Are you religious?

[xbl0x180]

I agree with the notion of exercising due diligence when it comes to protecting our loved ones from tyrants (including God). However, even Jesus Christ said in the Book of Matthew that those who love their family members more than God shall be denied entry into heaven.

There are many passages in the bible that prove God isn't a tyrant. I feel you are doing the same thing you are accusing us of doing, hearing only what you want to hear. The bible says multiple times that God should be put first, but it also says to honor your mother and father. There are many verses that show kindness through peaceful means, which is exactly why I feel telling slaves to respect their slavers isn't promoting slavery, but telling people to act in a respectful way. The bible also says to love thy enemy and those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Evolution is a huge debate, but the evidence thing is what bothers me. I try to look it up, and find the same things I know, that I feel don't prove anything against God. Whenever I see someone on a forum try to ask what the proof is, I see replies telling people it's obvious what the proof is without any actual proof. I believe in some aspects of evolution like adaption to different environments, but I feel this is more proof of God than proof against him. I mean, it's amazing how many creatures have specific thing to adapt to their environment and I highly doubt it just happened by chance.

Oh, I know. I should've disclosed the fact I am not well-versed in The Holy Bible at all and that I frame a lot of stuff out of context, so it's always interesting to read from those who know about it.

I think - I THINK - the concept of evolution "disproving" the notion of God may come from the literal interpretation that the earth is thousands of years old (whereas speciation takes millions and millions of years to occur) and that man was created in God's image (whereas evolution points to evidence man has a common ancestor with apes). I'm being very simplistic here, as I am not well-versed in evolutionary biology, as well

[louisg]

What about the idea that as society evolves and changes, so does our interpretation of the bible?

sounds great. It just seems like making up your own religion as you go, based on some near arbitrary framework. it's your secular moral compass driving.

Yeah, I think that whether you're doing good or bad has little to do with religion. Even though I'm an atheist, I still understand why religion can be beneficial: It can be lonely when your values are in conflict with others'. Some people take comfort in literature, some people take comfort in the bible. So yeah, I agree that it's your internal moral compass driving, but maybe it can be backed up, nudged, or reinforced.

In addition, faith in general can be a survival skill. I think we almost all hold an article of faith or two, just being the irrational human creatures that we are. But we'll start edging towards that philosophy thread if the discussion goes this way, and then we'll all sound like stoners

you mean what verse? just the ones that say the servant obeys the master and the master is good to the servant. but I think this horse is dead.

(nod) some of the previous verses are less defensible than the one I quoted. To be honest, what we're debating is a relatively mild passage. I think there are definitely even harder-to-defend bits, like what I quoted previously in Deuteronomy. Or Leviticus in general is just totally off the wall, IIRC.

I still think more people could stand to read it, with all the mega-violent, anti-gay, and misogynistic passages. I think it'd help them understand the detachment between an individual's moral code and their holy book. I know some people think that you can't be good without God, and I tend to think that a lot of suspicion of other religion stems from that (which is why it's pretty head-shaking when I see fellow atheists take part in it-- but I guess that's another argument)

[Acid King]

I guess I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is a god, but I really just think "Is there a god?" is a pointless, meaningless question, which I guess makes me ignostic. Whether there is or isn't a god, I think my life and existence would be the same, as would everyone elses. It wouldn't make the everyday grind of life any easier or answer any real questions. It would, on the other hand, open a floodgate of other, equally unanswerable questions because unless god all of a sudden decides that he wants to make his existence, rules and presence known in an overt way and can give humans understanding or answers, it's useless. We don't even know what god is, something that by definition is beyond human understanding, so what constitutes proof?

[NTSC-J]

I dont want BrianC to feel like he`s getting ganged up on, but if he or any other follower of Christ would indulge me, there`s something I`ve always wondered about the requirements for getting into heaven.

As far as I understand it, believing in Jesus and accepting Him into your heart or whatever is key. So does that mean that a person that does good things their whole life but doesnt believe in Christ burns in eternal hellfire whereas a murderer who repents his sins the latter half of his life goes to heaven? What if some guy rapes and butchers a child who was brought up in an Athiest home but in prison he finds Christ? Does the child still go to hell?

I believe the party line from the Catholic church goes something like this: every person is guaranteed exposure to Christ, even if they're born on a completely isolated island that never receives missionaries or the bible. In those cases, people experience direct revelation. Further, virtuous people who die suddenly with sin on their souls can (always?) receive "perfect contrition."

John Paul II had a more moderate view, that God is not constrained by our interpretations of his requirements for entry into heaven. An unbaptized child can enter heaven through the intercession of grace.

Well thats a relief. Why so much guilt-tripping then about having to believe in Jesus...OR ELSE? If He wants to appear before me in all His glory (in full garb, not like in a taco or coffee stain), by all means, I will be a believer.

Another heaven question: what do you do there, exactly? I hear about getting to hang out with my pet dog again and playing pool with Carl Sagan, but what if I want to swear or watch R-rated movies? Is that grounds for dismissal?

[MX7]

I'm fine with the idea of religion as a useful fiction-- religion helps individuals deal with life, which is hard even for the most privileged, and can help maintain social stability, etc.

My main concern are cases where religion is used as a tool to control others-- especially women. That's a very real and serious problem. I don't want to name names, but I think we all know what region of the world I have in mind when I mention liberties of women in particular.

While there is much gender inequality in the middle east (which I assume is the region you were referring to) there are many other parts of the world with similar problems. One need only consider the infanticide and abandonment of Chinese girls and the systematic use of rape as a tool of oppression in the DPRC. In both these examples we women and girls being suppressed (to use a particularly moderate term) for ideological means, yet not religious ones.

[gs68]

My family is Catholic, but unfortunately, there are things in the Bible that run counter to my beliefs on gender equality (the idea that women are (supposed to be) subordinate to men), non-heterosexuals (Leviticus 18:22), among other things.

Plus, I've never really taken my beliefs seriously in the first place.

Hell, when I came up with my Lenten sacrifice (giving up Tumblr-binging), it wasn't necessarily to fulfill the requirements of the religion I'm formally a part of so much as to prove a point to fellow Tumblr users.

[Taylor]

I think - I THINK - the concept of evolution "disproving" the notion of God may come from the literal interpretation that the earth is thousands of years old (whereas speciation takes millions and millions of years to occur) and that man was created in God's image (whereas evolution points to evidence man has a common ancestor with apes). I'm being very simplistic here, as I am not well-versed in evolutionary biology, as well

It also brings into question why God only decided two thousand years ago to save the human race from sin, and at what point during evolution animals gained souls.

Evolution shouldn’t be a huge debate. It’s shameful that almost half of America thinks the world is less than ten thousand years old and Noah’s Ark literally happened. I’m so tired of listening to talk about how it’s “just a theory” as if there wasn’t overwhelming evidence, and as if the same logic could and should be applied to the germ theory of disease, the theory of relativity and plate tectonics. Yarrgh.

[Ed Oscuro]

So today (er, yesterday) in Quentin Smith's Cosmology and Religion class, Saint Aquinas was brought up in regards to the question: Would there be constraints on God? According to Aquinas, there are. I should review my recording, see if I can dredge up more detail. The reason this comes up is that some (or many, rather) modern theists want to dragoon the Big Bang into being evidence for God's creating the universe, but this poses special problems.

(Side note: In case anybody was interested, I wrote a post in the Q&A thread, and the piece I was missing was that if you can get C into Newtonian mechanics, you may save the fact of Euclidean space, and the structure of the universe may be predictable without many of the funny ad-hoc arguments and conjectures that have appeared in recent theory. For example, curved regions of space would not be necessary as they are for Einstein - once again the gravitational force would be a function of bodies in the universe. And this is not at odds with what we see, because what we see is all a function of the movement of bodies in space, and invisible forces or distortions of space are only there by conjecture - following Galileo, if we can do without those invisible things, it is best to try that first.

As one of my personal big interests in philosophy and science is the question of theoretical virtues (i.e., things that guide theory) and simplicity, I'm pretty excited about the opportunity to ditch a lot of the things we "know" about the Universe which are not directly detectable and which must therefore be looked at suspiciously.)

Back on topic:

I should present the other side of the comment I made, earlier in the thread, about religion and science not possibly being at odds. This is, of course, a very doctrinaire and "respectable" thing to do (read - PC).

Dr. Smith pointed out that is a pretty convenient position for the Catholic Church to take, and many scientists adopt it merely to avoid interminable debates and associate themselves with politics. So while a "safe" position remains skepticism with regards to theism, or agnoticism, and there may not be any evidence (nor, as I said earlier clear path for science to try to "debunk" religion), it does not mean that this is ground science should decide to cede - just as I have written elsewhere that science should not cede to nihilism. The idea is that some arguments are reasonable enough to be looked at.

While it would seem to be unreasonable to ask a scientist to spend time trying to disprove religious belief, it need not be assumed that any question that might impinge on religious doctrine should be avoided out of some special concern for the interests of religion.

[xbl0x180]

I think - I THINK - the concept of evolution "disproving" the notion of God may come from the literal interpretation that the earth is thousands of years old (whereas speciation takes millions and millions of years to occur) and that man was created in God's image (whereas evolution points to evidence man has a common ancestor with apes). I'm being very simplistic here, as I am not well-versed in evolutionary biology, as well

It also brings into question why God only decided two thousand years ago to save the human race from sin, and at what point during evolution animals gained souls.

Evolution shouldn’t be a huge debate. It’s shameful that almost half of America thinks the world is less than ten thousand years old and Noah’s Ark literally happened. I’m so tired of listening to talk about how it’s “just a theory” as if there wasn’t overwhelming evidence, and as if the same logic could and should be applied to the germ theory of disease, the theory of relativity and plate tectonics. Yarrgh.

See, I wonder why Dawkins even bothers giving this feeble-minded buffoon the public podium to spread more of this creationist hogwash. He should've just asked, "Show us proof of energy being 'created' and 'destroyed'." They're a few steps away from taliban-like fanaticism/mentality; I'm frankly very circumspect of their intentions towards other people should they ever wield any kind of power, esp. against those who disagree with them.

[Ed Oscuro]

Creationists and many religious people (theists) think they have pretty good dodges or answers to the usual scientific arguments. I don't think arguments in that arena those are going to be decisive. Life (and therefore the process of evolution) is just a trend of around 3.5 billion years (possibly longer or shorter) whereas the universe is thought to be over 10 and a quarter billion years older (at 13.75BY old).

What the religious would really like is to be able to show that God created the universe and he did so in a way that conforms with all observation and does not rely on an overly complicated argument. They want to reduce special-circumstances dodges like "well, maybe God didn't create the universe perfectly at first, so he had to intervene a few times." In short they want to say that there is nothing special or unusual about the argument that God created the universe. In this argument, you get pretty far into the weeds pretty quickly, but so far there doesn't seem to be much going the way of the theists.

Arguing about evolution is pretty useless for both sides. Smart theists recognize that arguing "the universe might look a certain way, but that's because God changed it after He made it" makes God look uncommitted. At worst, it would seem to self-refute the Christian view since Christians hold that God is omnipotent (though there are some unusual constraints here based on Saint Aquinas' argument, so you can't simply say "God can do ANYTHING." Likewise, Edward Feser has an argument (in his Teleology Shopper's Guide) that creationists are actually far from his preferred version of the question "what is the purpose of something?" and that they are closer to certain scientists in their understanding of that question.

That is on top of the widely understood point (everybody here gets it) that creationism simply doesn't understand the evolutionary argument. But the discussion has moved on from traditional creationists.

For example, one of the arguments the theists like is a variant on the "God is the uncaused cause" argument. Pretty easy to understand. Pretty easy to reply to, too, since atheists point out that you could simply have a chain of causes with no first cause (the reasoning is a bit better than this, actually). Unfortunately neither of these arguments makes a lot of sense without some background in theory; they don't make obvious sense to the layperson. The uncaused cause argument for God is simply saying "God is the special sort of thing" and the atheist's chain of causality argument simply says "you don't need God to be an uncaused cause; there is no uncaused cause - you can always go earlier back in time."

[xbl0x180]

God damn! The ShMUPS Forum is going to hell. In case of rapture, though, can I have your shoot-'em-up collection

[Leandro]

I'm amazed at the intelligence of my shmup brothers. I must study more.

[CMoon]

Creationists and many religious people (theists) think they have pretty good dodges or answers to the usual scientific arguments. ...

The funny part is that it's only the dumb fundies who feel so compelled to make up pseudoscientific answers to fit hokey bible creation stories. For instance, the age of the universe as implied by the time it takes light from distant stars to reach the earth is awkwardly 'dodged' as you say, by making up some story about how light used to travel at a different speed. Likewise, the devil just put those fossils in the ground to confuse us, etc. etc.

But to any modern religious person who doesn't have their head stuck in the ground, the existence of evolution or an ancient universe has no pinning on whether there is a creator. The suave religious person can easily nod their head with confidence knowing that people thousands of years ago explained things in a very primitive way, and scientists have found more sophisticated ways to explain things today.

Ultimately I don't think science will ever make an argument for or against God because of course science is limited to materialistic causations. True, the fundies/creationist folks arguments have been utterly destroyed--there's no excuse for anyone to believe in that anymore than the tooth fairy--but it's different than saying Dawkins can go argue with some ministers or priests and somehow genuinely win that argument through evidence (the fact he makes these attempts reveals to me he either doesn't understand the limitation of science or more likely, just enjoys arguing.)

I really see religious vs non-religious as just modes of thought. Put the same evidence in front of two people and some may fit God into that evidence and others don't. The skeptic in me trims the fat and says unnecessary explanations that require things I can't observed should be trimmed; but others are more romantic about it and it seems ludicrous to me to try to argue with them why they shouldn't see it that way. When perfectly mature, grown adults are doing programs about ghosts and aliens on the Discovery channel, what luck am I going to have convincing a romantic that a rainbow isn't a miracle. If that's the word you want to use for the refraction of light, then who am I to say you're wrong.

[DragonInstall]

I think the moral of the story is... Let people believe in what they want and don't be a douche about it.

[Taylor]

Nobody minds moderates in the free world who pick and choose what part of the scriptures they believe based on their own moral compass, undeniable evidence, and fear of death.

[Randorama]

For those who want a proof on the existence of God, here you are.

I am pretty sure that I was supposed to post this link a long time ago, so I apologize to the user who asked me about it.

[Drum]

The ontological argument is the greasiest argument for anything ever. It's hard for me to comprehend how anybody could sincerely accept it.

[xbl0x180]

Nobody minds moderates in the free world who pick and choose what part of the scriptures they believe based on their own moral compass, undeniable evidence, and fear of death.

I like people who are moderate - be it atheists or theists/deists. However, I can't help thinking religious people are being a bit hypocritical by adhering to some things and completely blowing off others. For instance, I don't know why Christians keep working on the Sabbath when it is one the Ten Commandments. Actually, I was surprised to hear from a person who didn't know all the Ten Commandments, yet stated they were a "Christian." It's single examples such as those that make me wonder about the foundation and adherence to their beliefs in the religion of abraham

[Ex-Cyber]

The ontological argument is the greasiest argument for anything ever. It's hard for me to comprehend how anybody could sincerely accept it.

Yeah, the "God" whose existence is proven by ontological arguments is defined in such abstract terms that it's not even clear what it means to say that it exists. At that point we may as well just convert to Taoism.

[Randorama]

Hold on - Godel showed that the existence of God can be proven, more than he proved that God exists. Or, that the existence of God cannot be ruled out, logically speaking.

I would infer from this that we all need to firmly adhere to Intelligent Design now, tell Richard Dawkins about it so he can come and troll us at home, and drive him to despair and suicide by pretending we really believe that stuff, just for fun. It would be a great service to the cause of evolution, actually.

I once played the part of the bona fide creationist with some communist kids, as I had some time to kill. Good & wicked fun, indeed.

[CMoon]

Goddel's argument is what turned me off of philosophy. It isn't 'evidence', it is an argument of pure reason only. I would go further and say its tautological; but whatever you consider it, the word 'evidence' can't be applied to it. It is proof in a mathematical sense, which is fine. Math can describe impossible things, many mathematical models have fallen through because the models never really approximate reality. Math and reason unfortunately aren't sufficient to prove the existence of anything.

Rando, I'm not convinced you are a compelling POE. But maybe if I didn't know you...

[xbl0x180]

Goddel's argument is what turned me off of philosophy. It isn't 'evidence', it is an argument of pure reason only. I would go further and say its tautological; but whatever you consider it, the word 'evidence' can't be applied to it. It is proof in a mathematical sense, which is fine. Math can describe impossible things, many mathematical models have fallen through because the models never really approximate reality. Math and reason unfortunately aren't sufficient to prove the existence of anything.

Rando, I'm not convinced you are a compelling POE. But maybe if I didn't know you...

I didn't take any philosophy, so maybe it's why I don't understand or, else, wouldn't this "argument" also apply to just about any other fictional character Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, and... the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RGN21TSGk

[Ed Oscuro]

I once played the part of the bona fide creationist with some communist kids, as I had some time to kill. Good & wicked fun, indeed.

How did they manage to lose? Marxism (like Freudian psychology) is not falsifiable so...guess they weren't Marxists after all.

That proof is interesting. I agree with Bertrand Russell - it seems wrong but I can only offer a number of different areas of complaint. The first one that came to mind was "hold on, didn't Godel show that no consistent axiomatic system that is not trivial could have all its axioms proven?" Perhaps the problem is that is a different kind of proof, since we surely believe and probably are very safe in saying we know that mathematics (a non-trivial axiomatic system) are true. So one interesting wrinkle with this argument must be that it relies on some assumption that cannot be proven.

There is one thing from Thursday's cosmology lecture that I think must tie directly to this. Godel's proof argues, using the translation of negating the formula, that God is timeless. Most all current theist cosmologists argue that God is in time, and perhaps that is a necessary consequence of having created the universe (and time). I'm not sure that this isn't a case of theistic cosmologists trying too hard to latch onto "respectable" science, as I argued before.

I am with CMoon on this one; I think that reason alone is insufficient for our purposes, although this is an area where it looks like a bright line may be drawn (at least for now) between what is known and what cannot be known. Philosophy's burden is to always contemplate the line between truths and useful fictions.

[Randorama]

Goddel's argument is what turned me off of philosophy. It isn't 'evidence', it is an argument of pure reason only. I would go further and say its tautological; but whatever you consider it, the word 'evidence' can't be applied to it. It is proof in a mathematical sense, which is fine. Math can describe impossible things, many mathematical models have fallen through because the models never really approximate reality. Math and reason unfortunately aren't sufficient to prove the existence of anything.

Logic is not evidence, nor a mentally healthy person would use it as such. It is a system of representation, which in many incarnation has the goal to preserve truth (i.e. be tautological).

So, even if one proves things via Logic, there is simply no guarantee that the proof has any relation whatsoever with things in the world.

If things exist or not, that's an empirical question, which is usually answered via experiments or, say, "research". Geologists can prove that certain rocks exist by finding them, while other sciences can use experiments to test "existence".

With good math and Logic acting on top of data, one can have a very good guess of what things and processes are in the world: one can make predictions about them. That's the business of Science. Religion is something else.

Conflict between the two exists on topics that are not worth bothering about, for anyone who has a modicum of brain.

Rando, I'm not convinced you are a compelling POE. But maybe if I didn't know you...

POE?

How did they manage to lose? Marxism (like Freudian psychology) is not falsifiable so...guess they weren't Marxists after all.

They were australian freshman law students in Uni Sydney, from private schools. Possibly, the kind that talks about revolution while their parents made a fortune via hedge funds, and paid their immensely expensive tuition fees.

I just reiterated random points with no logical connection among them, to see if they could figure out I was trolling them; and to see how much they represented marxism. I can't believe people waste fortunes to raise up perfect ignorants.

[CMoon]

Poe

[nasty_wolverine]

i am a dyslexic agnostic, and i dont know whether dog exists...

[xbl0x180]

i am a dyslexic agnostic, and i dont know whether dog exists...

You're like that flea in Gary Larson's cartoon The Far Side. He sometimes wonders if dog really exists... hey, maybe it's a cat after all

[Randorama]

Poe

Ehi, if Evolution=Natural Selection, then I can't see any difference with Intelligent Design. One just needs to swap "God" with "natural selection" in the usual arguments. Jerry Fodor would agree with me, and since he's Japanese, I am right [/skykid].

Plus, Dawkins and Dennett came up with the idea of the sect of atheist talibans. Almost as bad as religion. Almost.

When I look at this retarded, soccer-mom stuff with my ultra-jaded continental european, state-run educated, true white eyes (I am half austrian, dammit!), I can only invoke eugenics for a better tomorrow.

[brentsg]

I wonder if there is a specific post count @SHMUPS that will preclude entry into heaven? Or is it simply based on membership?

Is it ok to troll here without actually registering? One has to worry for the mods here for sure. I've seen what can happen, watching Supernatural.

Except Spadgy.. I think he'll be reincarnated as a squirrel.

[CMoon]

Poe

Ehi, if Evolution=Natural Selection, then I can't see any difference with Intelligent Design. One just needs to swap "God" with "natural selection" in the usual arguments. Jerry Fodor would agree with me, and since he's Japanese, I am right [/skykid].

Plus, Dawkins and Dennett came up with the idea of the sect of atheist talibans. Almost as bad as religion. Almost.

When I look at this retarded, soccer-mom stuff with my ultra-jaded continental european, state-run educated, true white eyes (I am half austrian, dammit!), I can only invoke eugenics for a better tomorrow.

You can't get me stirred up. The lack of crocoducks at the pet store proves you are right!