Looks like the last thread on this topic still has an error, so I'll put up my last responses to jgnat and BurnTheShips if they (or anyone else) wants to continue. writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like. Could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend? Let me get through them first.
P.S. No one is making anyone read this. :)
jgnat:
I cannot prove God's existence, because my experience is personal. My inability to prove it to others makes it no less real for me.
I tend to believe what people say about their personal experiences, whether it's hearing a voice they think to be God, or surviving a risky operation. I can just list off alternative explanations.
If there is only reason in a dog-eat-dog survival-of-the-fittest world, where is restraint? Where is good? What stops the individual from spreading their seed at the cost of the entire community?
A person of reason would conclude it is reasonable to do good, whether a god existed or not.
I do not believe that anyone who believes in a divine, all powerful being to be bound to a fabrication.
If I started listing off the gods and asking you whether you thought they were real, I don't think you'd be saying yes.
I rather believe that if there really is only one God, that if someone has chosen a religion different than mine, there must be a veneer of human perception coloring his view. As there must be over mine
Being a deist can get you out of tricky thoughts like that.
The Star Trek episodes gives us a hopeful future where humankind has overcome it's destructive divisiveness, disease and poverty are eradicated. Are these not principles worth following?
Absolutely! And where is God in this universe? Nowhere. Religion isn't helping us when it comes to divisiveness, disease and poverty. (They all understand evolution is true too.)
Gene Roddenberry didn't believe in a god. Here's an article you may find interesting- http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/human3.htm
If you haven't seen these episodes, you should-
In The Hands of the Prophets (DS9) - Holding back science for religious reasons.
Who Watches the Watchers? (TNG) - How a primitive tribe views what they can't understand.
Distant Origin (VOY) - "Evolution is just a theory!" say the 24th century dinosaurs.
It's by watching Star Trek that helped me see we need to stop believing in mythological things in order to move forwards. We're not going to be exploring the galaxy or making the Earth a paradise ourselves when half of Americans believe Jesus will be back any day now to do it for them.
A vivid imaginary life is absolutely necesarry in the development of children. As adults, we use our imaginations to test out alternative outcomes. It is good! I would maintain that use of our entire minds, not just our reason, is good for us.
I agree with you. I just think we should be able to differentiate between the two.
Was it reality or majority?
Both in the example you give. When something is seen as real, majority usually follows. I don't think animals should be killed for no good reason either. But I don't need to worship them to think that way.
What if the exiting JW has established a functioning, noble belief system after leaving? They do no harm to you, and they are happy, functioning human beings. Do you really believe your work is not done until all are stripped of all faith?
That would be fine, as long as they didn't try converting others. Ex-JWs could have the option not to join up, there would have to be no preaching done and they couldn't bring up their children in this belief system.
I would even maintain that for frailer older ones, they are better off in the society than out of it.
Yeah, that's a tricky one. It doesn't get to me that most of the people I look after will probably always believe in God (I work in a nursing home) because that's all they've known all their lives. (They also don't give money to the church or try to preach, so there's no danger). But others wouldn't want to be patronized, and whatever age they are, they would want to know reality. We didn't hold back from telling the elderly that scientists had changed Pluto to the status of a dwarf planet, even if they always believed it was just a regular one.
I don't mind talking to them about religion, but I don't try to deconvert any of them. They ask if I believe or if I'm going to join them for singing, and I say I don't believe. It's usually left at that. I answer any genuine concerns about my disbelief too. One lady asked me 'How can you work here if you don't believe in God?' so I explained I just didn't need to believe in a god to do good works.
Another lady (82 this sunday) brought up the topic herself and said she was questioning the whole thing so I lent her the book Letter to a Christian Nation. She said she enjoyed it and she thought the author hit the nail on the head. But she still joins in communion, and that's fine. It's her choice and it's what she's used to. But she said she's happy with the ritualistic side, to her it's not to get closer to God.
So it really depends on the circumstances.
(I lost the last part of what I put, sorry)
____________________________________________________________
BurnTheShips:
You are the one interjecting the "ONLY" not I.
Oh, well if there's other reasons for doing good things, saying God belief makes people do good things isn't much of an argument for God belief.
So let me ask you a question, SW: on what should that morality be based?
I've heard this argument a gazillion times, so I have a standard response I copy and paste. People rarely get back to me with a response, but maybe you'll have better luck. Here we go.
-------------------------
First, let's consider the morality found in the Bible. God's absolute morality. The Old Testament has some pretty nasty laws. Homosexuals should be stoned, a rapist can buy his victim from her father for 50 shekels and she has to marry him, witches are to be killed, disobedient children are to be killed, women are worth less than men, people of other faiths are to be killed, and the list goes on.
As those rules are in the Old Testament, Christians think Jesus' arrival changed all that. That part is questionable already (Matt 5:17-19) but even if it is true, this opens up other problems. The ten commandments are in the OT, but I expect you try to follow them. Christians were killing witches (rather, women) long after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. I doubt you consider it a sin to do some housework or paid work on a Saturday, yet that's breaking the Sabbath. Slavery was only abolished one or two hundred years ago.
The Bible never says slavery is wrong, there are even rules (from God if he is the one who inspired it) on how to treat slaves. You can beat them to within an inch of their lives, and as long as they don't die, that is acceptable. But do you think slavery is okay?
If morality comes from God, it should be, right? Should gays be killed? They should be if we have absolute morality from God. So why does the thought of that make me sick inside? I can't speak for you, but I imagine you would feel bad about it too. According to Paul, women aren't allowed to talk in church. I see that as sexist, it's certainly not part of my morality. It goes against my morality.
This shows that we pick and choose which rules we follow and which we do not. If we're picking out the rules we like from the Bible, then why is the Bible needed as a moral guide? There is no disclaimer in the Bible that says 'The following rules are subject to change', as a species we decide if it's a good rule or not.
When the Israelites reached Mt Sinai and received the law about not murdering, were they surprised? Didn't they know it was wrong before? If they did, why did they need to be told it was wrong? They would have already known. The morality would have been a part of them already.
Animals are moral. Within a group of the same animal, there is harmony and cohesion. A bird on its own is at more risk from predators, and so they fly in flocks. There is safety in numbers. As a family of meercats leave the burrow to find food, one will remain to look after the babies. During the winter in Antarctica, penguins will huddle together for warmth. If a penguin tries to steal the child of another, due to their own offspring dying, other penguins will not allow it to happen. When bats go out to hunt, they may not all catch a meal. So back at their home, those who have caught prey will donate their blood to those without. The favour can be returned if they ever return without catching anything. If a wolf kills a family member, the others will drive it away as punishment. There is a unity, a standard by which groups of animals live for mutual benefit. Life is easier, and there is more chance of survival. If you watch nature programs, this kind of animal morality can be clear to see.
The same applies to the human world. We all rely on each other. In order for you to sit down to your meal today, you will have needed the support of many other humans. The people who planted the seeds, the ones who helped them grow, the ones who picked the crop, the ones who made the packaging, the ones who designed the packaging, the ones who delivered the goods to the shop, the ones who built the vehicles used for transporting the goods, the ones who designed the vehicles, the ones who pumped the gasoline from under the ground to power the vehicles... I could carry on with more examples of how humans work together, for the simple yet overlooked ability to eat a meal. Even the cutlery you use, the plate it will be on, all of these things required the help of other humans. This is just one reason why we don't kill each other. It did not require a belief in a God or even a conscience from God. It is mutually beneficial to us as a species not to kill each other.
It is within us to want to be happy. This is why we listen to music, engage in our hobbies, prefer to eat food which tastes nice rather than something bland. In the same way we want others to survive, because it helps us, we also prefer seeing people happy and not suffering, so that the favour can one day be returned to us, or to acheive a sense of personal happiness from our act of kindness, even if it is not returned.
One of the ways in which our body survives is by realizing instantly when we have physical pain. It is the body's way to tell us that it is being damaged, and it becomes an instant reflex to stop that damage. Another way we can experience pain is through our emotions. A very simple way to look at morality is to know when something is causing someone pain, physically or emotionally. Emotional damage can still lead to death if we're not careful, i.e. suicide.
People can act in a way I'd consider evil, and it happens when I see them going against the kind of morality I've explained. My own morality. From nature. All explainable. No god required.
--------------------------------
I could say the same about atheism - there is plenty of evidence to back that one up. The fact of the matter is that neither religious membership nor atheism makes people good or bad.
Atheism is not a belief. Does not believing in Thor make you do bad things?
If it wasn't for the belief in God, people wouldn't raise their children to believe in things they couldn't prove, which is bad.
If it wasn't for a belief in Allah's heaven with 72 virgins for all who kill in the name of Allah, young muslims wouldn't be blowing themselves up in crowded areas. Looks bad to me.
No it means the precise opposite; it means that God has granted us stewardship of the planet and that He cares what we do with it.
Well your Christian president (oh, don't tell me, he's not a TRUE Christian!) is making little effort to reduce the carbon emissions coming from your country while other (less religious) countries are trying to do their part. If you're not doing so already, can you please join us in trying to get him to see sense?
The human rights movement started as a Christian action. In our own country during the slave times abolitionism was a Christian movement, ditto for civil rights for Afro-Americans.
Slavery was a Christian movement. Correcting something that should never have happened in the first place isn't exactly something to be proud of. Same with the rights of blacks. It was the Christians who were saying blacks couldn't marry whites in the eyes of God, and even that they were the descendants of Cain. Fixing their mistakes doesn't make them heroes.
You might recall the name of that most famous civil rights leader: Reverend Martin Luther King.
Wasn't he killed by a Christian? That's actually a genuine question (to anyone) because I don't know. I was doing some research yesterday and I couldn't find it.
So Martin Luther King believed in God. Fair enough. Where in the Bible does it say blacks are to be treated the same as whites? The movement came from his own morality, not God's. I'm sure he believed in Japan but that didn't make him do what he did. People believe in a lot of things. Even if he had done it based on his belief in God, it wasn't needed. There were plenty of reasons for wanting blacks to be treated fairly.
As for homosexuals, you will need to be more specific as to what rights you refer to.
The rights to adopt children and get married, the right not to be refused a hotel room. This is changing in the world already, with the more secular countries taking the lead... again.
Do you really want me to work on a list of diseases that have been cured, ameliorated or treated by Christians? Really?
I never said ALL research.
As for the research thing, I can only think that you are referring to the issue with fetal research.
What, one line of research being held back by a myth isn't enough for you? Exactly how many scientific lines of enquiry have to be stopped before you have a problem with it?
would you at least be able to admit that there is a moral gray area involved here as to what the status of the unborn is?
I will admit there is a moral grey area when you admit there is a moral grey area regarding the millions of sperm that don't make it to the egg but die, and every woman's period. Look at all the 'life' killed there!
I do not know what "backward" rules you are talking about. Care to explain?
Bad generalizing on my part, sorry. You're keeping a system alive in which other Christians are trying to get rules passed, if you're not actively trying to do anything yourself. Are you pushing back against those who want creationism taught in schools with us too?
Really? Lots of closed minded individuals here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Faith is closed minded. People don't use faith in other parts of their lives (like science), only for God. Are you open to the possibility you could be wrong? How could someone show you you were wrong, when you don't listen to reason? Looks closed minded to me.
It seems to me that you are the closed minded one. Other members of this board have respectfully given your belief consideration while you close-mindedly attack theirs.
I'm open to the idea God exists. Nobody can give me any reason to believe though. I'm answering every 'reason' people have for believing, and showing it's not a good reason. Or maybe I'm not- that's for others to decide.
it is to disprove your statement that believers are not interested in scientific investigation and, as my comment shows, your statement is demonstrably false.
I shall rephrase then. Many Christians are closed off from any scienctific research that goes against the Bible.
The very concept you deride believers as being unwilling to investigate is one that was discovered by a believer. Oxymoronic, I know.
You presented one individual. Congratulations.
I find it interesting to note that between 85% and 93% (depending on the poll) of scientists surveyed at the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. In a country where around 85% of the population claim to believe in a god.
Sure, find me the natural beginning, and then we can talk about it.
Well if no evidence can disprove your god, I already know your answer.
I can imagine how conversations on evolution have gone in the past.
-God made every animal as we see it today.
-If I prove evolution to you, will you change your mind?
-Prove it, and then we can talk about it.
-*presents overwhelming evidence that cannot be ignored*
-Well the creation story is just a metaphor now. The Biblical god still exists.
-*slaps forehead in frustration*
fetal stem cells are a moral gray area, we have not worked out the ethics of this type of research.
Yeah, we have. There is no reason at all to think there are souls in these 3 day old embryos. Until there is, we should proceed as if there are not. Like everything else in life we have no reason to believe in. There's no reason to think my breakfast cereal has a soul, so I'm not going to stop eating it because it MAY have.