Yet another round. The link is to an article too long to repost here. From The Seattle Times, 2/17/2000.
http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/niel_20000217.html

Excerpt:

Taylor, a white South African, is the first openly gay man to lead an Episcopal cathedral in the United States. That means millions of people in this great country think he's an outsider heading straight for hell. Many of them tell him so - including bishops of his faith, and the picketers who protested his installation at St. Mark's the night before.

I'm not sure how anyone gets enough faith and thick skin to handle the politics and prejudice. I don't know how Taylor avoids using his position as a bully pulpit for sexual tolerance, now that he's there.


thanx,
Tiassa


------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 17, 2000).]

Mostly I'm just seeking commentary. I'm generally sure the issues will crack open on their own.

I'm withholding most of my opinions because they hinge around a couple of sentences; I'd like to watch for them in people's responses to make sure I'm not inventing anything out of thin, philosophical air.

Thanx all,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Tra la la ... all things bright and beautiful, the Lord God made them all ... la la la ...

Quiet amazing, Taylor must have a lot of faith in his God and commitment to spread His Word to take up this position amongst the bigoted and conveniantly prejiduced Christian mainstream around him! Maybe he has truly found his God? And was it his loving God`s will that got him into this position?

" In every cry of every Man, In every Infant`s cry of fear, In every voice, in every ban, The mind-forg`d manacles i hear."

Well, I think it's great.

I personally cued in to this sentence in the last paragraph: "Humans have a peculiar knack for using religion as an excuse to hate" - this sentence was my mantra for years as to why I would "never become religious" - I didn't know of any religion that preached tolerance, they all seemed to preach division of some kind. What use is a belief that rips people apart, especially when it's a belief in an "untangible" thing!? It's like arguing over what color is the "best" color - obviously that is going to be different from person to person.

So three cheers to ANY faith system that can accept someone they've historically shunned. If I were in Seattle, I would probably go out of my way to meet this guy - even though we don't share the same faith, I betcha 100 bucks I could learn something very important from him. Maybe we all could...?

Kudos, finally. I agree with the fact that many in organized religion use said religion to perpetuate hate. That's why I have a "church aversion". Not to say that all churches and all preachers don't have something right or important to say. But many become disallusioned in their "righteousness". To say it plainly, though I do believe homosexuality to be a sin, let's remember that I believe ANYTHING SHORT OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN to be a sin. With that said, homosexuals belong in the church just as much as anyone else does, and a homosexual belongs on the pulpit, just as much as anyone else does. So do all of those Christians who have a problem with that somehow think that they are sinless?????? That's what I just can't understand. It's soooooo nonsensical, it makes my head spin. So F off Jerry Fallwell. I have a feeling that guy's going to spend all of eternity getting doinked up the butt by some huge evil purple telle-tubby. LOL!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Awwww ... Lori ....

What'd the big purple teletubby ever do to you? (Reminds me of a joke about Bo Derek and Ronald Reagan's cabinet.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Hi All,
I was under the impression that men of the cloth were supposed to be celibate???

There is no room for the Christian CHURCH in an evolved MORAL society, sorry but they have proven time and time again that morality and welfare of their "flock" is NOT on the adgenda, its all about control and accumilation of wealth.



------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Rambler,

The only reason that you think that is because you don't understand the faith. The reason that so many Christians act this way to make you think these things is because even they do not understand the faith apparently. So instead of just "buying in" to the rhetoric, why don't you find out for yourself, cause what you'll find is that power and control are NOT what it's about. Not at all. That is what sin is about, not God.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,
I have a pretty good understanding of the faith, you see I was born into a Roman Catholic Family. I had a Catholic Education and in those 18 years or so I had alot of exposure to the faith and the church. I didn't explain myself properly above (sorry), I do understand the faith and I have my own idea of god (based on catholic) what I don't accept and not even for a second is the church. Like I said 18 years (13 of those years were in a catholic school) of it and I still can't accept it as good....sorry, when I way up the good and the bad the bad outwieghs the good by a huge margin.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Rambler,

I guess what I'm asking then is this....

Do you believe that those people or those things about the church that you don't like are done in accordance with the faith, or are done in opposition to the faith?

Like, I'm assuming that you didn't like the judgement doom and gloom hypocracy of some/most of the people. So, do you believe that the faith in it's true form (the Bible) supports the idea of one person judging another, or do you believe that the faith teaches the exact opposite, to NOT judge each other?

I don't go to church anymore either. Only reason I really ever did was for grandma. Probably the same turn-offs as you had, mine were judgement, snobbery, and money-grubbing. BUT, luckily I found truth in the faith itself still, even being disappointed with the church. It seems that so many people reject the faith for the very reason that the faith tries so desparately to point out to us, that we are ALL sinners. Even Christians. So I guess my question would be to you, why are you surprised to find sinners in a church? I just hate the fact that so many not only reject these holier than thou people, but the faith as well!!!!! You should feel pity for these people, for they have a big surprise coming. And you should find truth in the faith. Don't throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater!!!!!!!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Bathwater?, surely baby jesus would have needed holywater :),
but seriously, my opinion in a broad sence on the faith itself is that it is more a moral guide, and the church's role is to lead by example. Unfortunatley it has become a case of "do as I say not as I do". I know that my generlising like this is unfair to the few who a truley devoted and do (as much as a human can) live upto a high moral ideal, however the church as an institution fails by a long shot. I let my conscience decide what to hold close from the faith and what to dismiss as human coruption......

Really all you need to do is look at the church's history, and ask yourself do I really need this establishment to tell me what is right and wrong? they can't even hold up the most basic and important of the comandments.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Hi Rambler,

Faith or religion??

From what you explain about faith it sounds like you have an excellent understanding of religion or a specific religion ie. RC.

Faith, true faith is not based on subscribing to a set of rules or regulations, true faith is based in love.

True faith is not found by attending church twice on Sundays its found through a living and loving relationship with the great I AM, our creator and through His son Jesus.

True faith is not found by watching a tele evangelist or buying the latest books and trinkets from the Christian bookshop, its found in giving not achieving or receiving. Giving to least for by doing so you give to God.

True faith is not found by obtaining and maintaining a position of control, influence or power over others. Its found in self control and right living in the sight of God, it's found in selflessness and obedience to Him.

So what remains, Faith, Hope and Love and the greatest of these is Love. For in that true Love, in the loving and living relationship that we can have with God true faith can be found, the faith that a child has in their parent.

Think about the difference between mans descriptions of faith and how God sees it and explains it through His Son. For in doing so you will find the difference between religion and faith, true faith.

Take care

Tony H2o

WOW!, thanks Tony
I agree with almost everything you have said. I guess on my earlier posts I was using the word faith where I should have said religion.



------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Ah, but now the question becomes: can you really have faith without having the Church? Even assuming you start out with just faith and no institution to promote or enforce it -- is it not inevitable that such an institution will rise to power as a result of the faith's very existence? If so, then is it not true that the sins of the Church are a direct consequence of the Christian faith -- regardless of the faith's original contents or intent?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris, excellent point. As most things the church (probably) started with all the best intentions. There was a new religion and we needed to worship in congragations. However human nature corupted the ideals, its like communism (I'm not comparing communism to the church -- just illustrationg a point) great idea, not so great in practice.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Rambler, Boris ...

Just curious ... while I'm quite sure that there exists for everybody a sense of mystery (some call it God, others call it a really good question) ... but what form would that sense of mystery taken had the machinations of the Church not escorted the vessel of that faith (e.g.--the Bible and all of its social authority)?

If the intellectual errors of the previous ages bear any underlying truth, it would be that one only really gets into trouble when one assumes that one knows what one is doing. The sum effect of a haughty confidence in the power of faith has brought both glory and ruin. Strange how the faithful tend to glorify the glory and forget the ruin. I wouldn't suggest that we mark aside regular days of mourning and begin counting up the tragedies of human institutions; but it is the evils of a thing which describe its true limitations, when it stops operating in harmony with the universe and begins asserting a counternatural will. If we acknowledge the evils, we can attempt to overcome them ... otherwise, how can we overcome what we do not think is there? To this notion, I might add that Aldous Huxley, in Jesting Pilate, wrote that history becomes less relevant when memory becomes so long as to fade. As an example he described the myths of Irish chieftans and heroic uprisings, noting the weight they bore among the oppressed peoples--circa 1925--while also observing that the English had not been truly shaken in their contemporary form for several centuries (internal squabbles notwithstanding, as they were considered part of the process) ... the point apparently being that the English had less use for history, while the oppressed Irish recalled their former glories in an effort to inspire. Much as the English, by this notion, lacked a recent defeat ... what "defeats" might we recall to sharpen the collective memory of the faithful and their Church institutions, and shake off the dust of a distant sense of justice?

As regards Communism ... my father once explained to me that the primary failing of Communism in practice was its lack of incentive ... specifically, he used to ask, "Why should I do my job well when the lazy guy down the line is pulling the same pay for half the work?" It explained many things about the fruits of Communist labor, in his opinion. It failed to recognize human nature, which is why it looked so pretty on paper and so miserable in life, he said.

Well ... looking back on Reaganomics, which my father believes in religiously ... doesn't it seem to suffer the same fault? I'm merely pointing out that the idea, the failure to account fully for human nature within the context of the theory, can be applied elsewhere.

Thus, the inevitable question .... Does religion fully account for human nature? Faith itself might actually represent the intricacies of that human nature. Just as Communist slogans intended to increase production or bolster the workers' sense of individual satisfaction became modes of thought, actual methods of life ... what of the handy, inspirational slogans of any institutionalized religion?

I would continue, but the party of charging rhinoceri in my living room seem to preclude coherent thought. It actually took me fifteen minutes to get from "intitutionalized religion?" to "I would continue ...."

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Does religion fully account for human nature?

I have to say no. Its an ideal that we would LIKE human nature to become.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Wow the big questions !!!

Is religion a construct of faith?

Is faith a construct of human nature?

Is human nature a construct of ..........learning....upbringing....personality... .social class....politics....etc?

Is human nature individualistic or corprate and global? Is there a common thread along with each individuals traits?

Answers or thoughts anyone???


Tony H2o

Actually, Communism is a great analogy; I had personally made use of it in other posts. The point is that no type of faith provides long-term, reliable, and durable solutions. People love to think of religion and faith as sources of morality and lawfulness. But as Tiassa said, these same people tend to focus on the benefits and ignore the costs. Faith breeds tyranny and despotism, as surely as human nature is not angelic and never will be. Personally, I've always argued against any and all types of "faith" -- not only because such mental states are paradoxical, uncritical, and disingenuous, but also because they bring with them all the negatives of which the faithful prefer to feign oblivion.

Human nature in its essence demands universal skepticism and criticism in order for any society to achieve a high and stable degree of wellbeing. This is why freedom of speech, press, and expression is so valued in the west; this is why these freedoms were seen as crucial enough to incorporate into the U.S. constitution from the outset. Faith, on the other hand, breeds conformity and gullibility; as such it is a vestige of the past and an obtrusive guest who overstaid its welcome in the present. No doubt faith has played a crucial role in our history, unifying people on large scales to build magnificent empires and further civilization. However, such advances were also inescapably marred by tyranny, and I claim that such an arrangement was not coincidental as far as faith and its social dynamics are concerned. Nor, I should hope, is such an arrangement desirable now that we have experience of alternatives.

The sense of wonder and bemusement at life and the universe, at a minimum, will always be here to stay. However, no rational peoples should contort the unknown into myth, and equate the certainty of the myth with the certainty of the unknown. Be it for reasons social, mental, or emotional -- all arguments, in my view, converge toward the same conclusion.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Mornin' Fellas,

Can you have faith without the organized religion piece of it? Most certainly a resounding "YES, YOU CAN!"

Having true faith, that which many "church people" lack, comes directly from a personal relationship with Jesus. All you need is Him. Quite honestly, the Bible or the concept of "church" may bring you to Him, but once you KNOW Him, He supercedes them, explains them, and talks directly to you. I know that this must sound strange to those of you who don't know Him, but honestly, He talks to me, to my heart. Do you know what intuition is? That's Him too. That little voice. With some prayer and some faith, that little voice gets REAL LOUD. A lot of church goers don't practice this type of prayer, they don't listen, they think they don't need Him cause they know everything already. How utterly dangerous. I hope that helps some.

Also Rambler, the faith does account for human nature in it's entirety. There is the ideal, under which God made us, that which was "practiced" in the Garden before the fall. There is also sin, which is a genetic predisposition to be tempted by things which we were not meant to feel or do or think. Sin is anything less than the ideal. Sin is the "natural desires" or "natural inclinations" that we all have that we were not meant to have. That's why we're said to have two different parts to us, soul and flesh, and the flesh part is what tempts us. See? Like for example, if someone hurts you, your "natural" inclination would be to hate them, or to be angry with them, or to hurt them back, right? Well, WWJD? Turn the other cheek, and love them regardless. See how that goes? The same rules apply to everything else. I hope this helps. Have a great day!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Hi Lori,

to quote you:
"Also Rambler, the faith does account for human nature in it's entirety. There is the ideal, under which God made us, that which was "practiced" in the Garden before the fall. There is also sin, which is a genetic predisposition to be tempted by things which we were not meant to feel or do or think. Sin is anything less than the ideal. Sin is the "natural desires" or "natural inclinations" that we all have that we were not meant to have"

Why create us and make our NATURAL INCLINATIONS and NATURAL DESIRES sinful?????
If the police went around and got people dependent on heroin and then came around and arrested them for it would you hold some kind of contempt toward them, I sure as heck would. Its no different to christianity, i.e. everything thats attractive and desirable is gonna get you in the Sh%t with the ultimate authority....the idea of sin has to be a human concept. -- my opinion.

Do you believe the garden existed???

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

TonyH2o--

With the disclaimer that my answers are anything but definite (even for myself ... these things must evolve), I shall attempt to be brief in my answers to the questions you raised in your 2/24 post.


* Is religion a construct of faith?

I'll quote Rev Lovejoy ... short answer, "Yes" with an "if"; long answer "No," with a "but". Religion may be a construct of faith, but I would ask to extend that idea as follows with the next consideration ....

* Is faith a construct of human nature?

I think faith is inherent. Where it comes from is a source of debate, but I do believe that faith is inextricably linked to hope or despair. One may have faith in the best or worst of any issue. Why keep smiling? Because I have faith that Jesus is coming. Why be upset? Because I have faith that this or that process will go horribly wrong, because it has in the past. That sort of thing. Hope and despair are subjectively comparative ... I hope for something, I despair because of something. Faith, in a religious sense, is a manifestation of that hope, which is linked to a comparison of what we have and what we don't. I think religion (see previous question) is a construct of faith, inasmuch as faith reflects the perceived shortcomings of humanity. Here I look to part of Anselm's idea that we are imperfect ... compared to what? There must be something perfect; in other words, there must be something that offers what we, as humans, don't have. Faith in the religious sense is faith that we can attain that something ... in religion, that something is the "peace of God", or other such noble ideas.

* Is human nature a construct of ....learning .... upbringing .... personality .... social class .... politics .... etc?

I would assert the opposite. Human nature simply is. We are what God/the Universe/nature (circle one, as needed) creates. Except for personality, a primal inkling of which exists at birth, the rest of these ideas are artificial, and take place once the subject has entered the variable theater of life. That is to say that upbringing, learning, social class, politics ... all of these things would not exist were we not as nature has made us. To be more precise, these things would not exist as we know them. Presently, I would assert that Geography has much to do with human nature; that's a hard one to demonstrate, but I would start with something like: "I live in an area with many mountains and much water; I dislike open, flat places. Ahmed was born in a flat desert, and fears drowning in the river, and dislikes heights." We can start with that, and ask how simple, primal fears or fancies might affect how we perceive the world. If we can grasp simple ideas like one's initial surroundings and what impressions about the world said surroundings create, what happens then when we apply that idea of perception to the schizophrenic standards extant in any human society into which one might be born? We don't have to touch on homosexuality ... how does the simple difference between "sex in marriage only" and "sex for marital reproduction only" affect how people look at the world? Human nature simply is, beneath the veneer. Presently it has six-billion sets of individual considerations to affect its manifestation.

* Is human nature individualistic or corprate and global? Is there a common thread along with each individuals traits?

Little from Column A, little from Column B. Human nature craves dominion, hence we find our own self-obsessiveness. But human nature also dreads solitude. Whether this is protective or elective, we choose to come together in society. Perhaps even a century ago, it was possible to remove a person from society, but the modern influence is so pervasive that the assumptions at the moment of one's birth can be overwhelming. Human nature, I might assert (might ... might, might, might) is individualistic within the corporate manifestation. Sure, we like enriching ourselves tangibly, intellectually, or spiritually, but we expect that enrichment to be relevant to the rest of society. Perhaps a child molester feels his experience is enriching, but the rest of society sees a severe moral and spiritual defecit. I would say the common thread is our societal attachment, and our individual aspects work independently of each other inside it. But our independence depends on our cooperation, in a sense.

However, if we reach back beyond that, to our primal human nature, I would assert that these questions are irrelevant. We cannot call our primal nature good or evil because we don't have a working definition. Certainly we have convention ... but no grand universal paradigm. Essentially, once we know we are part of the process (human nature), we change our fundamental relationship to that process, thus changing the perspective from which we view it, which changes our basic assumptions about human nature. It's kind of like God in the sense that I don't think human nature can be discovered without nullifying itself in some way.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Lori,

You are missing the point, as usual.



Can you have faith without the organized religion piece of it? Most certainly a resounding "YES, YOU CAN!"


The question was not addressed to you personally, nor indeed to anyone personally. The question concerns humanity and civilization as a whole. As you personally stated (and I'm paraphrasing here), vast numbers of "Christians" don't really 'get' their faith, and this is the source of all the evil associated with faith. My claim is that such a sorry state of affairs is inescapable, inevitable, indeed undeniably mandated by a wide-spread currency of faith. You have to learn to separate your own utopian ideals from the reality of the human situation; as I've said before and will say again, you are committing the same mistake that the Communists committed in Russia early last century.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 24, 2000).]

Boris,

Well then, you're wrong. It works the same way for everyone who wants it to, and if they want God's will to be done, then they'd better give a listen real hard to what He says to them. Period. That's the way it works, the only reason you don't understand is because you've never experienced it.

Rambler,

God didn't make us this way. He made us perfect, and we entered into a volutary genetic manipulation by Satan. That is the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Does that clarify better? The struggle between the soul and the flesh is a HUGE message in the faith. Does that help?

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori--

re: your words--"God didn't make us this way. He made us perfect, and we entered into a volutary genetic manipulation by Satan."

Most "Satan theories", if I might be allowed to employ the term here, fall victim to a certain logical paradox; namely that in order for the Satan figure to possess the power or influence described, an effect of that endowment is a reduction of the power or fluctuation in the immutability of God.

Various well-intentioned quests for better knowledge of God have resulted in declarations of heresy. For instance--and an example I've used at this forum recently--the Cathar heresies addressed by the Fourth Lateran Council were declared heretical mostly on the basis of the Cathar relationship to Manichean dualism. Where the heresy arose was in the perception that, if creation is divided into two worlds--one of light and one of darkness--the Cathar formula described conditions where the Devil operated independently of God, which suggests either a portion of creation which God did not create, or a limitation of God's power within the kingdom of darkness.

What I'm hoping to demonstrate with this is that any Devil-figure in a universe created by God must be carefully balanced according to the Divine will.

I would also hope to ask you about the "voluntary genetic pact" ... I'm quite sure you've been through it before, but forgive me, please, if I missed it. You make many statements about Satan, and the perceptions thereof by people at this forum. But I'm wondering whether your regard for Satan presents any of the intellectual challenges which have plagued most, if not all, theological analyses of the Devil. Of course, those theological analyses tried to balance certain of the intellectual challenges, such as making the Devil responsible for evil while exonerating the Devil's creator for creating him so.

Part of the problem is this: if the religious visions and paranormal episodes we see described occasionally in this forum are to bear any weight, then the simple truth is that the Devil's happy to drink with me. The Devil I met is far different from the Devil I hear described in this forum; much more subtle, much more effective, much more abstract. And the kicker is that the Old Guy isn't even concerned about most of the "sins" Christians fight against. After all, the market economy of six billion human souls on a planet requires grander chaos than individual temptation can provide. The Devil I met is participating in something we call--among people--a "human tragedy" (angelic tragedy?). A fight he must have for reasons he does not know, except to cease the fight is to cease to be. People generate their own evil, and the more subtly the Devil can manifest it for them, the more willing they are to corrupt themselves. Hey, I can offer a kid candy all I want. They have to be willing to take it--that, at least, if I apply the theological sense of justice to the living. Frankly, I just can't be that angry with that sensible a guy. And I'll tell you something for certain: I've been a Christian; I choose not to be because the scheme seems a lie to me; but my opinion is at least based on my experiences. When was the last time you actively worked in league with Satan? How can you know the least bit about him if all you consider is propaganda generated by one side of the fight? And especially when, as Christian philosophy seems to enjoy, the fight is only taking place to satisfy the one side of the fight?

How many sins, sorcerous acts, and so forth, have eventually come to be accepted in society, not because of tolerance in general, but because their unperceived value began to manifest itself? Why not skip the idea of waiting for morality and philosophy to profit us individually?

Certainly, the Devil may advocate some pretty odd things ... but herein we find another small paradox: Take the accusations of heretical sexual orgies, for instance. We know these are biologically dangerous, even in today's world of medical marvels. If we apply a scientific regard to acts of sin, then we eventually find that we must eliminate some acts which we find sinful; if, however, we look beyond the scientific danger, we encounter moral reasons to avoid orgies, and moral reasons are artificial constructions relative to the data available at the time of consideration. Both of these results are generally unacceptable in the Christian theatre, institutional or otherwise. The Devil I met merely encouraged the refutation of artificial standards, and an alignment of morality with practicable knowledge. One need not fear Hell to say no to carnal chaos ... one need only weigh the pleasures against the risks; needlessly subjecting oneself to counterproductive risks seems to be a quick way to irritate God. But the Devil I met ... when people obey God out of fear, it makes that Devil's job easy.

FTR, these are the conversations with the Devil that inspired me to abandon Satanism. The magnitude of the Dark One's ambition frightened me some, but there was also a sense that choosing one of the two sides offered simply did nothing toward making the universe right.

But this all took place in high school. I recall it now merely because it was, most certainly, an interesting time (in both senses, the good sense and the Chinese sense). I've always regarded those conversations with the Devil as a psychiatric tantrum thrown by a boxed, frustrated conscience. But that's the thing: that's how I think of other people's religious visions. So, if we're to count any of those revelations as valid, then I submit this to you ... you think you know the Devil. I know him well.

And the secret he taught me is that none of us have to fight. It's just because we don't know any better that we do.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Lori,

I'm sorry, "genetic manipulation" by Satan?!? Boy, that's a good one! One never gets tired of your divine wisdom...

But more to the point of our discussion -- are you so blind to history as to summarily deny it? Has not the 2,000 years of Christianity alone been enough illustration for everything that goes wrong with faith? Are you so irresponsible and self-absorbed as to push for your utopia even in the face of redundant proof that 1) such utopias are not workable, and 2) such a push results, down the road, in widespread harm to others?

Lori, it doesn't matter whether everyone is intrinsically capable of understanding or sharing your faith. What matters, is that even though people may be capable of it, in their vast majority they will simply not reach that potential. Some will deliberately transgress for utilitarian reasons, others will simply not achieve a deep enough understanding, yet others will espouse faiths that clash, and, by far most insidious of all, yet others will simply take advantage of the faith to gain control and power with no regard for the faith's real intent. All of this has happened, again and again, in varied societies and cultures, in distinct countries, across many religions, for millennia on end. And as long as faith keeps driving people's lives, the mistakes of the past will keep repeating themselves. The only way out is to learn from those mistakes the one valuable lesson -- discard faith altogether, and you get rid of a powerful carcinogen, significantly reducing future risks of cancer.

Please note that when I talk about faith, I am not talking about hope, optimism, or social responsibility. By 'faith' I mean the unconditional trust in people's ability to restrain, motivate, and control themselves according to prescribed principles. Under this definition, Communism fits just as closely as does Christianity or any other faith system.

Basically, you are trying to argue from the viewpoint that people are intrinsically good, and thus will live righteous lives given a proper environment and education. I, on the other hand, argue from the viewpoint that people are inherently egotistical, lazy, greedy, and even often malicious in exhibiting those traits. Neither of these views is correct in an absolute sense, since both are extremist; there indeed are pious and decent people, and there indeed are true thugs. However, my operational viewpoint is the more realistic one, because it assumes from the outset that whenever things can socially go wrong, they will find a way to do it.

And then the question becomes, how do we make it as difficult as possible for things to go wrong? The only satisfactory answer is open objectivity, scrutiny, criticism, auditing, reason and logic. The fewer social structurs or principles are governed by emotional or political whims, the more robust a system will be. It is much easier for the puppetmasters of the world to twist and manipulate vague feelings and contradictory intuitions inherent in faith, than it is for them to confront logic with logic.

As I've said before, the social motivations for my criticism of faith are not all that complex. Anyone with a good background in history should find it very hard to argue against this. But my reasons for trampling all over faith are many and varied, and not just motivated by history. As I've shown before, faith is thoroughly paradoxical and illogical; as such it is an impediment to mental function. Faith breeds a reliance on authority in a sense that the anscients are somehow considered to be more wise than the moderns. And, faith is always a conservative drag on any process of reform, thereby combating progress on many fronts.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 25, 2000).]

As I've shown before, faith is thoroughly paradoxical and illogical; as such it is an impediment to mental function. Faith breeds a reliance on authority in a sense that the anscients are somehow considered to be more wise than the moderns. And, faith is always a conservative drag on any process of reform, thereby combating progress on many fronts.

You are an atheist, aren't you? Given your generalizations about the dangers of utopian thinking, what makes you think that an atheistic utopia would be less dangerous than any other ideology? Hitler held some of the same type of elitist views y'know!

The evolutionary theory and atheism go hand-in-hand. Evolution was born out of atheism. The entire purpose of the evolutionary theory was to answer the question of origins without acknowledging a creator. Look at the pioneers of evolution. All of them were atheists. The foundation of evolution was to support atheism. If the foundation is faulty, nothing else matters. You cannot realistically separate evolution from atheism. Evolution teaches people that they are products of chance. They were not designed with a purpose and there is no creator in which we are accountable to. The leading modern preacher of evolution is Richard Dawkins. He said that he believes that atheism is the only logical deduction from evolution.

Every cell, every organ, every organism, every biological function points to detailed design. Every part living processes is so interdependent that anything outside of careful, purposeful design becomes absurd. Sagan once said that each cell contains enough data to fill up one million volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Much research has proven that if one function of the cell is removed, the interdependent processes will cease to function and the cell will die. Logic drives us to conclude that if one million volumes of data must be present to sustain life, then everything had to be present at the formation of the cell and had to be added at the exact same instant. There are not numeric odds big enough to sustain these 'by chance' phenomena. Design must be concluded.

Many people try to believe both creation and evolution. This idea began to become popular when the 'Gap Theory' was popularized. If you are not familiar with the Gap theory, it is a theory that there is unwritten history lies between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Some 'gappers' believe a gap lies between some of the creation stages. The reality is that there is absolutely no scriptural basis at all for any gap. Christians began to turn to alternative creation doctrines when evolutionary 'sciences' became popular. Believing that the facts were against creation, people began to search for ways to marry evolution and creation. This was especially true when the so-called missing links began to be announced. Every missing link has since been disproven. Most curriculums continue to teach the links as fact either out of ignorance or out of denial. One thing I have discovered through many conversations with evolutionist and atheist is that they are ignorant of evolution science. What evolution scientists and researchers have acknowledged as misinformation or theories that have been proven false, the average person still believes as though it were gospel.

Christians as a whole, do a terrible job of defending creation. The evidence presented by the vast majority of Christians usually contains faith answers. I see arguments in response to atheists, "You just have to have faith", or "It is not our place to question, only to believe".

Christian scientists founded almost every major science. Now the argument is that Christians can't reason but only think in terms of faith. God has provided us with logic, reason and inquisitive minds. It is not a sin to use these tools. Viewing all the evidence drives you back to creation. Christians I have met are often afraid of the evidence because of the fear that the Bible will be proven wrong. Atheists are afraid of the evidence because it undermines their self-lordship doctrines. Atheists toss out any information that does not support evolution or they over simplify it to make it sound like it fits the evolution model.

Evolutionists accuse Christians of not knowing the facts. Many times this is true. I have concluded that both sides are guilty of ignorance reguarding the facts. The difference is that atheists/evolutionists do a much better job of intimidation than Christians do. Atheists are very quick to call themselves intellectual and have their cannons loaded with a handful of facts. When you begin to dig in, you find that atheists are completely clueless as well. Most do not know why they believe, they only repeat what they hear or they consult infidel.org or some of the other atheist information centers. The problem with this information is the simplistic reasoning. Evolution always begins at a complex starting point and goes from there. If you can stop the argument from going forward and target questions back to 'how did you get at this starting point?' we find the argument crumbles very quickly. When you dig into the grass roots of creation, they have no explanations. Every atheist will immediately jump to intimidation and name calling when questioned on the logical level. This is their only defense because evolution does not add up.

Evolution springs from a lack of knowledge. It can only survive with missing pieces. The more information included in the discussion, the more leaks the evolutionary argument springs. Evolution's greatest weapon is ignorance of Christians. Most people (Christians included) accept evolution at face value. When we toss out the argument of simplicity and really begin to look at how this design could happen by chance, there is absolutely no logic that points to evolution.

You know, Cisco, the Catholic Church finally figured out that it could reconcile evolution with the god of their tradition. As many people at this forum like to remind us, church institutions are usually slow to figure these things out.

After all, one of the major weekly magazines (I think it was Time) ran a cover story several years back proclaiming a scientist had found evolutionary evidence of an anthropological "Eve". The assertion had to do with a specific genetic sequence that seemed to occur in all women. I've heard little bits and pieces about it since, but nothing remarkable. The point being that only you can prevent evolution from fitting into God's universe.

Furthermore, you wrote: "Evolution teaches people that they are products of chance. They were not designed with a purpose and there is no creator in which we are accountable to. The leading modern preacher of evolution is Richard Dawkins. He said that he believes that atheism is the only logical deduction from evolution."

Two things strike me about this. First, I suppose Mr Dawkins is entitled to that opinion, but somebody please establish the actual connection between evolution and atheism/God. Specifically, I'm wondering why evolution and the Creation myth are so darned incompatible. Are we reading the Bible literally here, word for word? Then we can start with which creation myth is right and which one never happened. The other part of that is that to conclude such things about evolution as you have--that people are products of chance, have no purpose, and no principle (creator) to account to ... well, I suppose you're entitled to that opinion, and I actually don't object to it except for the fact that not everybody who believes in evolutionary principles thinks that way. Some of us have no problem fitting evolution into the Divine Mystery.

* The universe operates around a careful balance of matter and energy; if the universe is infinite, then matter and energy have an infinite liberty in their minglings. Evolution, on a universal scale, must necessarily get around to a combination of matter and energy that creates the conditions that cause life as we know it.

* As to having a purpose ... well, I think we need to know quite a bit more about the universe we live in ... rather, what do we know of God's creation? Well, it's huge. There's a whole heck of a lot of it out there, and we've seen very little of it. I think we probably should make part of our purpose discovering enough of the universe to know what our purpose is. I'm quite secure about the fact that I won't live to see the resolution of that determining of purpose. But it seems a better waste of money that wars, pro sports, or drinking jungle juice from a wastebasket every Saturday night.

* As to a creationary principle to which we are accountable? Well, it doesn't seem like a good idea to dominate the planet right out of its biodiversity ... that endangers our fragile station in the grand scheme. We could, simply, evolve right out of the universe, a simple hiccup in the cosmic dance. It seems that life is our creationary principle ... we could amuse ourselves infinitely by working toward the perpetuity of the human race if we start having fun in the universe. One of the NASA sites (JPL, I think) had a quote from e e cummings that read "There's a marvelous universe out there; let's go!" or something to that effect (anyone? anyone? I have no cummings on my shelf--Hey! It's a Weekend Quest! :) )

Also ... I'm a little dubious about the claim that Christian scientists founded almost every major science. Algebra came from Persia, and what prehistorical society didn't have its own oral tradition of alchemy (chemistry) and healing (biology and basic medical knowledge--Latin American empires were performing appendectomies and other minor surgeries when the Conquistadores arrived) and could early astronomers have gone forward without the catalogs of celestial bodies compiled by pagan (and early Christian) astrologers? Intricate physical calculations were required in Egypt and preColumbian Latin America to build pyramids. (While we're on the subject of Latin American empires, anyone know what they would be retaining electricity in batteries for?)

I must admit that from various Christian empires certain disciplines arose from preexisting bases of knowledge. However, we might also remember that even the greatest Christian scientists were often feared by the church and by their everyday Christian brethren.

You wrote: "When you dig into the grass roots of creation, they have no explanations. Every atheist will immediately jump to intimidation and name calling when questioned on the logical level."

What constitutes the logical level? That's an important definition to get out of the way. And I'm sure there are belligerent atheists (too bad y'all can't still burn 'em at the stake, eh?), but I'm also recalling videotape I just saw recently on The Daily Show of a Christian televangelist pulling a .357 from his briefcase and instructing his assistant to shoot a protester to death. ("Here, shut his yap with this.") Along that same notion, my aunt, during her time with the Missouri Synod, kicked her 19 year-old daughter out of the house; not for the MIP, not for getting caught in a hotel room with a thirty year-old, but for seeing the film Last Temptation of Christ.

Ask a scientist how the Big Bang came about. "Stay tuned," is the answer you get.
Ask a creationist where God came from. "Ummm ... he didn't come from anywhere. Yeah. He just was, y'know? He's like, not into that freaky time stuff. He is the Alpha and the Omega, y'know? The beginning and the end, man." But if he's, like, not into that freaky time, stuff, what constitutes a beginning and an end?

What I'm after there is that there is always one more layer of question to peel away. It's a Russian doll and a Pandora's box ... the infinite doll of questions. You can always ask "Why?" or "How?" one more time. The Universe is between 12 and 20 billion years old. Of course, we've only known that for a few decades out of those billions. I'd say we've got a lot to learn about how the universe works before I can assume that a badly translated copy of a millennia-old story that I can find at arm's reach from the bed of an hourly-rate motel actually holds the keys to the origin of the universe.

Oh, you wrote: "Evolution springs from a lack of knowledge. It can only survive with missing pieces."

There is so much wrong with those statements, I'll leave them be, except to say that I'll be grinning until Judgement Day about 'em. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 26, 2000).]

Perhaps a definition of terms would help:

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory. It is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. Here, I will explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. The Peppered Moth is highly proclaimed by evolutionist as proof of evolutionary change changed from white with dark spots to dark with white spots when their white camouflage was darkened by soot and pollution. However, it is not a permanent change. The Peppered moth quickly returned to its original white color when the environment changed. That is how micro-evolution functions. There are two plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This is only a theory and has no supporting facts. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicate a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders that have been dated to pre-historic times and are identical to modern day spiders. There are two critical flaws in the theory that change is gradual: Dysfunctional change and the DNA code barrier.

1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.

This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and we know this is not the case. This also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blue-print of the traits that organism will have. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals, therefore there are a limited number of traits variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create a distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of some great examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory of gradual changes in species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left to themselves, his pigeons returned back to the plain looking rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never saw was that there was a natural barrier that slowed change after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with evolution the DNA ceiling poses is disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are breed to bring out their desired features, often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left to themselves, species will soon return to the norm.

These issues render change by micro-evolution impossible thus leaving macro-evolution as the only stand that evolutionists can take, and all the evidence clearly disputes the concept of macro-evolution. The fossil records show zero gradual change. Species in existence today show no change from the fossil that supposedly date back hundreds of millions of years. Interdependency also renders evolution an impossibility. Nature is filled with species that are completely dependent on other species. If one species cannot survive without another, evolution becomes an illogical deduction. There are also interdependencies between plants and animals. If a plant is dependent on an animal and an animal is dependent on that specific plant, the two would have to emerge from the evolutionary change at the exact same time and place. One generation later is too late.

Don’t mistake micro-evolution for evolution. They are not related. When I say I do not believe in evolution, it is not a reference to changes in specific traits (micro-evolution). It is a reference to changes that require crossing the DNA limitations (macro-evolution). There is a problem when evolutionist refer to Christians as non-thinkers because they are questioning an illogical theory. Critical analysis is not un-intellectual, but refusing to reason is.

Eddie Snipes

Cisco,



Given your generalizations about the dangers of utopian thinking, what makes you think that an atheistic utopia would be less dangerous than any other ideology? Hitler held some of the same type of elitist views y'know!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Hitler not use a Christianic pretext to claim that the Arian people are the true sons of God? Did Hitler not single out Jews because "they betrayed Christ", or "they reject Christ"? Also, I would appreciate it if you enumerated the "elitist" views that Hitler and I share, or explain why if Hitler holds some view that view must automatically be wrong or evil (especially if the view didn't originate with Hitler)?

Finally, I'd love to hear why you think my atheist views are utopian. I am not asking for 100% of the population to become atheist (in fact, that's probably impossible) -- all I'm asking is for the vast majority to become atheist. As far as I know, there hadn't been all that many historical precedents for this, other than the pseudo-Communist dictatorships of the last and this century. However, these regimes mix oligarchy or dictatorship, their own special form of collectivist utopia, and atheism (which actually plays a relatively minor role in the grand scheme of things in these regimes, of keeping religious authority from interfering or indeed emergening), so you can't claim that their failures stem from atheism and not from Communism (which is something altogether different), lack of freedoms of expression/speech/press, or from lack of democracy, or from a lack of, or dysfunctional implementation of, Checks and Balances.

<hr>

As for your objections to evolution, etc.:

You are totally off topic on this thread. If you want to discuss evolution, may I point out that there already exist threads where your arguments have been largely covered. For future reference, please go over the archives, or at least try to search for and read specific people's postings, before attacking their points and repeating all the same mistakes that other people have made before you.

I will not replicate everything I had written before on the topics of evolution, creationism, reductionism, materialism and atheism. (Yes, I am indeed an atheist, as is well known to anyone on this board who has been around for even a month.) Instead, I will point you toward some of the threads where I address your arguments in depth. If you have something to add, please add to those threads, so that our conversation can be more contiguous, fruitful and complete. Check out <A HREF="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000006.html">this thread</A> for discussion of evolution vs. creationism. For discussion of lack of logic in religion, see <A HREF="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000175.html">this thread</A>. These don't represent everything I've ever said on these issues, but they are a start.

Also, I don't see you explicitly disagreeing with the points I actually made in this thread (regarding the ill-effects of utopianism and faith.) Does that mean that, aside from a creative inference to evolution, you see no flaw in what I've written here? Just curious.

P.S. You did make some interesting arguments against evolution that I hadn't addressed before. If you would care to re-post them on the <A HREF="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000006.html">"Evolution vs. Creation"</A> thread, then I'll answer them in detail.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 27, 2000).]

With respect to "Utopian thinking" - Boris - my point is that if utopian thinking in general is to be considered dangerous, then so it should be for all utopian thinking, including yours:


-- discard faith altogether, and you get rid of a powerful carcinogen, significantly reducing future risks of cancer.

Notice your use of the word "altogether" - meaning entirely or completely. Hence, the reasonable conclusion of utopian thinking. I now see from your explanation that "altogether" is not what you really meant to say.

While we're on the subject, I would like to know how you concluded that the previous poster's thinking was utopian? (Is it because she referenced what she apparently believes to be the ideal state of sinlessness at the beginning of creation? If so, please note that unlike Hitler, it does not appear that she called for the elimination of anything to further a utopian ideology.)

With respect to having the same "type" of elitist thinking as Hitler, the similarity is in the "elitist" thinking. I will paraphrase to compare:

Hitler: The Aryan race is intellectually superior to the Jewish race. Jews are like a cancer, reducing the intellectual capacity of the world. To solve this problem, eliminate Jews.

Boris: Being an atheist is intellectually superior to having faith "-- discard faith altogether, and you get rid of a powerful carcinogen, significantly reducing future risks of cancer."

In general, I disagree with your statement concerning utopianism and "faith" - as I would consider extreme "utopian" ideologies forced upon nations (with or without faith) to be dangerous.

Although this topic had nothing to do with utopian thinking, intellectual inferiority/superiority or elimination of faith, you chose to bring these issues up here.

Among other things, in this thread, you made typical atheistic elitist inferences that those of faith had diminished mental capacity with the inability to reason or think logically. Therefore, in order to refute those inferences, I chose to discuss the theory of evolution in this thread. Why? Because this is the very same faulty theory which the supposedly intellectually superior atheists concocted in an attempt to support their theory that there is no God. My purpose was to demonstrate the lack of logic in that theory, thereby refuting the elitist claim of intellectual superiority.

If you did not want such statements refuted in this thread, then you should have made such claims under another topic.

My second set of statements explaining micro versus macro-evolution was to clarify what was meant by evolution in my first post for another poster. Feel free to respond to what you consider to be my "interesting arguments" here or anywhere else you choose if you desire to respond at all.

Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited February 27, 2000).]

Cisco,



While we're on the subject, I would like to know how you concluded that the previous poster's thinking was utopian?


Well, a lot of it has to do with posts elsewhere, but here's a sample: 'Can you have faith without the organized religion piece of it? Most certainly a resounding "YES, YOU CAN!"' And, as Lori subsequently explained, this was not a personal statement, but meant to apply to the world at large. Tony H2O was talking along the same lines, differentiating faith from religion -- and hence, I presumed, was also promoting faith on its merits without considering its detriments.

Utopian thinking generally considers exclusively the benefits, and fails to consider the costs or the ways in which a situation can deteriorate. I asked you to explain in what way my argument was utopian; you seemed to understand it in a sense that utopia=absolutism. I don't think so. Absolutism is not necessarily bad, although I would never argue for a forced absolutism; it would go against freedom of thought and communication. But when I ask you to explain in what way my thinking is utopian, I need for you to point out the flaws. What are the costs of atheism? How can atheism go haywire, and if it can, in what ways can it do so that faith can't? In my view, atheism has no (or at the very least fewer) intrinsic costs to it as opposed to faith. So, prove me wrong!



Hitler: The Aryan race is intellectually superior to the Jewish race. Jews are like a cancer, reducing the intellectual capacity of the world. To solve this problem, eliminate Jews.

Boris: Being an atheist is intellectually superior to having faith "-- discard faith altogether, and you get rid of a powerful carcinogen, significantly reducing future risks of cancer."


I must admit, a very apt comparison. Made me think a bit... But I don't quite believe the similarity is as striking as you want it to be. The real issue is not superiority, it's propriety. The question is: are we going to use our intellect, or abuse it? Also, what would you think of the following statement: Democracy is socially superior to Feudalism; eliminate Feudalism and you open up a Renaissance of progress. This is the sence in which I address elimination of religion in this forum -- lack of religion is fundamentally better for society than the converse. Or at least that is my claim. You may think it elitist, but since you clearly disagree, your own position is no less elitist than mine -- the only real difference is that I am in the minority. But beyond qualitative characterizations, what real rebuttals do you offer against my position?



In general, I disagree with your statement concerning utopianism and "faith" - as I would consider extreme "utopian" ideologies forced upon nations (with or without faith) to be dangerous.


You mean to say that you disagree with the notion that faith in itself is utopian, and that it is a convenient hook for political or ideological manipulation? Any particular reasons why?



you made typical atheistic elitist inferences that those of faith had diminished mental capacity with the inability to reason or think logically. Therefore, in order to refute those inferences, I chose to discuss the theory of evolution in this thread.


That claim was rather not related to evolution, although quite a few of the creationist challenges to evolution definitely fit under that characterization you mentioned. To see a direct attack on logical grounds, browse the <A HREF="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000175.html">Contradictions</A> thread -- that particular logical angle has nothing to do with evolution, I promise. C'mon, browse it, I dare you!

And fine, if you won't go the distance, I'm going to extract your relevant points for you, and discuss them in the Evolution vs. Creation thread. But if you choose to reply, I still invite you to read the other postings on that thread first. (But man, talk about resurrection -- that thread has been dead for months!)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Whoa, I barely finish typing up the reply, and there you go posting into the Evolution vs. Creation thread. All rightie then!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Cisco,

I've just read something under Evolution vs. Creation that you posted, that really gets on my nerves. Especially after what I've already said (and you presumably read) right here!



The second note I feel which is often omitted is that there is a much greater example of atrocities than that which is found in the inquisition. In this century, it is the atheistic governments of the world that have been found to commit far greater violations against humanity. The Soviet block countries were founded upon atheism. Stalin killed millions of people each year during his reign of terror, as did those who followed him. The most oppressed society in history was built upon atheism. The claims of the communist officials was that if God was banished from society that utopia would result. (Reminds me of Boris). The claims Stalin and his followers made are still being proclaimed by atheist today. They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil and if God is removed, society will benefit. Did society benefit? Half of Europe prospered; half of Europe spiraled into unprecedented widespread poverty. Atheism was the impoverished half. So where is the utopia? It does not and cannot exist on this earth and a society void of God suffers beyond all others. If you don’t think that is a true statement, look at all the communist countries. Is there one that has not suffered? Compare communist failures to America where Christianity and freedom of religion has thrived for the most part and so has prosperity.


Ok, let's see. So, the "Soviet block countries were founded upon atheism."???? Is that what they were founded on? Where did you study your history? These countries were founded on military Communism, not on atheism! Atheism was but a sideline! And lest you imply that dictatorships don't arise under Christian auspices, what about the Holy Roman Empire? And lest you imply that Christian values prevent atrocities, what about the genocides in Africa and Indonesia?

"They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil"??!!! WHO claims that? I'd like to hear of ONE notable person who claims that!

You are confusing military communism with atheism! Do communist countries have three branches of government? Do communist countries have freedom of communication? Do communist countries have term limits? Do communist countries engage in democracy? Do communist countries provide reward commensurate to accomplishment? But it's THOSE institutions that gave the West its prosperity. NOT Christianity. That's why the West only became prosperous in the last century and a half, and not a thousand years ago. And none of those institutions I mentioned are prescribed by Christianity. And none of them are in contradiction with atheism. In fact, these institutions had come into existence precisely because of a philosophical development that stipulated people in general to be bad instead of fundamentally good -- a rather atheistic assumption, I should say!. The west had learned the lessons of history, and good for the West! The Communist countries got sucked down into a chase of Marxist utopia having nothing to do with atheism (the point being that Communism stands without atheism just as it does with it.) If you want to see semi-functional communism in action, then take a look at the Israeli kibbutzim. <u>That's</u> what Communism is about -- not that it's a particularly workable idea, and not that <u>any</u> of the "Communist" nations out there actually come even close to trying to implement it.

So stop insinuating that atheism results in failure! You are drawing a completely uneducated and unfounded inference. You are mudslinging!! In fact, historically there has been little precedent to judge how certain forms of government coupled with faith function compared to the same forms of government coupled with atheism. But certainly where it concerns dictatorships, faith or no faith they seem to function just as well. I assume that will also be the case for democracy. I.e. none of the costs, and all of the benefits sort of thing. Utopian? You tell me why! What are the costs of <u>atheism</u>?

<hr>

BTW, you cited how women are maltreated in China, and that with Christian values that wouldn't happen. China has a severe overpopulation problem. And I think that their birth control policy, if not particularly elegant or humanly implemented, is justified. Would you rather have a high birthrate in a poor country of 1.2 billion, and have periodic starve-and-die spells like in North Korea?

China is only a glimpse of things to come globally. Overpopulation definitely is becoming a problem, and will become a painful one by mid-century. Even the "Christian" nations will have to establish some sort of birth limits. Indeed, to do otherwise would be both brainless and inhumane.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 27, 2000).]

Hi Again,
Wow I've missed alot over the weekend. I don't intend to hold back your debate but to understand some of the posted replies to me I have to ask the christain element in the debate how they approach their beliefs.

Do you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the teachings or do you approach the teachings as a phylosophical/moral guide to your faith. This is an open question to all but I will single out Lori (sorry -- I'm just trying to illustrate my question) when you make arguments like man being created perfect and then being corupted by Satan in the garden of eden do you actually think the Garden of eden existed or is this a metaphorical description of man straying from God and persuing his/her own (sinful) needs?

The problem I am faced with is this: The Vantican recentley stated the official views of Heaven and Hell as being states of mind. This idea seems to align itself with a more phylisophical view of faith rather than a literal one, or is this an attempt to prolong its existance in a world that seems to be less needy of colective organised religion.

Other dilemers:
Did we create Gods (christain or otherwise) out of a genetically coded need to survive, i.e. we are all aware of our mortality however evolution has seen to it that the very reason we survive and flourish is because our brain and body will do everything to survive, so do we hold on to religion for the comfort of an idea of an afterlife, or was the common human need for an afterlife the result of a genetic code put in place by our creator?

Creation vs Evolution,

I know theres a thread for this but I thought I'd put it here since most of the people on that thread a re here too.

Well to take a somewhat clinical view of the situation evolution is still going, why do we see species adapt to environments today instead of them just being "created" equiped with what the species needs to survive?

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Tiassa and others,

I've been working on answers to my own questions but decided that in the mix of answers that followed it dosen't matter what I say because each person has their own answers.

This then leads me to ask... How do you know your answers are right??

Tiassa I think took the most time out to answer the questions without getting caught up in the slamming that so often ocurres here. In doing so she touched on some very interesting things:

Quote: Here I look to part of Anselm's idea that we are imperfect ... compared to what? There must be something perfect; in other words, there must be something that offers what we, as humans, don't have. Faith in the religious sense is faith that we can attain that something ... in religion, that something is the "peace of God", or other such noble ideas.

I think what she has shown here by working through the questions is a conclussion that we are imperfect. Our human nature falls short of the ideal, but what is the ideal? What is that perfect thing we chase after and vainly try to attain? Can we ever achieve this perfection? Can we achieve it in our own strength and by our own ability?

I think that what Tiassa said is fairly close to the mark: "Faith in the religious sense is faith that we can attain that something ..."

I also think that what Lori said (even though some think she's nuts) about fallen nature has something to do with our quest for this perfection. From a Christian perspective we strive to achieve what we once
had... Perfection. However in our own strength I do not believe we can achieve it, and so we turn to faith.

For the Christian its an acknowledgement of their own short comings, a realisation that we have fallen short of the plan that the perfect one had for us. It takes the form of faith, something very personal and special that is almost impossible to put into words. For the non believer the realisation is the same as Tiassa has pointed out and asked..What perfection? What standard?

For me as a Christian I have found a standard, knowing what I have seen, knowing what has been shown to me, knowing the truth and the frustration of not being aptly able to convey it to others.

Having faith to me goes beyond a construct of religion, beyond a construct of emotion, beyond a construct of social and political influences....it surpasses the questions and gives me an assurance that is beyond description. Its the answer to the longing of my heart, not my head. And this is what makes it difficult to describe to people like Boris, Bowser, T6, Dude, Oxy etc. They want intellectual answers, and well being honest fair enough. But don't let the intellect cloud the cry of your heart, that cry that surfaces when your alone in a crowded room. You know the feeling, surrounded by a sea of people but no one sees. That's the cry that He hears, that's the longing and the void that only He can fill... and He will if only we ask.


"in religion, that something is the "peace of God", or other such noble ideas."

"in faith, that something is the "peace and love of God", there is no more noble idea."

Anyway I've gone off and rammbled again...

Take care

H2o

Boris,



I'm sorry, "genetic manipulation" by Satan?!? Boy, that's a good one! One never gets
tired of your divine wisdom...

Uh, Boris, what do we KNOW about how we are "made"? What do we KNOW scientifically about why we are what we are, from the most tiny part of a cell, to the most complex emotion? Uh, yea, that's right, it's in our genes. And I know that no one gets tired of it, that's why they read it. At least I don't just regurgitate a bunch of seven syllable words out of some stupid text book at them. :) Love ya.


But more to the point of our discussion -- are you so blind to history as to summarily
deny it? Has not the 2,000 years of Christianity alone been enough illustration for
everything that goes wrong with faith? Are you so irresponsible and self-absorbed as
to push for your utopia even in the face of redundant proof that 1) such utopias are
not workable, and 2) such a push results, down the road, in widespread harm to
others?

Boris, are you so ignorant of the faith itself to think that I would actually want to try to "enforce" some utopian socialist society?????????? Why?????? You aren't getting this so focus harder please. I'm not saying that we should all ENFORCE some dictated utopian society. What I'm saying is this....if you want to know what's "wrong" with the world, then hypothetically remove the sin from it. The sin that's defined as such in the Bible. Judgementalism is one of them, so don't forget that one, it's a biggie, particularly among Christians. The "utopia" that you come up with is the state of existence described in Genesis before the fall of man. We don't have a way to "fix" ourselves. There is no "fix", we are destined to be flawed on this earth, and in this life. What could have happened that perpetuated this change in condition? A voluntary genetic manipulation. Our faith is not a "fix", it's a way to cope. It's an understanding. A perspective. Christians often assume that if they go to church or even if they get saved, that they are "fixed". That's where the judgementalism and the blind faith come from. They often do not realize that they are just as much sinners then as they were before. The only difference is that they know why, and they know to ask Jesus for forgiveness for them. It doesn't mean that they don't sin anymore. Natural urges are what's called "temptation" in the Bible. Hmmmm Boris, where do we KNOW that our natural urges come from? Could it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........DNA???? Bet you thought I was gonna say Satan didn't you. Hee, hee. Well, the genetic manipulation was suggested and perpetuated by him that's for sure, so there, I wouldn't want you to be disappointed. It's just this....if you are AWARE of how God actually made us to be, and you are AWARE of what sin is and why and it's effect, and you are AWARE of what is good and pure and it's effect, it's just helps you to make better decisions, and to understand your pain, and to have some flippin' peace of mind. Boris, the utopia is IMPOSSIBLE. It's absolutely impossible, and that is what the Bible says. But that doesn't mean that is not what God intended for us. It's only impossible due to the fall. Is this helping any????


Lori, it doesn't matter whether everyone is intrinsically capable of understanding or
sharing your faith. What matters, is that even though people may be capable of it, in
their vast majority they will simply not reach that potential. Some will deliberately
transgress for utilitarian reasons, others will simply not achieve a deep enough
understanding, yet others will espouse faiths that clash, and, by far most insidious of
all, yet others will simply take advantage of the faith to gain control and power with
no regard for the faith's real intent. All of this has happened, again and again, in
varied societies and cultures, in distinct countries, across many religions, for millennia
on end. And as long as faith keeps driving people's lives, the mistakes of the past will
keep repeating themselves. The only way out is to learn from those mistakes the one
valuable lesson -- discard faith altogether, and you get rid of a powerful carcinogen,
significantly reducing future risks of cancer.[/quotes]

Boris, that's stupid. That's like saying just because not many people can mentally grasp nuclear physics, we shouldn't believe that it's principles are actually true. Or just because you will never actually "see" a black hole, means that it doesn't exist. You want things to be perfect, and the answer is, they will NEVER be perfect. Not til you die, if you ever get your head out your butt that is. The utopia isn't necessarily something that you expect to "accomplish". It's not even necessarily something that you strive for, because you know that it's impossible to achieve in a perfect sense. But man, if you are to use that as an excuse not to even understand it or to even try to use the principles to do ANYTHING right or good, then you are totally copping out. It's all about learning boris, and if you never learn the difference between right and wrong, you will always have a natural tendency to do the wrong thing. Look at human nature, and tell me that we are not naturally inclined to be selfish, greedy, egotistical, angry, lustful, lazy, and on and on. You know as well as I do that we all are. All of us, yea even Pat Robertson, but shhhhh, don't tell him that.

[quote]Please note that when I talk about faith, I am not talking about hope, optimism, or
social responsibility. By 'faith' I mean the unconditional trust in people's ability to
restrain, motivate, and control themselves according to prescribed principles. Under
this definition, Communism fits just as closely as does Christianity or any other faith
system.

You're defining faith incorrectly. Faith in my faith is about doing the right thing because you recognize it as the right thing, and trusting that even if you don't see an immediate benefit, or none at all, that it is still the right thing to do. Not out of a lack of understanding but THROUGH understanding. Just like I know that greed is wrong. Not because it says it in the Bible, as sure as hell not because I was ever taught that (in Business school they teach that greed is good, it increases efficiencies in a capitalist market), but because I can SEE the effects of it, and they are bad. Faith is not blind. Faith is not following orders for the sake of following orders. It is a knowing through understanding. Faith that good efforts are not in vain. Faith that God exists, and that He loves you.

Well gotta run. I'll try to catch up to you guys sometime soon. Take care.


------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

"They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil"??!!! WHO claims that? I'd like to hear of ONE notable person who claims that!

Briefly - Fidel Castro, for one. After decades of national atheism, in 1992, Cuba's Constitution was changed from "atheistic" to "secular".


What are the costs of atheism?

Here's a view for you:

"One of the great blind spots of a philosophy that attempts to disavow God is its unwillingness to look into the face of the monster it has begotten and own up to being its creator. It is here that living without God meets its first insurmountable obstacle, the inability to escape the infinite reach of a moral law. Across scores of campuses in our world I have seen outraged students or faculty members waiting with predatorial glee to pounce upon religion, eager to make the oft-repeated but ill-understood charge: What about the thousands who have been killed in the name of religion?

The emotion-laden question is not nearly as troublesome to answer if the questioner first explains all the killing that has resulted from those who have lived without God, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, et al. The antitheist is quick to excoriate all religious belief by generically laying the blame at the door of all who claim to be religious, without distinction. By the same measure, why is there not an equal enthusiasm to distribute blame for violence engendered by some of the irreligious?

But the rub goes even deeper than that. The attackers of religion have forgotten that these large-scale slaughters at the hands of antitheists were the logical outworking of their God-denying philosophy. Contrastingly, the violence spawned by those who killed in the name of Christ would never have been sanctioned by the Christ of the Scriptures. Those who killed in the name of God were clearly self-serving politicizers of religion, an amalgam Christ ever resisted in His life and teaching. Their means and their message were in contradiction to the gospel. Atheism, on the other hand provides the logical basis for an autonomous, domineering will, expelling morality. Darwin himself predicted this slippery slope of violence if evolutionary theory were translated into a philosophy of life. Nietzche talked of the enshrouding darkness that had fallen over mankind--he saw its ramifications. The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevski repeatedly wrote of the hell that is let loose when man comes adrift from his Creators moorings and himself becomes god--he understood the consequences. Now, as proof positive, we witness our culture as a whole in a mindless drift toward lawlessness--we live with the inexorable result of autonomies in collision.

In case you fear that I am carrying this too far, I present the following for your consideration. It is not always easy in life to pinpoint moments that dramatically change you for the future. Sometimes, however, in retrospect we are able to look back upon such a moment and say, "For me, that was it." Let me introduce you to one such experience for me.

A few years ago when I was speaking in Poland I was taken to the Nazi death camps of Auschwitz and Birkenau. I shall never be the same. Many, many times in silence I have reflected upon my first visit there, where the words of Hitler envisioning a generation of young people without a conscience are aptly hung on a wall, grimly reminding the visitor of the hell unleashed when his goal was realized. I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality.... We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence--imperious, relentless and cruel.

On display for all to behold are thousands of pounds of women's hair, retrieved and marketed as a commodity by the Nazi exterminators, architects of the final solution that sent multitudes to the gas ovens. The incredible reminders--from rooms filled with pictures of abused and castrated children to the toiletries and clothing that are stacked to the ceiling--cast an overwhelming pall of somberness upon the visitor.

That this was conceived and nurtured in the mind of the most educated nation at that time in history and brought forth on the soil that had also given birth to the Enlightenment almost defies belief. But it was atheism's legitimate offspring. Man was beginning to live without God." -- Ravi Zacharias, 'Can Man Live Without God'


[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited February 28, 2000).]

This is an interesting link. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I can see from the overview that it may be helpful to those who don't understand Satan's intentions toward God and us. Enjoy!
http://www.ncinter.net/~ejt/ages4.htm

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,



Boris, are you so ignorant of the faith itself to think that I would actually want to try to "enforce" some utopian socialist society??????????


I never said "enforce". I did say "push for" -- which is what you are doing. Your arguments parallel those of a Communist defending her favourite social philosophy. Not so much parallel in ideology, mind you (although there are many similarities between your stance and Communism) -- but in the way you promote that ideology regardless of the damage the ideology engenders in the real world.



Boris, that's stupid. That's like saying just because not many people can mentally grasp nuclear physics, we shouldn't believe that it's principles are actually true. Or just because you will never actually "see" a black hole, means that it doesn't exist. You want things to be perfect, and the answer is, they will NEVER be perfect.


That's not my point. The point is, and you keep skating right past it, that <u>unlike nuclear physics, faith can, has been, and will be harnessed by despots to manipulate people like puppeteers play their marionettes</u>. There, I've put it into as few words as possible, and even underlined it for you. Maybe now you'll get it.



But man, if you are to use that as an excuse not to even understand it or to even try to use the principles to do ANYTHING right or good, then you are totally copping out. It's all about learning boris, and if you never learn the difference between right and wrong, you will always have a natural tendency to do the wrong thing.


For the nth time, the principles you refer to are not derived from faith, but from social dynamics. They are very scientifically derivable. Logically. Irrefutably. Just as surely as is the observation that greed can have bad side-effects if not properly monitored and regulated, or if not given enough freedom either. Religious mythology needs nothing to do with definition or establishment of socially mandated value systems.

Religion is not about learning. It's about rote memorization. Learning involves an additional component, wherein you understand the reasons why the facts you've learned are true. The universal answer of "by God's will", besides being lame and what you'd call a cop-out, just doesn't work -- because there always are actual, concrete reasons we can and do discover.



Just like I know that greed is wrong. Not because it says it in the Bible, as sure as hell not because I was ever taught that (in Business school they teach that greed is good, it increases efficiencies in a capitalist market), but because I can SEE the effects of it, and they are bad.


So you see, one doesn't need the Bible to set or understand the delineations between desirable and undesirable behavior. In fact, one doesn't even need religion of any kind for that. It's been one of my biggie points all along.



Faith is not blind. Faith is not following orders for the sake of following orders. It is a knowing through understanding. Faith that good efforts are not in vain. Faith that God exists, and that He loves you.


Science is about knowing through understanding. Faith combines some of that (after all, it derives from much pre-scientific wisdom that nevertheless had scientific underpinnings) -- with mythology and establishment of authority. Additionally, there is no place for cynicism in faith -- no place for critical evaluation and objective testing. In fact, by its very nature faith undermines objectivity. These are the reasons that faith goes far beyond what is necessary or sufficient for well-being; in fact it goes so far beyond that it introduces undesirable side-effects that I've been expounding ever since my first post on Exosci. (remember that one? You loved it! no less than any other of my posts on religious topics, that is. hee-hee.. :D)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 28, 2000).]

Cisco,



"They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil"??!!! WHO claims that? I'd like to hear of ONE notable person who claims that!

Briefly - Fidel Castro, for one. After decades of national atheism, in 1992, Cuba's Constitution was changed from "atheistic" to "secular".


Fidel Castro?! Gee, there's an intellectual of awesome worth. Any other geniuses you have in mind?

As for the quote you mentioned, I should say it's rather typical. Of mindless pro-religion blather, that is. Here's my critique of it, should you care to read:



The emotion-laden question is not nearly as troublesome to answer if the questioner first explains all the killing that has resulted from those who have lived without God, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, et al. The antitheist is quick to excoriate all religious belief by generically laying the blame at the door of all who claim to be religious, without distinction. By the same measure, why is there not an equal enthusiasm to distribute blame for violence engendered by some of the irreligious?


Not an equal enthusiasm? Allright, show me the head count of all atheists living in the world's democratic nations who will not criticise Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, et al. for the atrocities they committed. The point is, they have been, and are, criticized. Unfortunately, they are also dead, so there's not much point in leveling rhetoric at them. However, their modern-day equivalents, such as Hussein, Milosevic, Haider, et al are indeed actively ostracized. And not for their religions, mind you.



The attackers of religion have forgotten that these large-scale slaughters at the hands of antitheists were the logical outworking of their God-denying philosophy. Contrastingly, the violence spawned by those who killed in the name of Christ would never have been sanctioned by the Christ of the Scriptures.


Just which God-denying philosophy are we talking about here??? Still having problems separating atheism from fascism, communism, et al? Last time I checked, guilt by association is not a crime -- so why is atheism on trial for crimes it did not commit? And I'm really eager to see why "large-scale slaughters" are a "logical outworking" of atheism (which is what I asked you, Cisco, by the way). I'd like to see how atheism "sanctions" violence. Unfortunately, I doubt such a logical derivation has ever been done, or could possibly be made. But we can always allege under guise of authority, and call it fact. Yeah. The Bible does come to mind...



Darwin himself predicted this slippery slope of violence if evolutionary theory were translated into a philosophy of life.


Is that what we are doing? Implying that atheism leads to Social Darwinism? On what grounds, exactly, is this insinuation made?



The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevski repeatedly wrote of the hell that is let loose when man comes adrift from his Creators moorings and himself becomes god--he understood the consequences.


Kinda reminds one of the Pope, don't it? :D But if the "Creators moorings" are to be interpreted as moral foundations, I assure you that atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. In fact, morality and law are derivable sociologically with no need for any Creators, which is entirely acceptable to an atheist.



Now, as proof positive, we witness our culture as a whole in a mindless drift toward lawlessness--we live with the inexorable result of autonomies in collision.


Now, if we are talking about U.S. culture, then I should remind Mr. Zacharias that "ours" is a country dominated by Christians both in population and in government. The truth shall set you free, brother.



Many, many times in silence I have reflected upon my first visit there, where the words of Hitler envisioning a generation of young people without a conscience are aptly hung on a wall, grimly reminding the visitor of the hell unleashed when his goal was realized. I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality.... We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence--imperious, relentless and cruel.

...

That this was conceived and nurtured in the mind of the most educated nation at that time in history and brought forth on the soil that had also given birth to the Enlightenment almost defies belief. But it was atheism's legitimate offspring. Man was beginning to live without God.


At the time of Hitler, Germany was overwhelmingly religious (and it still is.) Even the German Catholic church did not intervene in the horrors of war and holocaust that its constituents were perpetrating. And as for "legitimate offspring" -- Mr. Zacharias himself concedes that religion had some ugly legitimate offspring of its own.

Now, what was it that was really wrong with Germany? Certainly not atheism. May I suggest that "envisioning a generation of young people without a conscience" was the real culprit? May I suggest that calling "conscience and morality" "degrading fallacies" may have played a role? May I suggest that neither of the above legitimately derive from atheism? From nihilism, perhaps. But not from pragmatism, which is the latest philosophical offshoot of atheism. If you don't know what Pragmatism stands for, I suggest you do a little research. Otherwise, I challenge you to explicate how pragmatism could give rise to fascism, communism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the prohibition, the War on Drugs, racism, or dictatorship. Hear that? I CHALLENGE YOU!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up, step right up for the challenge and fight of the century.

In the Red corner we have the challenger, the towering intellectual giant, Big Bad Borris the bane of all religion.

In the blue corner we have the undisputed world champion, The Cisco Kid. Defender of truth, justice and the faith.

Now boys and girls I want a clean fight, no shots below the belt, no name calling, no dummy spitting, no sulking. Keep it to the topic at hand and absolutly no slagging off at the ref (me) :D

Let the battle begin........

OH by the way anyone else who wants to enter the ring stick to them thar rules, or I'll tell Dave W. Nardy Nardy Nar Nar


Tony H2o :D :D :D :D :D :D

[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited February 29, 2000).]

Ok, Tony, THAT was funny!!!!! LMAO :D

Hi Flash, good to see you again.. Well sort of see You.

If you liked that you'll love (not) my little song over in alien agenda.

Anyways gotta go so take care and keep praying.

H2o

Boris,



(Your question) "They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil"??!!! WHO claims that? I'd like to hear of ONE notable person who claims that!
(My answer) Briefly - Fidel Castro, for one. After decades of national atheism, in 1992, Cuba's Constitution was changed from "atheistic" to "secular".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(your response to my answer) Fidel Castro?! Gee, there's an intellectual of awesome worth. Any other geniuses you have in mind?

There you go with ridiculing someone's intelligence again!

Now, let's be logical for a minute, O.K.? You said that you would like to hear of one "notable" person who claims that (not one notable person "of a certain intelligence"), correct? Is not Fidel Castro "notable" - regardless of the level of his intelligence? I was planning on giving you more examples, however, given your response, I believe it would be useless since I am not about to attempt to "prove" to you the level of someone's intelligence. BTW - Do you have knowledge of the level of Castro's intelligence?


As for the quote you mentioned, I should say it's rather typical. Of mindless pro-religion blather, that is. Here's my critique of it, should you care to read:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The emotion-laden question is not nearly as troublesome to answer if the questioner first explains all the killing that has resulted from those who have lived without God, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, et al. The antitheist is quick to excoriate all religious belief by generically laying the blame at the door of all who claim to be religious, without distinction. By the same measure, why is there not an equal enthusiasm to distribute blame for violence engendered by some of the irreligious?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not an equal enthusiasm?

Correct. Not an equal enthusiasm. There is much more enthusiasm on the part of antitheists in pointing out the history of atrocities commited by those in power who claimed to have faith in an effort to blame faith so as to discredit faith, while at the same time, remaining silent or ignoring the history of atrocities commited by those in power who claimed not to have faith in an effort to white-wash atheism so as to elevate atheism.


Allright, show me the head count of all atheists living in the world's democratic nations who will not criticise Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, et al. for the atrocities they committed. The point is, they have been, and are, criticized. Unfortunately, they are also dead, so there's not much point in leveling rhetoric at them. However, their modern-day equivalents, such as Hussein, Milosevic, Haider, et al are indeed actively ostracized. And not for their religions, mind you.

Boris. Let's be reasonable and logical for a couple of more minutes if you don't mind, O.K.?

First - Although I am reasonably sure that there are a good many atheists who, if asked, would criticize atrocities commited by irreligious leaders, I find your "show me" request for a headcount to be unreasonable. Wouldn't you agree? Although I seriously doubt that anyone can give such a headcount, it is well-known (well, at least I know) that there are cults (both so-called atheistic and religious) in existence today in democratic nations which not only do NOT criticize these leaders for the atrocities which they commited - to the contrary, they revere them as god-like, adhere to their philosophy, and in some instances act out accordingly. They are commonly known as some of the "hate" cults.

Second - What I CAN tell you is that, in addition to decades of other personal research, I have spent quite some time during the past couple of years perusing both religious and irreligious websites. One thing that is demonstrably clear to me is that MOST of the space taken up on atheistic sites deals with slamming those of faith based on historical atrocities commited by dead people of faith and other such rhetoric about people of faith while remaining silent or ignoring any history of atrocities commited by the irreligious. Now, if there is not much point in leveling rhetoric at dead people, then why do these atheistic sites go through such great lengths to level rhetoric against dead people of faith while remaining silent about or ignoring dead people who had no faith?

Third - To be perfectly honest, I have come across a few atheistic sites that do criticize Hitler. However, what I have found is that the criticism usually comes after the web author has gone through a somewhat lengthy (yet faulty) dissertation attempting to convince the reader that Hitler was actually a Christian. This "attempt to convince" is usually based on the fact that Hitler attended so-called "Christian" schools and ignores his actual motivating philosophy at the time of his reign of atrocities which included his hatred of Christianity. To be clear, what I have found is that the few atheistic sites which I have found that do criticize Hitler have done so only when associating him with Christianity.

Fourth - To the contrary, one can simply browse the web and find that MOST of the space taken up on Christian sites, for example, deals with spreading the Word of God and personal salvation. Although I have found a few sites that do criticize, relatively speaking, there is not much space taken up criticizing the atrocities of the religious. However, what is important to note is that there is more of a reasonable balance on Christian sites in that there is also relatively not much space taken up in levelling rhetoric about atheists, whether they be dead OR alive. I have found that MOST of the space on Christian sites is dedicated to Jesus Christ and individual salvation.

Fifth - Logically speaking, atheists cannot ostracize other atheists for their "religion" because atheists believe that they have no religion. Correct?

Finally - With respect to your most recent snippet quoted above: Do I personally believe that there is a basis for criticizing the atrocities of the irreligious mentioned above? Yes. Do I believe that it should be based on the fact that they were irreligious? No. I believe it should be based on their humanism. In the same sense: Do I personally believe that there is a basis for criticizing the atrocities of the religious? Yes. Do I believe that it shoud be based on the fact that they were religious? No. I believe it should be based on their humanism.


And as for "legitimate offspring" -- Mr. Zacharias himself concedes that religion had some ugly legitimate offspring of its own.

Absolutely, Zacharias reasonably concedes this (within the scope of associating the religious/irreligious with historical atrocities, this is a very valid and reasonable concession for either side to make). If you wish to continue to associate the religious with historical atrocities as such, are you also reasonably and logically willing to make a similar concession concerning the association of the irreligious with their respective historical atrocities, Boris?

I look forward to your answer, after which, I shall address your so-called challenge concerning pragmatism.

Thank you.




[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited March 01, 2000).]

Yes folks it looks like round one is going to the Cisco Kid with what appears to be a TKO..... the ref (me :D ) has applied the count to Boris... 1,2.... BUT WAIT FOLKS...Big Bad Boris is up off the floor and is about to come out swinging and fighting..........

WOW folk this is looking like a prize title fight to match any other in history...

Stay tuned folks, this Tony H2o signing off for the moment from WKRP internet radio.

[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited March 01, 2000).]

Tony,

Of course you know me better than that; I aint' this easy. ;)

Incidentally: love your commentary. I don't think anybody's ever done that sort of thing to me before. If anything, a new experience. And yes, this place is getting crazier by the minute! :D

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Cisco,



There you go with ridiculing someone's intelligence again!
Now, let's be logical for a minute, O.K.? You said that you would like to hear of one "notable" person who claims that (not one notable person "of a certain intelligence"), correct? Is not Fidel Castro "notable" - regardless of the level of his intelligence?


This entire thing got started from the following more complete statement of yours: "The claims Stalin and his followers made are still being proclaimed by atheist today. They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil and if God is removed, society will benefit."

Now, am I the only one who thinks that the claim I just quoted is meant to apply to atheists in general? I was asking for a justification of such a position. I wanted examples of people who make such claims and speak for even a significant proportion of atheists. I was not asking for "some atheists that make the claim" -- as you were not speaking of "some atheists" in your original statement. However, if that's what you meant, then you need to work on your expressiveness.

Castro doesn't speak for atheism. And, to boot, Castro is an <u>especially poor example</u> -- hence my ridicule. You should have noticed by now that at least my atheism is based on a logical positivist background -- hence I expect you to cite academics and great thinkers who espouse the points in question on behalf of atheism and no other philosophy, and reasonably defend those points within atheism's confines. I certainly was not asking for a military dictator who wouldn't take no for an answer, as an example. And I thought that would have been rather obvious.



There is much more enthusiasm on the part of antitheists in pointing out the history of atrocities commited by those in power who claimed to have faith in an effort to blame faith so as to discredit faith, while at the same time, remaining silent or ignoring the history of atrocities commited by those in power who claimed not to have faith in an effort to white-wash atheism so as to elevate atheism.


Ok, let's see if we can figure this out. The main point of atheist websites is to promote atheism in opposition to religion. So, are you proposing that those websites praise religion and denounce atheism?

On the other hand, the history of atrocities committed by those in power who are religious is especially poignant, since it directly demonstrates that atrocities are not preventable by religion. Yet, that is precisely contrary to one of the main arguments of pro-religion advocates! So, might all this denunciation of religious atrocities have a point beyond merely smearing religion? Might that point be that religion is not the panacea it makes itself out to be? Or are some of us taking history a bit too personally to perceive the point? Oh my goodness, I do believe I've just shot down in this one paragraph most of the points your latest post tried to make!



First - Although I am reasonably sure that there are a good many atheists who, if asked, would criticize atrocities commited by irreligious leaders, I find your "show me" request for a headcount to be unreasonable. Wouldn't you agree?


No kidding! You really find it unreasonable? Wow! Might it possibly be that I made such a request precisely because I was motivated by an equally unreasonable statement you quoted: "why is there not an equal enthusiasm to distribute blame for violence engendered by some of the irreligious?" Such a statement, in my translation at least, implies: "atheists are reluctant to distribute blame for violence perpetrated by other atheists." Might it have been that I was pointing out how Mr. Zacharias pulls facts out of thin air?



One thing that is demonstrably clear to me is that MOST of the space taken up on atheistic sites deals with slamming those of faith based on historical atrocities commited by dead people of faith and other such rhetoric about people of faith while remaining silent or ignoring any history of atrocities commited by the irreligious.


Let me explain the harsh realities of life to you. There are many Christian web sites out there simply because a lot of Christians are driven to spread the word. They have a mission, so they crowd the web with their word. <u>HOWEVER</u>, there are also a plethora of "Christian" sites that actively disparage, demonize, and misrepresent atheism.

Contrary to the web-bound Christians, atheists have no mandated agenda -- we have no faith that commands us to do this or that. However, we still have our principles, our ideals, and our philosophies. Some atheists feel a need to respond to the ages-old and well-established verbal abuse leveled against atheism by the religious establishment. It is not surprising that such counter-attacks are often by their very nature ad hominem. They are a kind of tit-for-tat. And while I personally don't condone such behavior, I can understand it.

Nevertheless, most of the criticism leveled at religious atrocities is, once again, intended to break the myth that religion solves society's problems. This is also tied in to the fact that most atheists find faith-motivated policies and politics atrocious, and hence there is a natural impulse to show that the foundation behind such policies and politics is not what it makes itself out to be. All of that is why you see such a biased emphasis in much literature on the web that deals specifically with atheism vs. religion.

<u>HOWEVER</u>, note that most atheists don't spend their waking hours picking religion apart bone from bone (myself presently excluded :)). I can't speak for everyone, but personally I only mention my atheism when it is relevant in discussion. On the other hand, were we discussing some historical injustice or atrocity in a context removed from the conflict between atheism and religion, then my atheism would never come up -- and if you didn't know me already, you would never guess that I was an atheist. So indeed, a great deal of information on the web is put out by atheists -- but judging from the content you will never know that. What you do notice are the sites which are actually devoted to the conflict between religion and atheism. Not surprisingly, such sites will tend to have a certain type of common content -- merely because they are topically related.

In summary, your data is severely biased due to your data collection methodology, and therefore your conclusions are invalid. Not only are they invalid, but they don't succeed in properly explaining the presence of the bias in the first place.



Logically speaking, atheists cannot ostracize other atheists for their "religion" because atheists believe that they have no religion. Correct?


Correct. However, atheists can ostracize other atheists for their philosophy, morality, bias, or actions.



Finally - With respect to your most recent snippet quoted above: Do I personally believe that there is a basis for criticizing the atrocities of the irreligious mentioned above? Yes. Do I believe that it should be based on the fact that they were irreligious? No. I believe it should be based on their humanism. In the same sense: Do I personally believe that there is a basis for criticizing the atrocities of the religious? Yes. Do I believe that it shoud be based on the fact that they were religious? No. I believe it should be based on their humanism.


Yes indeed, now you are making sense. In fact, this is actually the position of a typical atheist (at least the ones I've come in contact with.) It's an <u>unbiased</u> position -- and desire to eliminate bias is one of the primary motivations for atheism.

However, yet another important motivation for atheists to pay such attention to atrocities, is to examine what thought processes lead people to transgress. It is the claim of many atheists, myself included, that faith is a direct motivator for at least a significant proportion of everything that has gone wrong in the past. That is in opposition to atheism, which by definition means lack of faith. My claim is that lack of faith cannot in itself be a direct cause of atrocity. On the other hand, faith (be it religious, or nazi, or racist, etc.) can indeed directly enable and drive evil.



If you wish to continue to associate the religious with historical atrocities as such, are you also reasonably and logically willing to make a similar concession concerning the association of the irreligious with their respective historical atrocities, Boris?


Faith is a perfect tool for rationalization; as such it aids both conception of atrocity and execution of it. Atheism, on the other hand, is wary of rationalization -- which is the primary reason to reject religion in the first place. Atheism is about constant doubt, re-evaluation, and distrust -- both of others and of oneself. This is how come atheism coheres so well with the scientific method and science in general. This is how come atheism takes no theory for granted unless it can be verified at least in principle. It is a much more challenging lifestyle to lead, since it requires a lot more, and incessant, thought, introspection, and evaluation of the world at large. Yet, in its very objectivity atheism makes it more difficult to rationalize any particular policy or act. Therefore, atheism has at least the right principles embedded in it to fight the evils of the world.

That is not to say that a malignant philosophy cannot take root on top of atheism. However, that is also true of religion, so there's nothing very special about atheism in that respect. Nevertheless, atheism makes the process of adopting, modifying, and rejecting philosophies much more explicit than faith does. It also mandates clear definition of terms and ideas, with no allusions to vague mythical metaphors, or attributions of authority to the "wisdom" of the past. It also demands a focus on utility rather than fancy. Additionally, it invites disagreement within the confines of any particular philosophy as well as across philosophical boundaries, to act as an arbiter of ultimate worth. All of these traits combined make atheism a much more efficient foundation and methodology toward progress in not just philosophical outlooks, but by analogy also in science, moral frameworks, systems of government and law, and all sorts of policies from technological, to industrial, to economic, to environmental.

For example, if we consider Stalinist regimes, we observe that an entire swarm of counterproductive assumptions was accepted to be the foundation of a government and a way of life. To be sure, even during the regime's most bountiful years, dissenters abounded. However, such critics were forcefully silenced or intimidated into silence by a regime that did not hold sacred a freedom of expression. Thereby, the regime negated one of the primary benefits and weapons of atheism when it comes to social progress -- the acute capacity for skepticism and critique -- and thus left the ideology powerless to affect change for the better. A big lesson to be derived here is that any future philosophy endorsed by atheists ought to include a requirement for freedom of expression and a sanctity of the right to dissent or call for reform. In retrospect, such provisions should have been logically obvious in light of my discussion here. However, Stalinist regimes did not start out based on logic, but rather based on faith and fanaticism; not especially surprising since they were always born out of impassioned revolution spawned by acute crisis, not careful reform brought on by reasoned discussion.

In view of all of this, atheism in itself cannot be blamed for any historical atrocities. However, various philosophies entertained by atheists (as well as religious individuals) over time can indeed bear such blame. This is where the value of genuine atheism comes in: looking back at the past, we can see the mistakes of those philosophies, and can use the lessons we learn to construct and improve our new, currently best model. In this way, the human civilization as a whole has hope of continually advancing toward the ultimate goal of universal happiness in a consistent and methodical fashion.

(Aside: Now, having just read the preceding four paragraphs, how do you think this relates to the "claim" discussed at the beginning of this post?)

Of course, you can argue that religion does not preclude similar progress by learning from past mistakes and evolving the structures of law, government, and morality. After all, even the interpretation of the religion itself evolves in time as global and technological situations change. However, religion is a much less efficient tool for progress, because it offers profuse opportunities for digression, intentional and unintentional, as well as for outright sabotage by manipulative special interests. For example, take the typical rhetoric decrying violence in the media as the cause of growing crime. Such ideas stem from a religious foundation and have nothing to do with reality; nevertheless they waste valuable time and resources. And not only that, such "digressions" can often be threatening to some very fundamental freedoms. As another example, take the faith-based opposition to cloning research; here is a situation where there is much to loose should "faith" triumph. Faith is a very poor arbiter of moral frameworks; in fact compared to objective methods it is completely inadequate. Yet, it incessantly and forcefully pries itself into the position of an ultimate moral authority -- which cannot be helped due to the very nature of faith. Faith is an automatically reactionary force against anything that encroaches upon some of its treasured tenets; atheism, on the other hand, advocates flexibility as a virtue and invites reality to be the architect of its beliefs. Faith's ultimate objectives are indeterminate in general, and vague or unjustifiable in particular. Atheism's ultimate objective is merely objectivity; on top of that, however, I also like to add a pursuit of universal satisfaction and happiness (as part of a utilitarian atheist agenda.) Hence, overall outcomes of faith are unpredictable in general, and non-optimal in particular. Atheism, however, allows a fluent strategy to approximate the optimal configuration given any particular measure of optimality.

This has been a basic motivation of atheism. Hopefully, you can see that it has nothing to do with utopianism (although "atheists" can be utopian, but then they wouldn't be true atheists) -- since atheism is first and foremost all about objectivity and evaluation. This is in sharp contrast to faith. Hopefully, the "sharp contrast" is a bit more in focus now.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 01, 2000).]