that's not the same as a centralized philosophy.

Theists tend to differ quite a bit on what exactly it is that God wishes for people, especially when it comes to specific situations.



Yes but humans are equals.

In what sense?



One does not have to accept the judgment of another human, and does not have to accept that another is more wise. (Remember, we're talking ethics here, not crime.)

And you think that in the case of theism, 1. people are obligated to accept what God says, 2. people are obligated to accept what other people claim God has said ?



This is splitting hairs. Whether it's a conscious entity or some unconscious force manipulating their fate, it makes no difference. A higher power is a higher power. Same with luck.

Not at all. Karma does not speak, it has no mouth. God is usually said that He can and does speak.



What I am suggesting is that, as long as there is someone inarguably there to judge, and with the power to enforce it (ultimately), a believer is not forced fully realize their own responsibility. They can always defer to the higher power to tell them right from wrong. It doesn't mean they must, or that they always do, but they can defer.

I disagree.

What you say may hold for the Abrahamic theists with the notion of eternal damnation, but it doesn't hold for some Hindu forms of theism.

Once eternal damnation is out of the picture (and with it the notion that mistakes can be fatal), there is room for full responsibility.


Secondly, you say "They can always defer to the higher power to tell them right from wrong." Apart from some fanatical Abrahamists who readily claim God is speaking to them, it's not clear how even members of the Abrahamic theisms would believe something like what you just said.
Most Abrahamists seem to struggle quite a bit with figuring out what exactly it could be that God wants them to do in any given moment, so they are far from simply sheepishly "defering to the higher power to tell them right from wrong."



Absolutely. Which is much more work than just being told.

It is anything but easy to simply follow what someone else tells one.

Psychologists have been making millions off of people who tried to "do as told" and failed.



A child without parents (or parent substitutes) who chooses to clean her room is a child wise beyond her years.

And you believe that it is impossible for theists to be that kind of children?

So you believe that the vast majority of the human population in the past and in the present
are deluded and/or do not value truth?

100% of the human population is deluded in some way. That's an aspect of being human. Most of the human population doesn't place truth as a top value. What that means is that truth will take a back seat to other values when push comes to shove.



(Ironically enough, most theists would agree with the statement that the vast majority of the human population in the past and in the present are deluded and/or do not value truth. Although they probably mean something else by "valuing truth" than you do.)

I am sure they do mean something else. Quite often the definition to truth for theists relies on holy books rather than actual reality.

Theists tend to differ quite a bit on what exactly it is that God wishes for people, especially when it comes to specific situations.
In practice, certainly. In principle, they should all be pretty much aligned though. For example, the ten commandments are an attempt to get everyone on the same page about at least one thing.

The fact that there are many facets of a given religion is a human short-coming, not a systemic design.



In what sense?
In the sense that one human does not, by virtue of having created the world, the animals and man himself, have the right to judge me and determine what happens to my everlasting soul (or whatever outcome a given religion might enforce). The only time one man can be judged by another is when they choose to be part of a society where there are mutually agreed upon rules.



And you think that in the case of theism, 1. people are obligated to accept what God says,

Essentially, yes. Though, as with all my answers, it is not black and white, nor so simplistic. But you're sort of demanding, by asking very black and white questions, that I give back and white answers.

In principle, people are supposed to accept what God says. If not, it's drifting from the ideal situation.




Not at all. Karma does not speak, it has no mouth.

I never said any such thing.

Karma is a higher power, regardless of any hair-splitting or rationalization.




Most Abrahamists seem to struggle quite a bit with figuring out what exactly it could be that God wants them to do in any given moment, so they are far from simply sheepishly "defering to the higher power to tell them right from wrong."
Those two or not exclusive, don't you see? The fact that they're ""struggling quite a bit with figuring out what exactly it could be that God wants them to do" is a pretty clear indication that they are looking to a higher power to tell them right from wrong.



It is anything but easy to simply follow what someone else tells one.
Never said it wasn't. Simply said that it'll be harder if you have to also come up with the rule yourself.






And you believe that it is impossible for theists to be that kind of children?No I do not believe that.

You are ascribing too much to the black and whiteness of my case.

Things are hard for a theist. There's a lot of work to do to be a good person, no question whatsoever about that. I'm simply saying that, for however much work a theist has to do to reach point X, an atheist has to do the same amount plus be the one who come up with her own rules in the first place, to get to the same point.

So, being given that headstart is a luxury an atheist does not have.

Kind of like being raised by parents is a luxury a wolf-child does not have. So for the wolf-child to become as civilized as a child-of-a-family would be a huge achievement. (That is why Tarzan was super-heroic in character and why it is a classic story. (Being uneducated is not the same as being primitive. He was brilliant, as witnessed by how quickly he picked up on to modern society.) And he managed to develop his own set of ethics in the jungle, far from anyone to tell him. This was the principle Burroughs was demonstrating.)

Regardless of whether morality is innate, if someone you trust implicitly tells you what is right and what is wrong, that is certainly less effort than sussing it out for yourself, perhaps over years of painful mistakes.

True, but getting those moral guidelines from someone you trust does not necessarily make it any easier. Many theists struggle with the morality preached to them, because it doesn't jibe with what they feel inside.


If it were innate, theists would not spend a half hour teaching it each Sunday.

This I disagree with. One does not need to be taught that torture, for example, is wrong. We may not instinctively know that animals can suffer, but once we learn that they do, we feel the same empathy for them that we do for other humans.

A more sophisticated understanding of the world does help us correctly solve complicated moral problems, but that does not mean morality itself is not innate.

100% of the human population is deluded in some way.

Including you?



I am sure they do mean something else. Quite often the definition to truth for theists relies on holy books rather than actual reality.

And you know what "actual reality" is?

You are sure that "actual reality" is something about which you are not deluded?

Including you?

Absoutely.



And you know what "actual reality" is?

To an extent. Like all humans, I have visibility and knowledge limits even with technological aids and education.



You are sure that "actual reality" is something about which you are not deluded?

I am sure I hold several false beliefs about reality. The process of science has corrected me more than once so far and it's likely going to happen again.

I am sure I hold several false beliefs about reality. The process of science has corrected me more than once so far and it's likely going to happen again.

How can you possibly know that?

The nature of delusion is that the deluded person does not know that he is deluded.

@wynn --

The bottom line is this, if your beliefs and/or what your holy text says differs from observed reality then it is your beliefs and/or your holy text that is wrong. Reality is never wrong.

The bottom line is this, if your beliefs and/or what your holy text says differs from observed reality then it is your beliefs and/or your holy text that is wrong. Reality is never wrong.

And you are speaking on behalf of reality?

@wynn --

I'm speaking from the combined observation of all of human history. Whenever belief and reality have clashed, reality always wins out. Always.

In practice, certainly. In principle, they should all be pretty much aligned though. For example, the ten commandments are an attempt to get everyone on the same page about at least one thing.

The fact that there are many facets of a given religion is a human short-coming, not a systemic design.

Why would variety of religious expression be a shortcoming?



In the sense that one human does not, by virtue of having created the world, the animals and man himself, have the right to judge me and determine what happens to my everlasting soul (or whatever outcome a given religion might enforce).

What do you mean?
How can a human judge you and determine what happens to you in the near and distant future?

Humans can certainly utter judgmental and judicious assessments, but it is not clear how they would have the power to actually affect something about a person, in the greater scheme of things.

If a Jehovah's Witness claims that you will burn in hell for all eternity because you did not convert - what reason is there to believe that this is indeed what will happen to you?



The only time one man can be judged by another is when they choose to be part of a society where there are mutually agreed upon rules.


That seems to be the case only in artificially designed communes that people enter freely as adults.



Essentially, yes. Though, as with all my answers, it is not black and white, nor so simplistic. But you're sort of demanding, by asking very black and white questions, that I give back and white answers.

For the purposes of furthering a discussion more quickly, a strategy of addressing the strongest version of the other person's argument is sometimes used. This may seem black and white, indeed. But it is intended to elicit a straighforward agreement, a straightforward disagreement, or a reformulation of the question and then answering that reformulated question.

IOW, one shouldn't simply feel pushed to answer with Yes, No, a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition, or a number.
If one doesn't think that the question posed can be answered with Yes, No, a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition, or a number, then one can use the opportunity to point out why one thinks this is the case, reformulate the question or comment, and reply to that.



In principle, people are supposed to accept what God says. If not, it's drifting from the ideal situation.

The question is, though, What is it that God says? How do we know what God says? How can we be sure that what we suppose God said, was indeed said by God?



Karma is a higher power, regardless of any hair-splitting or rationalization.

Believing in karma is quite different than believing in God.
One may, on principle, ask God to be guided or for answers. But one cannot ask karma to guide one or to give one answers. One can pray to God, but not to karma.

Both God and karma are indeed "higher powers," but there is a significant difference between them that is far more than just "hairsplitting."



Those two or not exclusive, don't you see? The fact that they're ""struggling quite a bit with figuring out what exactly it could be that God wants them to do"

is a pretty clear indication that they are looking to a higher power to tell them right from wrong.

Which doesn't mean that they also readily get answers.

Your whole reasoning so far seems to rest on the premise that theists easily and readily not only turn to God for answers, but that they also easily and readily receive those answers and are sure those answers are from God.

If all the Christian self-help and self-cultivation literature (and there is a lot of it) and all the Christian canonized texts are anything to go by, it is anything but easy to figure out what exactly it is that God wants one to do, in a particular situation.



Simply said that it'll be harder if you have to also come up with the rule yourself.

Given that free will is inescapable, it is not clear how what you say is the case.

Being born into a theistic family doesn't remove one's free will, nor does it do away with all the cunundrums related to having free will.



Things are hard for a theist. There's a lot of work to do to be a good person, no question whatsoever about that. I'm simply saying that, for however much work a theist has to do to reach point X, an atheist has to do the same amount plus be the one who come up with her own rules in the first place, to get to the same point.

So, being given that headstart is a luxury an atheist does not have.

Kind of like being raised by parents is a luxury a wolf-child does not have. So for the wolf-child to become as civilized as a child-of-a-family would be a huge achievement. (That is why Tarzan was super-heroic in character and why it is a classic story. (Being uneducated is not the same as being primitive. He was brilliant, as witnessed by how quickly he picked up on to modern society.) And he managed to develop his own set of ethics in the jungle, far from anyone to tell him. This was the principle Burroughs was demonstrating.)

How highly do you value religiously inspired morality? Do you consider it a standard that is to be aspired to?

I'm speaking from the combined observation of all of human history. Whenever belief and reality have clashed, reality always wins out. Always.

For example?

Humans can certainly utter judgmental and judicious assessments, but it is not clear how they would have the power to actually affect something about a person, in the greater scheme of things.



Humans can't judge, humans aren't all-knowing, humans can only express opinions.

When it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat, reality disagreed. The Earth was never actually flat. Or we could go with the notion that people can come back from the dead. Every person who's ever died has stayed dead.

These are notions that disagree with reality and regardless of the number of people who believe these notions reality has never adhered to them. You see, this is the way things work, our beliefs must conform to fit reality because reality always refuses to conform to our beliefs.

How can you possibly know that?

Because:

* I make mistakes and have had reality and / or existing scientific knowledge correct my incorrect beliefs in the past.
* I am not omniscient.
* I am very aware of a key rule in quantum mechanics. What is not forbidden by reality will happen. In other words, reality does not forbid be from believing incorrect things; therefore, it will happen.



The nature of delusion is that the deluded person does not know that he is deluded.

The nature of delusion is also that a deluded person can be confronted with corrective information and update their belief. Some deluded people may refuse to do so. Both scenarios are covered by the definitions of the word
"delusion".

When it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat, reality disagreed. The Earth was never actually flat. Or we could go with the notion that people can come back from the dead. Every person who's ever died has stayed dead.

These are notions that disagree with reality and regardless of the number of people who believe these notions reality has never adhered to them. You see, this is the way things work, our beliefs must conform to fit reality because reality always refuses to conform to our beliefs.

Brace yourself, then, for a time when you'll say -

When it was common knowledge that the Earth was round, reality disagreed. The Earth was never actually round. Or we could go with the notion that people can come back from the dead. Every person who's ever died has not stayed dead.

You see, this is the way things work, our beliefs must conform to fit reality because reality always refuses to conform to our beliefs.

IOW, the problem is that you are making final judgments about reality, when the discovery of reality is an ongoing process.

Every person who has died has stayed dead.

The notion that the earth is flat is apparently for ignorant people as always has been it's a baseless assertion that people made without any evidence because actually it was not known that the earth was flat like it is actually known the earth is round from countless observations.

Because:

* I make mistakes and have had reality and / or existing scientific knowledge correct my incorrect beliefs in the past.

How do you know that your beliefs that you currently hold to be correct, are not going to be shown to be incorrect some time later?

If this has already happened before, why couldn't it happen again, and over and over again?




The nature of delusion is also that a deluded person can be confronted with corrective information and update their belief. Some deluded people may refuse to do so. Both scenarios are covered by the definitions of the word
"delusion".

Simply because an information is new, doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

In fact, the argument from novelty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty) is a logical fallacy.

The notion that the earth is flat is apparently for ignorant people as always has been it's a baseless assertion that people made without any evidence because actually it was not known that the earth was flat like it is actually known the earth is round from countless observations.

Early medieval and still earlier conceptions (along with those from some other cultures) of that which we currently generally call "planet Earth" seem incommensurable.

When they thought that the "Earth was flat," by "Earth" and "flatness" they didn't seem to mean the same things we do today.

So to think that they were wrong or that their beliefs were in discord with reality, and that we are right and in accord with reality, is misleading.


It would be instructive to start a thread in which to discuss early notions of Earth and notions of Earth from other cultures, to see what exactly they mean by "Earth" and "flat" and how their notions compare to modern Western ones.

@wynn --


Brace yourself, then, for a time when you'll say -

When it was common knowledge that the Earth was round, reality disagreed. The Earth was never actually round. Or we could go with the notion that people can come back from the dead. Every person who's ever died has not stayed dead.

I would, but you'll never get a chance to say that, so I'm really not worried about it.


IOW, the problem is that you are making final judgments about reality, when the discovery of reality is an ongoing process.

When did I say anything about my judgments being final? Oh that's right, I never said anything of the sort. The very fact that I was once religious and now am not shows quite clearly that I am not only capable of changing my judgments about reality, but am willing to when the evidence demands it.

Just because all of your judgments are final doesn't mean that mine are.


When they thought that the "Earth was flat," by "Earth" and "flatness" they didn't seem to mean the same things we do today.

Ah, the "argument from semantics" that you so seem to love. Sorry but I have more pleasurable things I can do than arguing definitions with you, things like gouging my eyes out with rusty spoons.


So to think that they were wrong or that their beliefs were in discord with reality, and that we are right and in accord with reality, is misleading.

And yet it's still factually accurate because what they believed wasn't in accordance with reality.

If you want another example we can always throw in the earth centric view of the universe. That was wholly in discord with reality.

Ah, the "argument from semantics" that you so seem to love. Sorry but I have more pleasurable things I can do than arguing definitions with you, things like gouging my eyes out with rusty spoons.

A way you frequently use for dealing with an issue is to take for granted the very thing that is under discussion.

I guess that readily gives you the illusion of being victorious.



And yet it's still factually accurate because what they believed wasn't in accordance with reality.

Let me remind you of your own words:


Just because all of your judgments are final doesn't mean that mine are.

@wynn --

I'll change my tune the moment the evidence indicates(with equal or better strength) that I'm wrong. I always have, it's how my parents raised me.

How do you know that your beliefs that you currently hold to be correct, are not going to be shown to be incorrect some time later?

Some of my beliefs have been validated by reality and are completely correct. Some of my beliefs have not been validated by reality and might not be correct. Some of my beliefs have partially been validated by reality and might not be correct.



If this has already happened before, why couldn't it happen again, and over and over again?

It can and likely will.




Simply because an information is new, doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

In fact, the argument from novelty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty) is a logical fallacy.

I am not sure what you are arguing against here. I never made an assertion that new information is correct.

Why would variety of religious expression be a shortcoming?
Variety within a specific religion means there is disagreement. That means one or many or all parties are misinterpreting.





What do you mean?
How can a human judge you and determine what happens to you in the near and distant future?

Humans can certainly utter judgmental and judicious assessments, but it is not clear how they would have the power to actually affect something about a person, in the greater scheme of things.
This is my point. We were talking about whether other humans can be as effective at judging and enforcing as a God can. They can't.





That seems to be the case only in artificially designed communes that people enter freely as adults.
Well, it's the case in any society that has laws. If you choose to be part of a given society (by living within it), you accept their rules. But no one has to live within a given society they can choose to leave it. Thus, they can choose to not be judged by it.

No so with God. (Granting the premise that he exists and created Mankind) no human can choose not to be judged by Him.




Believing in karma is quite different than believing in God.
One may, on principle, ask God to be guided or for answers. But one cannot ask karma to guide one or to give one answers. One can pray to God, but not to karma.

Both God and karma are indeed "higher powers," but there is a significant difference between them that is far more than just "hairsplitting."

For the purpose of distinguishing theism from atheism, they are the same. A theist certainly may see a distinction in the particular flavour of Higher Power, but that is indeed hair-splitting when compared to atheism.

Actually, I have to change my argument. Theism literally means believing in some form of god. And, as you correctly point out, karma doesn't subscribe to a god. So, I'm dividing this along the wrong line.

I should be talking about 'people who believe a higher power has a hand in their life' versus 'people who do not believe higher power has a hand in their life'.



Your whole reasoning so far seems to rest on the premise that theists easily and readily not only turn to God for answers, but that they also easily and readily receive those answers and are sure those answers are from God.


Nope. Never suggested it was easy. Simply saying that, however hard it is, it's easier to hear it from someone else than to to invent it for yourself.



Being born into a theistic family doesn't remove one's free will, nor does it do away with all the cunundrums related to having free will.
Don't recall suggesting otherwise.



How highly do you value religiously inspired morality? Do you consider it a standard that is to be aspired to?
Like atheism, there are good religious people and there are selfish religious people and there are evil religious people.

I think that anything that teaches morality is good. I think that religion is good at heart (but has gotten a bad rap from some evil people over history).

(This is another way I see myself as different from other atheists. Most atheists I encounter are active, aggressive haters of anything spiritual.)

I am not sure what you are arguing against here. I never made an assertion that new information is correct.

The argument from novelty is all you have got going here.

If you agree that you are 1. subject to delusion, and that 2. you suppose that a continual reassessment and correction of your beliefs can and does take place,
the the only thing that stops you from falling into the abyss of paranoid skepticism and debilitating insecurity,
is precisely your conviction that that which is newer, is also truer and better.

the thing is people that if you back to the Sumer Ancient time this is where ALL this religion and the reality of the gods started , like it or not and none of you are talking about it

neither the religious are , of what ever denomination nor the so called " realists "

from his book " The Stairway to Heaven " by Zecharia Sitchin

quote from pg # 117;

" Let it be clarified here that neither the Akkadians nor the Sumerians had called these visitors to Earth gods. It is through later paganism that the notion od divine beings or gods has filtered into our language and thinking. When we employ the term here , it is only because of its general acceptance and usage that we do so. "


further

at the tower of babal , enlil , he didn't like the fact that Humanity was reaching for heaven , so he made it so that all that was making the tower couldn't understand each other

hence different civilizations appeared

is this the kind of god anybody would worship ?

The argument from novelty is all you have got going here.

You mean the argument I didn't make? If you want to debate something then let me know. It is certainly better than making non-existent things up.



If you agree that you are 1. subject to delusion, and that 2. you suppose that a continual reassessment and correction of your beliefs can and does take place,
the the only thing that stops you from falling into the abyss of paranoid skepticism and debilitating insecurity,
is precisely your conviction that that which is newer, is also truer and better.


If information is encountered that corresponds to actual reality then it is correct information. If information is encountered that does not correspond to actual reality then it is false information. I think you are under some bizarre assumption that when my beliefs are corrected, I am correcting it with information based solely on the criteria that it is newer. It's as if in your mind, belief correction with correct information isn't a possibility.

If information is encountered that corresponds to actual reality then it is correct information.

Are there things that you once believed to be true, but now don't believe to be true anymore?



IOW, if you believe that all your beliefs are under continual scrutiny and can be changed, how can you at any one point be sure that you have beliefs that are correct, in correspondence with actual reality?

If anything that you now believe to be in correspondence with actual reality, is subject to change, how can you have any certainty?

I used to believe that my father was invincible. Sadly I've come to realize that that belief was false.

Variety within a specific religion means there is disagreement. That means one or many or all parties are misinterpreting.

Why do you think this follows?

For example, there are many languages - English, German, Russian, etc. Does that mean that one, more, or all languages are wrong?



No so with God. (Granting the premise that he exists and created Mankind) no human can choose not to be judged by Him.

What do you believe are the implications of this?



Nope. Never suggested it was easy. Simply saying that, however hard it is, it's easier to hear it from someone else than to to invent it for yourself.

But even atheists hear it from others, even atheists don't invent it for themselves. Atheists don't grow up in vacuums.

Why do you think this follows?

For example, there are many languages - English, German, Russian, etc. Does that mean that one, more, or all languages are wrong?

Logical fallacy. One language does not claim authority over another, whereas religions tend to make claims of being "the one true faith," or promises of eternal life/salvation to its followers. Schisms within a faith require two or more parties to reach different conclusions based on the same texts, meaning that both parties are claiming authority over the other.

Stop comparing apples to oranges.

What do you believe are the implications of this?
Are you just trying to keep me talking?



But even atheists hear it from others, even atheists don't invent it for themselves. Atheists don't grow up in vacuums.
No they don't, but they don't have an authority (a figure demonstrably and incalculably superior to themselves, who .. well ... who created them, to follow the advice of. All they have is other humans - equals.)

@wynn --


Why do you think this follows?

For example, there are many languages - English, German, Russian, etc. Does that mean that one, more, or all languages are wrong?

You're comparing apples and cars here. A language is a system designed to pass information(of one form or another) from one person to another while religion is a codified set of beliefs about the way the world works. There aren't enough points of commonality for a valid comparison to be made.


But even atheists hear it from others, even atheists don't invent it for themselves. Atheists don't grow up in vacuums.

False, atheists do "grow up" in a vacuum of ideas, unless you're saying that we're socialized in the womb. We're all, by definition, atheists when we're born.

Are you just trying to keep me talking?

I am exploring varieties of the argument

"Given that they disagree or say different things, not all religions can be right, and one, more or all are wrong."

It's not clear why that should follow, and I'm interested to see what those who believe it does follow have to say.



No they don't, but they don't have an authority (a figure demonstrably and incalculably superior to themselves, who .. well ... who created them, to follow the advice of. All they have is other humans - equals.)

That would be so if theists would readily and easily get to talk to God.
As it is, they just have texts which they hold to be from God, but they generally don't actually have personal, private revelations from God.
For the most part, theists rely on other humans just like atheists rely on other humans. Some theists (and there is probably a lot of them) rely exclusively on other humans.

So your line of reasoning barely ever applies.

You're comparing apples and cars here. A language is a system designed to pass information(of one form or another) from one person to another while religion is a codified set of beliefs about the way the world works. There aren't enough points of commonality for a valid comparison to be made.


Logical fallacy. One language does not claim authority over another, whereas religions tend to make claims of being "the one true faith," or promises of eternal life/salvation to its followers. Schisms within a faith require two or more parties to reach different conclusions based on the same texts, meaning that both parties are claiming authority over the other.

Stop comparing apples to oranges.

I presented the comparison to see what Dave would have to say in reply.

In some ways, the variety of languages is not comparable to the variety of religions. But in some other ways, the two are comparable.

That would be so if theists would readily and easily get to talk to God.
As it is, they just have texts which they hold to be from God, but they generally don't actually have personal, private revelations from God.
For the most part, theists rely on other humans just like atheists rely on other humans. Some theists (and there is probably a lot of them) rely exclusively on other humans.

So your line of reasoning barely ever applies.

The salient point is that there is no discussion in religion. Whether the moral code comes from a literal interpretation of the bible, or as the result of discussion and debate at the highest levels of the church, it is always disseminated to the masses as law.

Meanwhile, a person without superstitious beliefs must make moral determinations for himself. There are schools of thought and ideologies, but ultimately nothing is presented as concrete and none of it (this is important) is tied to any promises of eternal life or threats of eternal damnation. Even if a religious person at their core does not agree with a tenet of the faith, they can throw their hands up and say "Well, God said so, and He works in mysterious ways."

Non-theists do not have this crutch.

The salient point is that there is no discussion in religion. Whether the moral code comes from a literal interpretation of the bible, or as the result of discussion and debate at the highest levels of the church, it is always disseminated to the masses as law.

Meanwhile, a person without superstitious beliefs must make moral determinations for himself. There are schools of thought and ideologies, but ultimately nothing is presented as concrete and none of it (this is important) is tied to any promises of eternal life or threats of eternal damnation. Even if a religious person at their core does not agree with a tenet of the faith, they can throw their hands up and say "Well, God said so, and He works in mysterious ways."

Non-theists do not have this crutch.

Apparently think you just haven't spent much time with a variety of people whom you consider religious, but rather with just one kind. Which is how you operate with an incomplete idea of religiousness.

Against this, nothing else can help but to broaden your horizons by pursuing association with a greater variety of religious people.

Apparently think you just haven't spent much time with a variety of people whom you consider religious, but rather with just one kind. Which is how you operate with an incomplete idea of religiousness.

Against this, nothing else can help but to broaden your horizons by pursuing association with a greater variety of religious people.

I was only commenting within the scope of your own comment. Did you forget what you wrote already?


That would be so if theists would readily and easily get to talk to God.
As it is, they just have texts which they hold to be from God, but they generally don't actually have personal, private revelations from God.
For the most part, theists rely on other humans just like atheists rely on other humans. Some theists (and there is probably a lot of them) rely exclusively on other humans.

So your line of reasoning barely ever applies.

You had no issue generalizing, so why is it wrong when I do it? :shrug:

@JDawg --

Because when you do it it interferes with Wynn's arguments, and such disagreement isn't allowed in Wynn's world.

The salient point is that there is no discussion in religion.

That's going to come as a shock to theologians, philosophers and religious studies scholars (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=religious+ethics&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_occt=&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=not+filtered+by+license), let alone countless religious laypeople, who believe that they've been discussing religious ethics for years.


Whether the moral code comes from a literal interpretation of the bible, or as the result of discussion and debate at the highest levels of the church, it is always disseminated to the masses as law.

Religions aren't all concerned with the Bible, nor do they all have a 'church' that defines doctrine for them. (There's Buddhist ethics, for example.) (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=buddhist+ethics&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_occt=&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=not+filtered+by+license) Perhaps you should be directing your remarks at a certain simplistic kind of theistic moralism, and not at "religion" in general. If you did that, many religious people might agree with you.


Meanwhile, a person without superstitious beliefs must make moral determinations for himself.

It often isn't clear how religious virtues should best be translated into choices. There's lots of thought that goes into it, and lots of discussion. Religious people typically aren't just following a list of rules by rote, nor do they always agree with each other about what should be done in particular situations.

That's going to come as a shock to theologians, philosophers and religious studies scholars (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=religious+ethics&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_occt=&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=not+filtered+by+license), let alone countless religious laypeople, who believe that they've been discussing religious ethics for years.

Fair enough, but what are they discussing? How to apply the laws of their faith to modern issues? Okay, but that isn't an actual discussion of ethics, it's only a discussion of how to apply the ethics that have already been dictated to them.


Religions aren't all concerned with the Bible, nor do they all have a 'church' that defines doctrine for them. (There's Buddhist ethics, for example.) (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=buddhist+ethics&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_occt=&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=not+filtered+by+license) Perhaps you should be directing your remarks at a certain simplistic kind of theistic moralism, and not at "religion" in general. If you did that, many religious people might agree with you.

This is true so far as it goes, but there are more Christians in the world than there are all of the Eastern religions combined, so in practical terms generalizing the major Abrahamic religions as "religion" is true enough.

That "certain simplistic theistic moralism" applies to about 3.6 billion people. And in all cases the theist accepts that the teachings of the deity or the prophet or whatever the case may be is the Truth (with a capital "T") and infallible. The question is then not a question of what is ethical, but how to apply the ethics dictated to them. I won't say this is a useless exercise, but at the end of the day we're still comparing apples to oranges.


It often isn't clear how religious virtues should best be translated into choices. There's lots of thought that goes into it, and lots of discussion. Religious people typically aren't just following a list of rules by rote, nor do they always agree with each other about what should be done in particular situations.

Again, I won't contest that, but that isn't really what non-theists do, because theists already have a set of rules that is considered law, and the question is never "Is this moral/ethical" but "how do we apply this moral/ethical idea to our situation?"

Fair enough, but what are they discussing? How to apply the laws of their faith to modern issues? Okay, but that isn't an actual discussion of ethics, it's only a discussion of how to apply the ethics that have already been dictated to them.

What are they discussing? One of the things that religious ethics often discuss are virtues.

Virtue ethics often play down the importance of mere external conformity to moral rules, and argue instead that morality should be understood in terms of developing the virtuous inner traits that motivate external behavior (and ultimately might even make the rules unnecessary).

The Platonic strand in virtue ethics argues that the goal in ethics isn't the ability to perceive what is independently right or noble to do, but rather to come to have independently noble motives and inner states that, when expressed, result in right and admirable action. Aristotelian virtue ethics goes so far as to argue that lists of rules are incapable of capturing matters of right and wrong, arguing instead that real ethical discernment comes in the ability to act ethically in new and unique moral situations.

Medieval Christian theology devoted a great deal of attention to virtues. The point to notice is that attention to virtue transforms ethics from being a matter of mere external conformity to commands into an inner work, a path of spiritual transformation. That was a prominent theme in high medieval literature. (Think of the grail-quest stories for example.)


This is true so far as it goes, but there are more Christians in the world than there are all of the Eastern religions combined, so in practical terms generalizing the major Abrahamic religions as "religion" is true enough.

No it isn't.

It happens that just a couple of days ago, I read a 19'th century author (a famous European professor in fact) writing that what he called "true religion" must acknowledge the one true God, creator of the universe, God's coming judgement, heaven and hell, and so on. Then he blythely announced that Buddhism is not, and cannot be, considered a 'religion'.

It's kind of ironic to read an atheist writing what is effectively the same thing -- that the word 'religion' is to be equated solely with Hebrew myth and with nothing else.


That "certain simplistic theistic moralism" applies to about 3.6 billion people.

Only if you look at theists through a legalist fundamentalist lens that ignores everything that doesn't fit, things like religio-ethical virtues and the work of inner self-transformation that they represent.

What are they discussing? One of the things that religious ethics often discuss are virtues.

Virtue ethics often play down the importance of mere external conformity to moral rules, and argue instead that morality should be understood in terms of developing the virtuous inner traits that motivate external behavior (and ultimately might even make the rules unnecessary).

The Platonic strand in virtue ethics argues that the goal in ethics isn't the ability to perceive what is independently right or noble to do, but rather to come to have independently noble motives and inner states that, when expressed, result in right and admirable action. Aristotelian virtue ethics goes so far as to argue that lists of rules are incapable of capturing matters of right and wrong, arguing instead that real ethical discernment comes in the ability to act ethically in new and unique moral situations.

Medieval Christian theology devoted a great deal of attention to virtues. The point to notice is that attention to virtue transforms ethics from being a matter of mere external conformity to commands into an inner work, a path of spiritual transformation. That was a prominent theme in high medieval literature. (Think of the grail-quest stories for example.)

Well that's great, but that's not religion, that's a kind of veiled secularism. The idea that ethics or morality comes from within is not a Christian one.


No it isn't.

It happens that just a couple of days ago, I read a 19'th century author (a famous European professor in fact) writing that what he called "true religion" must acknowledge the one true God, creator of the universe, God's coming judgement, heaven and hell, and so on. Then he blythely announced that Buddhism is not, and cannot be, considered a 'religion'.

It's kind of ironic to read an atheist writing what is effectively the same thing -- that the word 'religion' is to be equated solely with Hebrew myth and with nothing else.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply talking about practical application. Do you know any Shintoists? Are Hindus trying to get their creation story added to biology textbooks in Alabama?

In the Western world, the practical definition of "religion" is the Abrahamic mythology.

I admit I am not as familiar with Eastern philosophies as I am with the modern monotheistic ones, but I'm not really talking about them anyway.


Only if you look at theists through a legalist fundamentalist lens that ignores everything that doesn't fit, things like religio-ethical virtues and the work of inner self-transformation that they represent.

One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to draw a line. If a Christian claims to get their values from within, then they're Christians in name only. What is a Christian that does not subscribe to Christian tenets?

Well that's great, but that's not religion, that's a kind of veiled secularism. The idea that ethics or morality comes from within is not a Christian one.


"Make a tree good and and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him." Jesus, Matthew 12:33-35

Apparently the basic point is purity of heart.


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

I think that a case can be made that Jesus was trying to spiritualize (or as we might prefer to say, psychologize) the Jewish law, making it less a matter of outward performance, and more a matter of inner motivation.

As Paul says,


"For the letter kills, but the spirit brings life." 2Corinthians 3:6

It's significant that there isn't any specifically Christian law, as there is Jewish and Islamic law. But nobody can accuse Christianity of being uninterested in ethics.

The history of Christianity is filled with discussions and debates about Christian virtues. Augustine and Jerome exemplify it in Latin late antiquity. Aquinas formulated Christian ethics on the model of Aristotle's 'Nichomachian Ethics', and Thomism in turn has been the mainstream philosophy of the Roman Catholic church down to today. The majority of the world's Christians are Catholic (and not the Protestant fundamentalists that atheists love so dearly).


One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to draw a line. If a Christian claims to get their values from within, then they're Christians in name only. What is a Christian that does not subscribe to Christian tenets?

Whether good flows ultimately from God or whether it can somehow be derived from nature, one can still argue that it still needs to be internalized psychologically in the form of virtues.

"Make a tree good and and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him." Jesus, Matthew 12:33-35

Apparently the basic point is purity of heart.

I never said concepts of innate good and evil are not Christian, I said innate ethics and morals are not. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Commandments? Would be the point of moral teachings if it were considered inherent?




"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

I think that a case can be made that Jesus was trying to spiritualize (or as we might prefer to say, psychologize) the Jewish law, making it less a matter of outward performance, and more a matter of inner motivation.

But as he says, he's fulfilling the existing law. He doesn't challenge the law itself, he only seeks to give people motivation for following it. This is not the same as an ethical discussion.


As Paul says,


"For the letter kills, but the spirit brings life." 2Corinthians 3:6

It's significant that there isn't any specifically Christian law, as there is Jewish and Islamic law. But nobody can accuse Christianity of being uninterested in ethics.

Never accused them of not being interested in ethics. I simply said that there is no true discussion of what is right and wrong, but compulsion to accept what has already been deemed so from on high.


The history of Christianity is filled with discussions and debates about Christian virtues. Augustine and Jerome exemplify it in Latin late antiquity. Aquinas formulated Christian ethics on the model of Aristotle's 'Nichomachian Ethics', and Thomism in turn has been the mainstream philosophy of the Roman Catholic church down to today. The majority of the world's Christians are Catholic (and not the Protestant fundamentalists that atheists love so dearly).

Again, "How do we implement this law" is not the same as "Is this law good?"


Whether good flows ultimately from God or whether it can somehow be derived from nature, one can still argue that it still needs to be internalized psychologically in the form of virtues.

Well, we know it doesn't come from the god figures of mythology. The evidence for this is the secular society in which we live today that is considered morally superior than those to come before it, yet in so many ways runs counter to the teachings of any of the major Abrahamic faiths (hey, you said "God" with a capital "G").

So, yes, it clearly needs to be internalized, but non-theism does not inherently have a set of values and morals, and so one must make these determinations for themselves. And not simply how to apply the agreed-upon rules to society, but what those rules are. The latter is not a question in Abrahamic faiths, because the rules have already been decided upon.

Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

That's about as internalized as it gets. But then, I've always felt that the legalistic fundamentalists missed the point.

Are there things that you once believed to be true, but now don't believe to be true anymore?

Yes.



IOW, if you believe that all your beliefs are under continual scrutiny and can be changed, how can you at any one point be sure that you have beliefs that are correct, in correspondence with actual reality?

I wouldn't position my beliefs as being under continual scrutiny. I do other things... like eat and sleep. The beliefs I have that have been validated by reality are ones that I know are correct. As an example, right now I believe I am typing a message. As I can directly observe the reality of this, I know that my belief is correct. Some of my belief's may not be correct and other times I don't have a belief but rather an "I don't know" marker.



If anything that you now believe to be in correspondence with actual reality, is subject to change, how can you have any certainty?

The only time it would be subject to change is if actual reality disagreed with my belief... which is fine as that can happen. Other beliefs are validated by reality. The latter is where certainty comes from and the rest is my perception of their possible correspondence. It works just fine for me.

I never said concepts of innate good and evil are not Christian, I said innate ethics and morals are not. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Commandments? Would be the point of moral teachings if it were considered inherent?

Virtue ethics don't typically assert that morality is innate. If that were so, then why don't people infallibly behave ethically from birth? Instead, virtue ethics typically teach that virtues need to be taught. Plato's 'Republic' imagines a rather totalitarian system of education that he hoped would successfully instill moral and intellectual virtues in Athenians. Maybe it really would have, since a similar system had actually worked, for a time at least, in instilling military virtues in Spartans.

The point with virtue ethics is that ethical behavior isn't just a question of conformng one's outward behavior to some set of rules. It's a matter of reforming one's inner motivations so that one naturally and effortlessly behaves ethically (or intellectually, or as a Spartan).

I'm saying that at least part of Jesus' message (much of the ethical part) was an attempt to reform the Hebrews' ancestral Semitic-style legalism into a new and more psychologized form. His message was less about what people physically did than about what motivated them internally to do those things.

Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers had already been writing about ethical and intellectual virtues for centuries. The Buddha had taught a distinct form of virtue ethics in India some 500 years earlier. So it was already in the air. The old-style Hebrew tribal legalism was already starting to look kind of anachronistic in the then-modern Hellenistic world.

But Jesus couldn't just denounce the more than 500 year old traditional law, since it had become foundational to who and what the Jews were. So he "fulfilled" it, by addressing the inner motives of external action. The letter of the law was there to guide the behavior of individuals whose inner motivations hadn't yet been reformed. And as Paul later argued, strict adherence to the letter of the law was no longer even necessary for those who had internalized the law's spirit.

There's no suggestion that the spirit of the law is already innate in people, and many suggestions that it isn't. People's lives of sin are evidence it isn't. The Hebrews' inability to conform to God's old law is evidence that it isn't. In Paul's scheme, the law condemns those who try to follow it, by showing them how their hearts just aren't in it. The reformation of people's inner motivations is part of what Jesus supposedly brought. It's supposed to be a gift from God that needs to be downloaded and installed. That's what much of the incessant Christian talk about "the spirit" and "faith" and "God's grace" boils down to, in the ethical sphere at least. It's what lies at the center of Luther's preaching about the priority of faith over works.


But as he says, he's fulfilling the existing law. He doesn't challenge the law itself, he only seeks to give people motivation for following it. This is not the same as an ethical discussion.

Sure it is. And remember that for Paul, once one's motives are reformed, strict adherence to the letter of the law is no longer necessary. Paul felt entirely free to violate the dietary laws, for example. Today, and throughout their history, Christians have never adhered to the Jewish law.

(Actually, the early Jerusalem church may have, and some small Jewish-Christian sects continued to follow the Jewish law for several centuries, but the Christianity that survived isn't descended from them and they're largely of historical interest today.)


Never accused them of not being interested in ethics. I simply said that there is no true discussion of what is right and wrong, but compulsion to accept what has already been deemed so from on high.

But if Christians are no longer bound by or following the minute details of the letter of the Jewish law, then they are left in a position where they have to make ethical decisions for themselves in real-life ethical situations, hopfully in such a way that their behavior conforms to the Christian virtues.

Virtue ethics don't typically assert that morality is innate. If that were so, then why don't people infallibly behave ethically from birth? Instead, virtue ethics typically teach that virtues need to be taught. Plato's 'Republic' imagines a rather totalitarian system of education that he hoped would successfully instill moral and intellectual virtues in Athenians. Maybe it really would have, since a similar system had actually worked, for a time at least, in instilling military virtues in Spartans.

The point with virtue ethics is that ethical behavior isn't just a question of conformng one's outward behavior to some set of rules. It's a matter of reforming one's inner motivations so that one naturally and effortlessly behaves ethically (or intellectually, or as a Spartan).

I'm saying that at least part of Jesus' message (much of the ethical part) was an attempt to reform the Hebrews' ancestral Semitic-style legalism into a new and more psychologized form. His message was less about what people physically did than about what motivated them internally to do those things.

Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers had already been writing about ethical and intellectual virtues for centuries. The Buddha had taught a distinct form of virtue ethics in India some 500 years earlier. So it was already in the air. The old-style Hebrew tribal legalism was already starting to look kind of anachronistic in the then-modern Hellenistic world.

But Jesus couldn't just denounce the more than 500 year old traditional law, since it had become foundational to who and what the Jews were. So he "fulfilled" it, by addressing the inner motives of external action. The letter of the law was there to guide the behavior of individuals whose inner motivations hadn't yet been reformed. And as Paul later argued, strict adherence to the letter of the law was no longer even necessary for those who had internalized the law's spirit.

There's no suggestion that the spirit of the law is already innate in people, and many suggestions that it isn't. People's lives of sin are evidence it isn't. The Hebrews' inability to conform to God's old law is evidence that it isn't. In Paul's scheme, the law condemns those who try to follow it, by showing them how their hearts just aren't in it. The reformation of people's inner motivations is part of what Jesus supposedly brought. It's supposed to be a gift from God that needs to be downloaded and installed. That's what much of the incessant Christian talk about "the spirit" and "faith" and "God's grace" boils down to, in the ethical sphere at least. It's what lies at the center of Luther's preaching about the priority of faith over works.


"Make a tree good and and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him." Jesus, Matthew 12:33-35

That contradicts your assertion that there is no suggestion that morality or goodness is innate. Now, granted, if we're talking about the Bible, you'll find passages that contradict this message as well, but the point is simply to show that the idea is in there.

You raise some good points about the internalization of ethical law and morality by Jesus, but this gets no closer to a discussion of what is right and wrong than anything you've previously said. There is still an authority dictating to the masses, which I believe to be the crux of DaveC's argument. Non-theists have no prophet to tell them the how and why of ethical law, nor one to emphasize one way over the other. The non-theist must make this distinction on their own, as there is no inherent authority to direct them.



Sure it is. And remember that for Paul, once one's motives are reformed, strict adherence to the letter of the law is no longer necessary. Paul felt entirely free to violate the dietary laws, for example. Today, and throughout their history, Christians have never adhered to the Jewish law.

(Actually, the early Jerusalem church may have, and some small Jewish-Christian sects continued to follow the Jewish law for several centuries, but the Christianity that survived isn't descended from them and they're largely of historical interest today.)

But this is not the same thing as having a discussion on ethical values or morality. It's an authority figure disseminating what is moral and what isn't to the masses.



But if Christians are no longer bound by or following the minute details of the letter of the Jewish law, then they are left in a position where they have to make ethical decisions for themselves in real-life ethical situations, hopfully in such a way that their behavior conforms to the Christian virtues.

No, not true. They've simply been given different guidelines, not no guidelines at all.

Crunchy just directed my attention to this. It's interesting, so I'll reply to it too.


Are there things that you once believed to be true, but now don't believe to be true anymore?

Yes.


IOW, if you believe that all your beliefs are under continual scrutiny and can be changed, how can you at any one point be sure that you have beliefs that are correct, in correspondence with actual reality?

They are my working assumptions, so to speak. But all of my beliefs are defeasible. If I receive new and better information I might conceivably decide that any of them are wrong.

Basically, it's just the recognition of the possibility of error.


If anything that you now believe to be in correspondence with actual reality, is subject to change, how can you have any certainty?

I never have 100% certainty. I see that as a cognitive ideal that's probably never attained in real life.

In actual practice, my beliefs have different weights. I believe that some of them have very high probabilities of being true, while others are little more than guesses.

@wynn --


If anything that you now believe to be in correspondence with actual reality, is subject to change, how can you have any certainty?

Well repeated observation that my beliefs correspond to reality gives me some degree of certainty because the observation is repeated over and over again.

If you mean "how can you have any absolute certainty?" Then the answer is that none of us can have this(we're human, there's always the possibility that we're wrong, however minute that possibility is) and I find absolute certainty to be a wholly undesirable trait anyways. It completely blocks any hope of learning anything new.

Crunchy just directed my attention to this. It's interesting, so I'll reply to it too.

Yes.

They are my working assumptions, so to speak. But all of my beliefs are defeasible. If I receive new and better information I might conceivably decide that any of them are wrong.

Basically, it's just the recognition of the possibility of error.

I never have 100% certainty. I see that as a cognitive ideal that's probably never attained in real life.

In actual practice, my beliefs have different weights. I believe that some of them have very high probabilities of being true, while others are little more than guesses.

What is pertinent about this issue of certainty of one's beliefs is that some people, even though they claim not to possess full certainty and even though they admit to be subject to delusion, nevertheless see themselves fit to attack others for presumably "delusional beliefs" and nevertheless insist that others should change their ways.

As if they were to say -
"I am not 100% certain that my beliefs correspond to reality, and, yes, I admit to be subject to delusion -- but I nevertheless think that everyone should think, feel, speak and act as I do. And for all practical intents and purposes, I am right, and everyone who doesn't think, feel, speak and act as I do, is wrong / bad / delusional."

The beliefs I have that have been validated by reality are ones that I know are correct.

How do you assess whether a belief of yours is "validated by reality"??

If a Christian claims to get their values from within, then they're Christians in name only. What is a Christian that does not subscribe to Christian tenets?

This is so if viewed from a particular external, non-Christian perspective that assumes religiousness is necessarily learned / adopted / acquired, and not inherent.


But (at least some) Christians (and others) see no difference between "values from within" and "values given from God."

According to (some) theists, morality, alog with religiousness, is innate, and it is so because God made it so.



You raise some good points about the internalization of ethical law and morality by Jesus, but this gets no closer to a discussion of what is right and wrong than anything you've previously said. There is still an authority dictating to the masses, which I believe to be the crux of DaveC's argument.

It is is not clear that this is actually how people come to be religious.

What you sketch out above is certainly a frequent religiological / anthropological / culturological assumption about how it comes that people become religious.

But it is an assumption that is difficult to support (it is not possible to test it), and religious people themselves do not subscribe to it.




Non-theists have no prophet to tell them the how and why of ethical law, nor one to emphasize one way over the other. The non-theist must make this distinction on their own, as there is no inherent authority to direct them.

But this is not the same thing as having a discussion on ethical values or morality. It's an authority figure disseminating what is moral and what isn't to the masses.

That seems to assume that religious people first blindly accept someone or something as an authority, and then just go along without questioning.

On the whole, I think that atheists tend to operate out of grossly misleading assumptions about how a person becomes religious - theistic.
Those atheists take for granted that God doesn't exist, and that therefore, a religiological / anthropological / culturological explanation of a how a person becomes religious, suffices completely.

What is pertinent about this issue of certainty of one's beliefs is that some people, even though they claim not to possess full certainty and even though they admit to be subject to delusion, nevertheless see themselves fit to attack others for presumably "delusional beliefs" and nevertheless insist that others should change their ways.

It happens every day on Sciforums. Threads here are often dominated more by attitude than by ideas.


As if they were to say -
"I am not 100% certain that my beliefs correspond to reality, and, yes, I admit to be subject to delusion -- but I nevertheless think that everyone should think, feel, speak and act as I do. And for all practical intents and purposes, I am right, and everyone who doesn't think, feel, speak and act as I do, is wrong / bad / delusional."

In my own case, I'm rarely if ever 100% convinced that my own views are totally correct. They can always be tuned up and improved, and there's probably always going to be at least a small possibility that I'm just totally wrong.

But oftentimes I'm reasonably confident that I'm on the right track. What's more, I'm occasionally convinced that my ideas are a lot closer to the truth than somebody else's. Despite my not being 100% certain about my own ideas, I'm still fully capable of believing that other people are wrong.

Whether I say so, and how aggressively I confront somebody, is a function of a whole lot of variables -- such as how arrogant and abusive they are towards others (I enjoy confronting bullies), whether I think that their perceived error is dangerous somehow ("creation-science" proponents for example), and whether I think that the underlying philosophical issues are interesting and might be fun and enlightening to discuss.

Or they could smoke crack and then go into a rehabilitation center. Crack addicts fresh out of the rehab center always believe in him.

@Chipz --

That's because most rehab centers are little more than fronts for christianity, with some of the messages toned down a bit while others(such as requiring a higher power to fix your life) are played up.

But (at least some) Christians (and others) see no difference between "values from within" and "values given from God."

According to (some) theists, morality, alog with religiousness, is innate, and it is so because God made it so.

I think that's true. The various permutations of 'natural law' theory certainly argue that all people come equipped with consciences, and/or with the rational ability to deduce morally correct courses of action from supposedly self-evident premises about human flourishing or whatnot.

Even atheists typically acknowledge many of these ideas. The difference is that while the theists trace it back to God, the atheists trace it to social instinct or to something like that.

The thing is, there's been this atheist assertion that religious ethics is nothing more simple rote adherence to a set of rules that believers accept as divinely revealed. Or at best, it's something like religious jurisprudence, the application of divine law in new situations. Hence the assertion that religious ethics has nothing to discuss and effectively doesn't even exist.

But there's the annoying fact that Christianity doesn't have a religious law. There simply has never been any authoritative listing of Christian moral rules, applicable to every circumstance. Nor is there a tradition of Christian moral jurisprudence interpreting it. Instead, Christians always seem to be talking about the need for "faith" and about their "holy spirit". Something else is happening.

The distinction that I've been making in this thread compares external rule-following on one hand, against the reformation of one's heart, of one's internal motivations on the other. It's about not merely possessing a conscience, whether natural or God-given, but about having the ability and the internal resources to actually heed it, and not simply be swept away by one's own personal desires.

Looking at things that way, Christian ethics, atheist naturalistic ethics, and traditions like Buddhist ethics have a lot more in common than one might initially suppose. (It's not surprising, since they are all addressing real life.) Not only does religious ethics exist, not only does it have lots of interesting things to discuss, I'm suggesting that it might actually reward atheists if they paid some attention to it and didn't just dismiss it with a knee-jerk.

This is so if viewed from a particular external, non-Christian perspective that assumes religiousness is necessarily learned / adopted / acquired, and not inherent.

Well we have some evidence to say that it is, such as how your religion so greatly depends on where you live, or where you were raised. Also, the positive correlation between higher education and agnosticism/atheism would imply that religion is a condition of ignorance. The fact that almost every religion attempts to explain how life began, as well as how it will end, speaks to that point.


But (at least some) Christians (and others) see no difference between "values from within" and "values given from God."

According to (some) theists, morality, alog with religiousness, is innate, and it is so because God made it so.

Well, I believe morality is innate as well, but I don't think moral issues are innate. For example, I can watch a woman getting beaten by two others and feel empathy. This empathy causes me to (hopefully) step in and prevent any further damage from being done.

However, if I'm lead to believe the woman is a witch who will kill my family if she is not stopped, I will tend to have a different reaction to the scene, because empathy is no longer the relevant instinct, but rather the desire to protect my family. This instinct could cause me to allow the beatings to occur, or even cause me to help the attackers. Perhaps if I'm a very empathetic person, I might seek a different solution--banishment for the witch, for example--but in the end what is "truly good" is unknown to me because of my ignorance.


It is is not clear that this is actually how people come to be religious.

What you sketch out above is certainly a frequent religiological / anthropological / culturological assumption about how it comes that people become religious.

This is interesting, because I did not make any claim as to how people become religious in that post. I was discussing the differences between theists and non-theists as it pertains to their morality. Completely different subject. I'm curious, what about my post lead you to write this?


But it is an assumption that is difficult to support (it is not possible to test it), and religious people themselves do not subscribe to it.

Well, again, I don't know where you got that I was making a claim about how religious people come to be religious. That wasn't what we were talking about. I do that in this post, but not before.

But anyway, citing that religious people do not subscribe to a certain theory is irrelevant. They do not subscribe to the idea that there is no god, either. Clearly what they subscribe to has no bearing on the conversation.


That seems to assume that religious people first blindly accept someone or something as an authority, and then just go along without questioning.

Many do accept a religious authority without question. And those who don't tend to find themselves on the outside looking in. The Abrahamic texts specifically condemn questioning of authority, and leave no room for doubters in the promised afterlife.

Consider how many people believe the world is thousands of years old, rather than billions. Consider how many people believe there will be 72 virgins waiting for them if they give their life to jihad. No inquiry will bring you to these conclusions.


On the whole, I think that atheists tend to operate out of grossly misleading assumptions about how a person becomes religious - theistic.
Those atheists take for granted that God doesn't exist, and that therefore, a religiological / anthropological / culturological explanation of a how a person becomes religious, suffices completely.

You've got it completely backwards. Atheists come to the conclusion that the gods of human religion are false because of inquiry. Theists are, by and large, born into their faiths, and were indoctrinated before they were old enough to know better. They are the ones who take their reality for granted, not atheists.

How can unbelievers come to believe in God?

Traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injury.Be careful of what you wish for! :)

How do you assess whether a belief of yours is "validated by reality"??

Observation would be a good method. For example, if I believe that fire will burn wood and observe a forest fire burning trees then reality has validated my belief. But seriously, does this seem like such an alien concept to you (as your question implies)?

Be careful of what you wish for! :)

How do you like yours?

How do you like yours?I like mine sunny side up. :)

Observation would be a good method. For example, if I believe that fire will burn wood and observe a forest fire burning trees then reality has validated my belief. But seriously, does this seem like such an alien concept to you (as your question implies)?

As long as we talk, for practical intents and purposes, about burning wood and trees, it's all well and good.

But by this kind of reasoning, how does reality validate or invalidate your beliefs about God?

Especially when you are operating out of definitions of "God" that were never held by anyone who claimed to believe in God.

I think that's true. The various permutations of 'natural law' theory certainly argue that all people come equipped with consciences, and/or with the rational ability to deduce morally correct courses of action from supposedly self-evident premises about human flourishing or whatnot.

Even atheists typically acknowledge many of these ideas. The difference is that while the theists trace it back to God, the atheists trace it to social instinct or to something like that.

The thing is, there's been this atheist assertion that religious ethics is nothing more simple rote adherence to a set of rules that believers accept as divinely revealed. Or at best, it's something like religious jurisprudence, the application of divine law in new situations. Hence the assertion that religious ethics has nothing to discuss and effectively doesn't even exist.

By explaining theistic morality this way, atheists are simply asserting strong atheism: there is no God (or at least noone has contact to God), therefore everything anyone claims to be divine or from God, is an act of delusion, even an act of deliberate delusion.



But there's the annoying fact that Christianity doesn't have a religious law. There simply has never been any authoritative listing of Christian moral rules, applicable to every circumstance. Nor is there a tradition of Christian moral jurisprudence interpreting it. Instead, Christians always seem to be talking about the need for "faith" and about their "holy spirit". Something else is happening.

And the atheist oulook does not have the concepts to render that.



The distinction that I've been making in this thread compares external rule-following on one hand, against the reformation of one's heart, of one's internal motivations on the other. It's about not merely possessing a conscience, whether natural or God-given, but about having the ability and the internal resources to actually heed it, and not simply be swept away by one's own personal desires.

Yes, there are issues to bring up with the critics of "sheeple mentality."

No matter how much atheists like to call theists (and other religionists) "sheeple," it doesn't even seem to be possible for an actual human to be a "sheeple."

A programmed robot might fit the description of a "sheeple," but not a living human.



Looking at things that way, Christian ethics, atheist naturalistic ethics, and traditions like Buddhist ethics have a lot more in common than one might initially suppose. (It's not surprising, since they are all addressing real life.) Not only does religious ethics exist, not only does it have lots of interesting things to discuss, I'm suggesting that it might actually reward atheists if they paid some attention to it and didn't just dismiss it with a knee-jerk.

Agreed.

Well we have some evidence to say that it is, such as how your religion so greatly depends on where you live, or where you were raised.

Correlation does not automatically imply causation.



Also, the positive correlation between higher education and agnosticism/atheism would imply that religion is a condition of ignorance.

If we ignore what that higher education is in, and if we ignore any religiously relevant criteria for measuring religiosity.



Well, I believe morality is innate as well, but I don't think moral issues are innate. For example, I can watch a woman getting beaten by two others and feel empathy. This empathy causes me to (hopefully) step in and prevent any further damage from being done.

However, if I'm lead to believe the woman is a witch who will kill my family if she is not stopped, I will tend to have a different reaction to the scene, because empathy is no longer the relevant instinct, but rather the desire to protect my family. This instinct could cause me to allow the beatings to occur, or even cause me to help the attackers. Perhaps if I'm a very empathetic person, I might seek a different solution--banishment for the witch, for example--but in the end what is "truly good" is unknown to me because of my ignorance.

What's wrong with trying to protect your family, and considering this more important than the life of strangers?



This is interesting, because I did not make any claim as to how people become religious in that post. I was discussing the differences between theists and non-theists as it pertains to their morality. Completely different subject. I'm curious, what about my post lead you to write this?

The phenomenon of people currently being religious, and the phenomenon of how people have become religious in the first place, are closely related.



But anyway, citing that religious people do not subscribe to a certain theory is irrelevant. They do not subscribe to the idea that there is no god, either. Clearly what they subscribe to has no bearing on the conversation.

So you hold that an externalist analysis of conscious entities, an analysis that ignores the conscioussness of those entities, is perfectly adequate?

Do you believe that an etic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic) account is perfectly sufficient, and that the emic one can be ignored?



Many do accept a religious authority without question.

Prove that.



And those who don't tend to find themselves on the outside looking in.

And yet there is an ongoing struggle within all major organized religions to recognize and avoid those people who are "wolves in sheep's clothing" - people who are active members of religious organizations, who openly profess belief and who even generally act in accordance with the religious norms, but who nevertheless have caustic doubts, question the authority and cause discord among members.
The Hindu term for such people is "dharma-dvaji."



The Abrahamic texts specifically condemn questioning of authority, and leave no room for doubters in the promised afterlife.

That is the general impression one gets from mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions.
The texts, however, have quite a bit more to say on the matter.



Consider how many people believe the world is thousands of years old, rather than billions. Consider how many people believe there will be 72 virgins waiting for them if they give their life to jihad.

So?



No inquiry will bring you to these conclusions.

Inquiry won't bring you 72 virgins either.



You've got it completely backwards. Atheists come to the conclusion that the gods of human religion are false because of inquiry.

So what kind of inquiry could possibly lead a person to conclude that "the gods of human religion are false"?



Theists are, by and large, born into their faiths, and were indoctrinated before they were old enough to know better. They are the ones who take their reality for granted, not atheists.

I am sure this is what it looks like to you, from the outside.

Apparently you have not participated in many intra-faith discussions on various issues, especially those of faith and ethics, nor have you read much about those.

There is a vast amount of Christian (and other) self-help and self-cultivation literature and other venues for discussing various problems of faith and ethics.

Have you ever practiced the Jesuit spiritual exercises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Exercises_of_Ignatius_of_Loyola) or participated in the group sessions of those?

Or read a book like this (http://www.amazon.com/Where-Will-You-Go-Here/dp/0307729761/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4/187-5331733-8992239), or this (http://www.amazon.com/God-Attachment-Believe-Feel-About/dp/B004KAB320/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332069091&sr=1-12) or this (http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Girls-Choices-Avoiding-Mistakes/dp/0736929959/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b)?

Theists are, by and large, born into their faiths, and were indoctrinated before they were old enough to know better. They are the ones who take their reality for granted, not atheists.



I am sure this is what it looks like to you, from the outside.

Apparently you have not participated in many intra-faith discussions on various issues, especially those of faith and ethics, nor have you read much about those.

There is a vast amount of Christian (and other) self-help and self-cultivation literature and other venues for discussing various problems of faith and ethics.


None of this invalidates JDawg's statement. He speaks of the vast majority. You counter with exceptions.

Most theists are taught their faith before they are old enough to make their own decisions. What they do after that is biased by their indoctrination.

Also, the positive correlation between higher education and agnosticism/atheism would imply that religion is a condition of ignorance.

A positive correlation? As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics".

In the United States, 27% of the total adult (over 25) population are university graduates.

31% of adults with no religious adherence are university graduates. So the atheists and agnostics do better than the general population. Your "positive correlation" is proven.

Except...

When we break religious adherents down by denomination, things get more interesting.

At the low end, we have Pentecostals and Charismatics, with 13% university graduates.

Baptists show 16% university graduates.

Catholics come in at 25% university graduates. But these numbers are being pulled down by a huge Mexican population in the US who often have little education. The Irish and Italian Catholics would probably do significantly better if they were separated out.

Mormons/LDS show 31% university graduates, equalling the 'nones'.

'New Religious Movements and other' come in at 33% university graduates. So the credulous and eclectic 'new agers' and the 'wicca' witches do marginally better than the atheists and agnostics.

"Mainline" Protestants show 35% university graduates, again slightly better than those with no religious adherence. These are the old-stock Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists.

Religious Jews really excel, at 57% university graduates.

And the top spot is occupied by 'eastern religions' (most of these in the US are Buddhist) at 59% university graduates. That's almost twice the figure for atheists and agnostics.

The numbers are from table 11, page 16, of the pdf version of the 2008 ARIS Survey, available (here) (http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/).

None of this invalidates JDawg's statement. He speaks of the vast majority. You counter with exceptions.

Most theists are taught their faith before they are old enough to make their own decisions. What they do after that is biased by their indoctrination.

Everyone is in that same situation.

Everyone is biased by some indoctrination or another.


You are merely romantically idealizing people who grow up in atheistic communities and those who become atheists later on.

Everyone is in that same situation.

Everyone is biased by some indoctrination or another.


You are merely romantically idealizing people who grow up in atheistic communities and those who become atheists later on.

No. The majority of atheists grow up indoctrinated by their parents, and ultimately reject that indoctrination.

Whatever influences them to choose atheism is not classified as indoctrination, because it doesn't occur until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves, not just take it as - well - doctrine.

No. The majority of atheists grow up indoctrinated by their parents, and ultimately reject that indoctrination.

And accept another one.



Whatever influences them to choose atheism is not classified as indoctrination, because it doesn't occur until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves, not just take it as - well - doctrine.

"Old enough to make decisions for themselves" - when is that? When they are 18? 21? 65?

Does being of a certain age automatically make one "old enough to make decisions for themselves"?

Surely those people who are born into theistic families and who then remain theists throughout their lives, also reach an age when they are "old enough to make decisions for themselves" - and yet they don't all opt for atheism.

If age would be the deciding factor, then everyone past a certain age would be an atheist. But they are not.

Clearly, some other factor is at work as to why some people reject the belief and value system they were raised with.



A person being born into an atheist family is indoctrinated into atheism.

Such a child learns not to believe in God.

"Old enough to make decisions for themselves" - when is that? When they are 18? 21? 65?

Does being of a certain age automatically make one "old enough to make decisions for themselves"?
It's not about when they are allowed to. It is about when they do.

An 8, 14, or 21 year old who adheres to the same beliefs as her parents may or may not be making the decision independent of her parents' teachings.

An 8, 14, or 21 year old who rejects the beliefs of her parents is by definition making the decision independent of her parents' teachings.




Surely those people who are born into theistic families and who then remain theists throughout their lives, also reach an age when they are "old enough to make decisions for themselves" - and yet they don't all opt for atheism.
True. It is not a symmetric relationship.



Clearly, some other factor is at work as to why some people reject the belief and value system they were raised with.

Yes. That's the primary point here. The factor at work is that they did not choose what they were raised with. When they feel they are capable of deciding for themselves, that is when most atheism occurs.



A person being born into an atheist family is indoctrinated into atheism.

Such a child learns not to believe in God.

Yes but again, this is not the way most people become atheistic. Most atheists started off as believing the tenets heir parents taught them.

Yes. That's the primary point here. The factor at work is that they did not choose what they were raised with. When they feel they are capable of deciding for themselves, that is when most atheism occurs.

So you seem to be saying that whenever people decide for themselves, they necessarily become atheists; whereas theism is necessarily an act of not deciding for oneself?

If someone is a theist, this means that they have not decided for themselves?

If someone is an atheist, this means that they have decided for themselves?

You are merely romantically idealizing people who grow up in atheistic communities and those who become atheists later on.

There are atheistic communities? Where?

By explaining theistic morality this way, atheists are simply asserting strong atheism: there is no God (or at least noone has contact to God), therefore everything anyone claims to be divine or from God, is an act of delusion, even an act of deliberate delusion.

Personally, I'd straddle that difference. I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I'll go even farther and say that I believe that mythical figure doesn't correspond to anything in reality. (I can't know that with 100% certainty though. It just seems vanishingly unlikely to me.)

Having said that, I don't think that theistic ethics is mere bullshit that should simply be dismissed with an atheistic sneer.

There are valuable ideas in theistic ethics that atheists can easily rework into atheist form. (That's assuming that they can stop bragging about their intellectual superiority for long enough to actually think about something.) That's my view.

I wrote:


"Instead, Christians always seem to be talking about the need for "faith" and about their "holy spirit". Something else is happening."


And the atheist oulook does not have the concepts to render that.

I'm an atheist and I wrote it. Our concepts do seem to derive in some part from our tradition and from our language and culture. Atheists live in the larger culture and speak the same languages that theists speak. We hear theists talking all the time. And atheists can study the theological traditions and learn the technical words and distinctions.

But sure, maybe the Christians' holy spirit really does exist. Maybe it does descend on certain favored individuals. Maybe that experience of being touched by the divine kind of fills out the religious vocabulary somehow, giving it an experiential reference that less-favored individuals like myself can't understand. I don't believe that's happening, but I'll acknowledge the hypothetical possibility.

I wrote:


"The distinction that I've been making in this thread compares external rule-following on one hand, against the reformation of one's heart, of one's internal motivations on the other. It's about not merely possessing a conscience, whether natural or God-given, but about having the ability and the internal resources to actually heed it, and not simply be swept away by one's own personal desires."


Yes, there are issues to bring up with the critics of "sheeple mentality."

The "sheeple" thing is an insult, an expression of attitude thrown around by a certain kind of atheist-fundamentalist on internet discussion boards. It's a caricature, kind of a rhetorical "fuck you", analogous in its perjorative use to the Christians' word "heathen".


No matter how much atheists like to call theists (and other religionists) "sheeple," it doesn't even seem to be possible for an actual human to be a "sheeple."

Not entirely. But I do think that it's possible for people to try to hand over their own moral responsibilities to a supposed higher power. A strong rule-following regime might approximate it. If there's any question about anything in life, just pull out your life-manual and look up the appropriate rule or algorithm.

Of course no such manual exists or has ever existed in Christianity.

But it's nevertheless true that a certain kind of Christian fundamentalist does appear to try to use their Bible that way, searching for a verse to address every situation. I don't think that Christian ethics can simply be reduced to that kind of behavior though.

(For one thing, the average Christian rarely even saw the cover of a Bible until the 15'th century invention of the printing-press.)

Edit: I should also add that just because a Christian picks up his or her Bible in a moment of stress doesn't imply that he or she is looking for a rule. More often they are looking for inspiration. That's different.

This is why I suggested to Dawg that if he dialed back his hyperbole a bit and pulled in his horns, I might start to agree with him. His criticisms of religious ethics obviously don't apply to religious ethics as a whole. Buddhist ethics bear no resemblance to what he criticizes. Even Christian ethics are far more subtle than he imagines. But Dawg's remarks probably do have some cogency if they are applied to a certain narrow kind of Biblicist fundamentalist. And even more so to the corresponding sort of Islamic fundamentalist. His remarks about religious ethics aren't totally without merit in my opinion, just over-stated and over-broad.

So you seem to be saying that whenever people decide for themselves, they necessarily become atheists; whereas theism is necessarily an act of not deciding for oneself?

If someone is a theist, this means that they have not decided for themselves?

If someone is an atheist, this means that they have decided for themselves?

No. Here is the whole matrix.

A theist, raised by theists (common), may or may not have made their own decision.
An atheist, raised by atheists (rare), may or may not have made their own decision.
A theist, raised by atheists (rare) has definitely rejected the beliefs of their caregivers.
An atheist, raised by theists (common), has definitely rejected the beliefs of their caregivers.

The result is that
- most theists are raised by theists, and may or may not have made their own decision.
- most atheists are raised by theists, and have rejected the beliefs of their caregivers.

There are atheistic communities? Where?

AlexG makes a valid point, which I've mentioned before. Atheists have no unifying body. They have no organization, no hierarchy , no nothing. That is not to say they won't come together because of common ideas and beliefs, but atheists have no establishment.

There are lots of people who don't believe in unicorns, but that does not mean there is a no-unicorns community.

Correlation does not automatically imply causation.

Well, I mean, maybe not in a general sense, but in this case it most certainly does. You can guess what someone's religion is based on where they are from with a startling amount of accuracy.

Look at this map of religious distribution in the world.

http://www.wadsworth.com/religion_d/special_features/popups/maps/matthews_world/content/map_01.html


If we ignore what that higher education is in, and if we ignore any religiously relevant criteria for measuring religiosity.

There's nothing to indicate what subjects a person is educated in has any bearing on the findings, and they take into account several definitions of "religious." And I actually was wrong about the correlation between atheism and higher education. The relevant study concludes that higher education tends to make people skeptical of their faith, and more liberal in terms of their spirituality (ie not adherent to any one set of tenets) but not necessarily less religious in terms of believing in a higher power. It just gets a lot less specific the higher the education level.

There is a correlation, however, between high IQ and low religiosity. In other words, the smarter the person, the less likely they are to be religious.



What's wrong with trying to protect your family, and considering this more important than the life of strangers?

The point is that the woman isn't really a witch, it's just superstition. By participating in her murder or exile, I'm not doing what is truly good, but this is only because I don't know any better. In other words, my ignorance prevents me from doing the right thing.


The phenomenon of people currently being religious, and the phenomenon of how people have become religious in the first place, are closely related.

:confused:



So you hold that an externalist analysis of conscious entities, an analysis that ignores the conscioussness of those entities, is perfectly adequate?

Do you believe that an etic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic) account is perfectly sufficient, and that the emic one can be ignored?

I'm simply saying that if you ask a religious person how they came to their faith, they'll have some long, lovely story about finding Jesus or Buddha or whatever, but if you were to actually look at their situation, they were almost always raised by parents of the same faith, attended religious services as children, performed religious rituals as adolescents, and been a part of religious ceremonies as adults. In other words, they came to their faith by being born into that particular household, and if they had been born to the Hindu couple next door, they'd be Hindu instead.



Prove that.

And how do you suppose I do that? Here, I'll pose an equally ridiculous option: Prove that they do.



And yet there is an ongoing struggle within all major organized religions to recognize and avoid those people who are "wolves in sheep's clothing" - people who are active members of religious organizations, who openly profess belief and who even generally act in accordance with the religious norms, but who nevertheless have caustic doubts, question the authority and cause discord among members.
The Hindu term for such people is "dharma-dvaji."

This rebuttal only makes sense if I had said that no one questions religious authority. But I didn't. I said the majority don't.

I also said that the people who do question often find themselves on the outside looking in, in terms of their church (or temple, or whatever) or community, and you do a fine job elaborating on that for me.



That is the general impression one gets from mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions.
The texts, however, have quite a bit more to say on the matter.

Really? Like what?



So?

Inquiry won't bring you 72 virgins either.

I don't know what that is even supposed to mean. The point is that you cannot question your faith and come to the conclusion that it is correct.


So what kind of inquiry could possibly lead a person to conclude that "the gods of human religion are false"?

The parochial nature of any faith is a big indicator. The "whole world" always seems to be a very small patch of land in the religions of antiquity, and the morals contained within any guiding text centers around the way of life in the very particular areas from which they originate, and do not translate well across the ages.

The Abrahamic religions claim to be the absolute truth and the word of their god, yet we find better morals in modern society, thousands of years removed, and find their explanations for natural events pitifully lacking. Education renders the infallible quite fallible.

The fact that the Quran is essentially a plagiarism of the New Testament, which in itself is a sort of plagiarism of the Old Testament, and the genesis (pardon the term) for stories in all three can be found in earlier religions of the region, is another huge red flag.



I am sure this is what it looks like to you, from the outside.

Apparently you have not participated in many intra-faith discussions on various issues, especially those of faith and ethics, nor have you read much about those.

There is a vast amount of Christian (and other) self-help and self-cultivation literature and other venues for discussing various problems of faith and ethics.

Have you ever practiced the Jesuit spiritual exercises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Exercises_of_Ignatius_of_Loyola) or participated in the group sessions of those?

Or read a book like this (http://www.amazon.com/Where-Will-You-Go-Here/dp/0307729761/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4/187-5331733-8992239), or this (http://www.amazon.com/God-Attachment-Believe-Feel-About/dp/B004KAB320/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332069091&sr=1-12) or this (http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Girls-Choices-Avoiding-Mistakes/dp/0736929959/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b)?

You're talking about an infinitesimally small minority. These are exceptions to the rule.

As long as we talk, for practical intents and purposes, about burning wood and trees, it's all well and good.

But by this kind of reasoning, how does reality validate or invalidate your beliefs about God?


Most claims of 'God's existence come from books where 'God' claims the content is its inerrant word. The moment the inerrant word of 'God' is demonstrated to false by reality not agreeing (ex. the Christian 'God' "creating" the world in 7 days) is the moment a particular claim of 'God' is rendered false.

There are various methods of placing 'God' out of bounds by removing its mark on actual reality; however, if its completely removed then its no longer useful. If it has any interaction with reality then it can be subject to falsification via a number of methods.

The bottom line is that reality has verified that human-made claims of a 'God' are false. As to whether or not a non-human claimed life form exists that would seem 'God'-like to us, I really wouldn't know; however, I don't view it as probable.



Especially when you are operating out of definitions of "God" that were never held by anyone who claimed to believe in God.

Um... yeah...

I believe the belief on God comes gradually when you travel through the path of death. When people get older, they need a support and start believing the almighty.
In my case I made a vow to not to strive for any other thing than to find the TRUTH.
Life just turned around, no more working until I knew the truth.
That threw my life into chaos.
Some of the ancient prophets also went through moments like this.
Jesus' hunger strike.
Buddha sitting under the tree.
Mohammed in the cave.:)

Mohammed in the cave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad


Discontented with life in Mecca, he retreated to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic beliefs it was here, at age 40,[8][11] in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is the only way (dīn)[n 3] acceptable to God, and that he himself was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as other Islamic prophets.[7][12][13]

Buddha sitting under the tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree

The Bodhi Tree, also known as Bo (from the Sinhalese Bo), was a large and very old Sacred Fig tree (Ficus religiosa) located in Bodh Gaya (about 100 km (62 mi) from Patna in the Indian state of Bihar), under which Siddhartha Gautama, the spiritual teacher later known as Gautama Buddha, is said to have achieved enlightenment, or Bodhi. In religious iconography, the Bodhi tree is recognizable by its heart-shaped leaves, which are usually prominently displayed. :)


http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/pbs2_unit03.htm

Still seeking a way to understand the meaning of life, Siddhartha set out for Buddhagaya. Near a grove, he sat down under a huge Bodhi tree. Silently he vowed, "Even if my flesh and blood were to dry up, leaving only skin and bones, I will not leave this place until I find a way to end all sorrow." He sat there for forty nine days. He was determined to discover the source of all pain and suffering in the world. Mara, the evil one, tried to scare him into giving up his quest. For instance, he hoped to lure Siddhartha into having selfish thoughts by sending visions of his very beautiful daughters. But the Buddha's goodness protected him from such attacks.

During this period, Siddhartha was able to see things as they truly were. Now he had finally found the answer to suffering: "The cause of suffering is greed, selfishness and stupidity. If people get rid of these negative emotions, they will be happy."

During a full-moon night in May, Siddhartha went into deep meditation. As the morning star appeared in the eastern sky, he became an enlightened one, a Buddha. He was thirty five years old.

When the Buddha stood up at last, he gazed at the tree in gratitude, to thank it for having given him shelter. From then on, the tree was known as the Bodhi tree, the tree of Enlightenment.

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Darmok_%28episode%29

Picard is captured, then trapped on a planet with an alien captain who speaks a metaphorical language incompatible with the universal translator. They must learn to communicate with each other before the beast of the planet overwhelms them.

:cool:
(No disrespect, just couldn't resist.)

Jesus' hunger strike or The temptation of Christ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation_of_Christ

The temptation of Christ is detailed in the Gospels of Matthew,[1] Mark,[2] and Luke.[3] According to these texts, after being baptized, Jesus fasted for forty days and nights in the Judean desert. During this time, the devil appeared to Jesus and tempted him. Jesus having refused each temptation, the devil departed and angels came and brought nourishment to Jesus.

From Matthew's Gospel.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-11&version=NIV

Matthew 4

Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness

1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”

11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

All very dramatic stories.