Do You Believe in God?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]If those are the criteria, the average physics textbook beats every religious text ever written.
[/quote]

Not any physics textbook I’ve ever read. Astrophysics texts are descriptive of various phenomena that occurred in the different time-scales immediately AFTER the big-bang. They don’t answer any philosophical questions regarding the theistic or atheistic origins of the big-bang. I work for a PhD in physics who has no problem with the Bible’s account. Another one I’ve worked for is an atheist, but he’s an Ashkenazi Jew and they tend to be atheistic.

[quote]Strawman.

Nobody claims the non-existence of a god, just the highly unlikelihood of a very specific one, in your case the Judeo-Christian one.

Or, to put it another way, Jesus is as likely to be the son of God as Thor is the son of Odin. [/quote]

Religious presuppositions, (and everyone has them), color the very way in which we look at evidence for or against various events in nature and history. Only one presupposition can maintain a virtuous circle with regards to the logic contained in its worldview. So far, none of the atheists on this site have even begun to address that question.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Examples please.

Surely, you’re aware of the brutality and oppresion orchestrated by State atheism? Look to the former Soviet Union, China, and N. Korea.

Yes, my bad - but I still feel those weren’t driven by their disbelief in a god.

Sure they were. Or, they wouldn’t have targeted those who did believe in God(s), in various ways. By the way, would the Columbine killers count? They did try to force a young christian girl to renounce Christ. When she did not, they killed her.

The communists targeted lots of people and most churches managed to survive pretty well.

It does not help your point that communism as well as national-socialism are quasi religions.

Insofar you are talking about one kind of organized religion fighting another, the fact that some of them are atheist religions is next to irrelevant.

Does not help my point? Examples of the extremes of State Atheism does not help my point? What religions were tolerated, were tolerated because they weren’t a threat to State Atheism. For those that were persecuted, the experience was rather brutal and oppressive indeed. But, I do love what you did there. Pass off the extremes of atheism, as religious extremes. [/quote]

Well, lets see.

Those movements were collectivist, manichäic, gnostic and even eschatological.

They had prophets, martyrs and saints and they had their holy wars.

What more does a religious movement need? If Buddhism is a religion so were they.

You say it yourself, the religions that were not attacked were no threat, but not to STATE ATHEISM, because any classic religion by definition would be by its sheer existence, but a threat to the movements control of a country.

Also, these movements never killed in the name of atheism but to build their echaton, which was naturally free of other religions, but how many Jews are in Christian heaven?

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Examples please.

Surely, you’re aware of the brutality and oppresion orchestrated by State atheism? Look to the former Soviet Union, China, and N. Korea.

Yes, my bad - but I still feel those weren’t driven by their disbelief in a god.

Sure they were. Or, they wouldn’t have targeted those who did believe in God(s), in various ways. By the way, would the Columbine killers count? They did try to force a young christian girl to renounce Christ. When she did not, they killed her.

The communists targeted lots of people and most churches managed to survive pretty well.

It does not help your point that communism as well as national-socialism are quasi religions.

Insofar you are talking about one kind of organized religion fighting another, the fact that some of them are atheist religions is next to irrelevant.

Does not help my point? Examples of the extremes of State Atheism does not help my point? What religions were tolerated, were tolerated because they weren’t a threat to State Atheism. For those that were persecuted, the experience was rather brutal and oppressive indeed. But, I do love what you did there. Pass off the extremes of atheism, as religious extremes.

Well, lets see.

Those movements were collectivist, manichäic, gnostic and even eschatological.

They had prophets, martyrs and saints and they had their holy wars.

What more does a religious movement need? If Buddhism is a religion so were they.

You say it yourself, the religions that were not attacked were no threat, but not to STATE ATHEISM, because any classic religion by definition would be by its sheer existence, but a threat to the movements control of a country.

Also, these movements never killed in the name of atheism but to build their echaton, which was naturally free of other religions, but how many Jews are in Christian heaven?

[/quote]

So, let’s see if I understand you. Atheism, with the means of force (the state), is incapable of extremism, because at that point it becomes religion. What a clever idea!

The pacifist atheist= an atheist
An extremist atheist= a religious person…

Man, you guys sure set the argument up so you can’t lose, don’t you?

[Varqanir]

[quote]pookie wrote:

Actually, I was simply pointing out to Varq that his “doesn’t pick my pocket” assertion wasn’t entirely accurate. Because it isn’t. Churches get a free ride on our backs whether we like it or not.

I haven’t seen him disagree with me. Even you agree with the point, although you enjoy the government giving away your money in this particular instance.[/quote]

You probably missed my comment back on page four or wherever. It’s not such a vociferous disagreement, just my perspective. To repeat:

I look at it like this:

Let’s say I run a store, and the mob hits me up for protection money. They are essentially allowing me to choose whether I would like my pocket picked, or my leg broken.

I can either pay up (pocket picked), refuse (leg maybe broken), arm myself to the teeth and fight it out with the mob (suicide) or go out of business, thereby reducing the incentive of the mob to come and pick my pocket.

On the other side of the street is another store, whose owner has a pretty daughter who is dating the cousin of the brother of the local mobster. Since the owner of the store is practically family, the mob doesn’t hit him up for protection money. It’s not fair, maybe, and I certainly don’t like it, but I tend to be angrier at the gangsters who are actively collecting my money at gunpoint than I am at the poor schmo with tenuous mob connections, who only passively benefits from my predicament.

[quote]I don’t give a shit about your taxes. I care about mine and how they’re spent. It just so happens that a situation that I find annoying is rather prevalent across the globe. Most probably even in Japan, were Varq is.
[/quote]

Annoyance is a good characterization of what I feel, not for the small churches like Rainjack’s that struggle to keep the place heated in winter or the keep the roof from leaking, and that generally try to do some good in the community, but rather the megachurches with millions of dollars in tax-free income, spacious real estate holdings and luxury cars for the clergy.

This is especially obnoxious here in Japan, where the Buddhist temples are major landholders, and Buddhist priests (who supposedly are attempting to attain enlightenment by denying themselves earthly pleasures) adorn their homes with solid gold Buddha statuettes, drive sleek Mercedes Benzes, and influence government policy by bribing Parliament members.

…and yet, I still hate the thieves more than I hate the hypocrites (see Robert Ingersoll). If I had one bullet, and a priest and a tax collector were both within range, I would have no trouble deciding which target to take.

[Sloth]

I’m going to adopt your tactic Orion.

There is no such as a christian extremist. A Christian attempts to be Christ-like.

Yet, Christ was merciful, forgiving, and even preached a rather high level of pacifism. Not only did he not persecute sinners, but was in their company a great deal (it is the sick in need of a Dr). He taught the apostles not to harm those who reject him, but to simply shake the dust off from the bottom of their sandles and move on.

Therefore, any supposed Christian who commits violence in the name of Christ, is lying about his motivations. The person is probably an agnostic or atheist deep down. And his motivations can actually be traced to a secular want. Land, gold, nationality, race, a people to tax, etc.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, these movements never killed in the name of atheism but to build their echaton, which was naturally free of other religions, but how many Jews are in Christian heaven?

[/quote]

Ignoring the fact that the thugs of atheistic regimes targeted and oppressed religious people’s, I’m not sure I understand your question concerning the quantity of Jews in christian heaven. It’s not my place to judge the destination of the soul.

[AlphaDragon]

To the OP:

Yes.

[Varqanir]

Dear Doc Skeptix:

Obviously, I have had neither the time nor the energy to engage in an exhaustive search of the Torah, but here is one of my favorite passages with regard to what we were talking about earlier.

It’s my favorite for many reasons: one, because it introduces even more ambiguity to the ideas of the singularity, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Yahweh, and two, because it is the ne plus ultra of cunning linguistics. You guessed it, Genesis 11:5-7. The Tower of Babel.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Now, if God is singular, who is he talking to? Himself? (or Himselves, for you Trinitarians) The angels? Jesus maybe? …or could it be… Satan?

If He is Omnipresent, why must He “go down” to see the Tower? Wasn’t He already there?

If He is Omnipotent, why would He feel threatened by a tiny little tower erected out of mud bricks and tar on an insignificant planet by a bunch of talking apes?

And if He is Omniscient, wouldn’t He have anticipated that confounding the languages of men would not deter them in the future from literally reaching the heavens, in rocket ships?

These are not novel questions by any means, but I await your views.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dear Doc Skeptix:

Obviously, I have had neither the time nor the energy to engage in an exhaustive search of the Torah, but here is one of my favorite passages with regard to what we were talking about earlier.

It’s my favorite for many reasons: one, because it introduces even more ambiguity to the ideas of the singularity, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Yahweh, and two, because it is the ne plus ultra of cunning linguistics. You guessed it, Genesis 11:5-7. The Tower of Babel.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Now, if God is singular, who is he talking to? Himself? (or Himselves, for you Trinitarians) The angels? Jesus maybe?

If He is Omnipresent, why must He “go down” to see the Tower? Wasn’t He already there?

If He is Omnipotent, why would He feel threatened by a tiny little tower erected out of mud bricks and tar on an insignificant planet by a bunch of talking apes?

And if He is Omniscient, wouldn’t He have anticipated that confounding the languages of men would not deter them in the future from literally reaching the heavens, in rocket ships?

These are not novel questions by any means, but I await your views.

[/quote]
Terriifc questions for which my answers will prove inadequate. I bet Nephorm will have answers, too.

Anthropomorphism.
It appears again here, and the more sophisticated answer attributes to the ancients the belief in the incorporeality of God. The language which ascribes a body, a voice, a hand, etc., is used to ease our understanding, since we are low mortals. One objection is that this is all too easy: the ancients (even the Greeks!) understood the gods to present themselves at will, but also to appear at an intersection of the real world with the unseen holy world. For example, gods residing in idols, or God’s throne on the Ark’s Cherubs wings, or angels–all are the perigee of the holy emerging into the mundane.

The address. To whom is God speaking?
The descent. Why does God need to “go down” if he is omniscient?
Curious that you choose this verse and, yesterday, the verse regarding the creation of Humans–“Let us create…” Why "us? "
This is not the “royal” or “editorial” “we,” as some would say. Instead–oh, and I Iike this one!–Rashi says that here God confers with the court of angels, not for permission, but for deliberation. Recall that man is created with the same deliberation–“let us create…” Adam and Eve do not “come forth” like other animals; their creation is deliberate and deliberated. (Nice parallel, Varq!!!) And the destruction of the Tower of Babel is also a carefully deliberated act!
So, too, with “let us descend.” When God needs to observe the low behavior of men, he can do so from anywhere, but when He is in judgment, He chooses to be among the judged–like the righteous judge should be.
(This reasoning has its faults: see Sodom, Gomorrah and the plagues of Egypt.)

Rocket ships
God’s omniscience does not necessitate prohibition of evil or of the disagreeable. Man has free will. (Maimonides–and others–make this logical, even if I think of it as tautological.)
Threat? No. God is never threatened. He loves Man and dislikes arrogance and disobedience (see, The Fall from Eden). Perhaps it is God’s plan that Man is to be dispersed, and building the tower “…lest we be dispersed”–is in contravention of God’s intent. How poetic that what men feared–dispersion–is now their fate, a punishment for their arrogance. No, building the tower is not a sin, but it would have lead to sins. (There is that omniscience thingy again.)
So we now are dispersed, at odds with each other, and rocket ships–which do “make a name for ourselves”–do not contravene any celestial intent, and do conform to free will, granted by Him.

Time to rest.

[will_to_power]

OctoberGirl wrote:
For those who don’t believe in a god do you still have a sense of spirituality or is that still the wrong word to use?

I still don’t know what I think but I do consider god or know god.

I want karma to work! on others,… not me, unless it is good.

No sense of spirituality. What is this meant to mean anyway? Is this basically being not religious but you still believe in some stuff? I’m seriously asking.

I would like to point out here that many people seem to think that not being ‘spiritual’ or other attributes [me explaining why love is a rational survival tool earlier in this thread is another example] means I’m jaded or less happy than them or somehow lack something, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Seriously though, I’d love to make a deal with you secularists. I’ll help you get the tax breaks removed from my social institution (my church). In exchange, you’ll help stop the actual confiscation (not just tax breaks) of my paycheck for your social institutions (cradle to grave welfare and social workers).

I know our parishioners would have plenty through these tax cuts to cover any tax obligations of our church. And we’d run much more efficient charity programs, instead of the government’s dependency programs.[/quote]

I would take you up on that deal. Have you seen what income tax is like in Australia? It’s disgusting.

Hmm. I’m not sure you could remove my Church’s tax exempt status, without doing away with ALL charitable organizations’ exemptions. My Church certainely does it’s charitable works, and fullfills the legal requirements from what I can see. Therefore, I don’t think you can legally discriminate against it, while still offering secular organizations the exemptions.

Your church could have a charity for its charitable works, thereby being tax exempt only on its charitable operations. Same as the rest of charities [some of them religious] operate.

[quote]rsg said:
I think people should keep their shit to themselves - want to belive in god? Fine, just don’t fucking knock on my door at 7am on a Sunday morning telling me bullshit. Do atheists wake YOU up at stupid hours telling you that god isn’t real? NO.

When last did you hear in the news “10 atheists caught for blowing up a public building in the name of…nothing”.

Just be a good person, don’t lie, don’t kill or rape and treat others with respect.[/quote]

Good post.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Examples please.

Surely, you’re aware of the brutality and oppresion orchestrated by State atheism? Look to the former Soviet Union, China, and N. Korea.

Yes, my bad - but I still feel those weren’t driven by their disbelief in a god.

Sure they were. Or, they wouldn’t have targeted those who did believe in God(s), in various ways. By the way, would the Columbine killers count? They did try to force a young christian girl to renounce Christ. When she did not, they killed her.

The communists targeted lots of people and most churches managed to survive pretty well.

It does not help your point that communism as well as national-socialism are quasi religions.

Insofar you are talking about one kind of organized religion fighting another, the fact that some of them are atheist religions is next to irrelevant.

Does not help my point? Examples of the extremes of State Atheism does not help my point? What religions were tolerated, were tolerated because they weren’t a threat to State Atheism. For those that were persecuted, the experience was rather brutal and oppressive indeed. But, I do love what you did there. Pass off the extremes of atheism, as religious extremes.

Well, lets see.

Those movements were collectivist, manichäic, gnostic and even eschatological.

They had prophets, martyrs and saints and they had their holy wars.

What more does a religious movement need? If Buddhism is a religion so were they.

You say it yourself, the religions that were not attacked were no threat, but not to STATE ATHEISM, because any classic religion by definition would be by its sheer existence, but a threat to the movements control of a country.

Also, these movements never killed in the name of atheism but to build their echaton, which was naturally free of other religions, but how many Jews are in Christian heaven?

So, let’s see if I understand you. Atheism, with the means of force (the state), is incapable of extremism, because at that point it becomes religion. What a clever idea!

The pacifist atheist= an atheist
An extremist atheist= a religious person…

Man, you guys sure set the argument up so you can’t lose, don’t you?[/quote]

I never wrote that.

What I wrote is that what you call STATE ATHEISM , and imagine to be some kind of atheist theocracy (which it kind of was) with the sole purpose of killing in the name of atheism (which never happened).

Meaning, they were NOT atheist extremists, because atheism was not even a necessary part of their ideology.

They were national-socialist and communist extremists that happened to be atheists.

You cannot lump people who kill people in the name of religion together with killers that just happened to be atheists.

Them being atheists had nothing to do with the killing whereas in the case of the Spanish Inquisition or the witch hunts religion undoubtedly had.

Now, if you call them national-socialist and communist killers, I remind you again that those movements had many traits, if not all, of organized religion.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m going to adopt your tactic Orion.

There is no such as a christian extremist. A Christian attempts to be Christ-like.

Yet, Christ was merciful, forgiving, and even preached a rather high level of pacifism. Not only did he not persecute sinners, but was in their company a great deal (it is the sick in need of a Dr). He taught the apostles not to harm those who reject him, but to simply shake the dust off from the bottom of their sandles and move on.

Therefore, any supposed Christian who commits violence in the name of Christ, is lying about his motivations. The person is probably an agnostic or atheist deep down. And his motivations can actually be traced to a secular want. Land, gold, nationality, race, a people to tax, etc.[/quote]

I would accept that.

That leaves us with the conclusion though, that organized religions (like communism and nazism) are a very conveniant device for such men to go after their more earthly desires.

I would say the inherent irrationalism, nay, proud irrationalism and the fact that they are mass movements lends itself to that.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Also, these movements never killed in the name of atheism but to build their echaton, which was naturally free of other religions, but how many Jews are in Christian heaven?

Ignoring the fact that the thugs of atheistic regimes targeted and oppressed religious people’s, I’m not sure I understand your question concerning the quantity of Jews in christian heaven. It’s not my place to judge the destination of the soul.[/quote]

Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.

It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I would accept that.

That leaves us with the conclusion though, that organized religions (like communism and nazism) are a very conveniant device for such men to go after their more earthly desires.

I would say the inherent irrationalism, nay, proud irrationalism and the fact that they are mass movements lends itself to that.

[/quote]

What can’t be twisted into a device to achieve our darker earthly desires? For capitalism! For socialism! For the Monarchy! For Democracy! For God! For science (atom bomb)! For State Atheism! For love…Oh yes, us humans even kill others over the those we fancy.

And while religion can be a conveniant device for men to do wrong, it can also be a device for much good. In that way, it is like a number of institutions.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
rsg wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Examples please.

Surely, you’re aware of the brutality and oppresion orchestrated by State atheism? Look to the former Soviet Union, China, and N. Korea.

Yes, my bad - but I still feel those weren’t driven by their disbelief in a god.

Sure they were. Or, they wouldn’t have targeted those who did believe in God(s), in various ways. By the way, would the Columbine killers count? They did try to force a young christian girl to renounce Christ. When she did not, they killed her.

The communists targeted lots of people and most churches managed to survive pretty well.

It does not help your point that communism as well as national-socialism are quasi religions.

Insofar you are talking about one kind of organized religion fighting another, the fact that some of them are atheist religions is next to irrelevant.

Does not help my point? Examples of the extremes of State Atheism does not help my point? What religions were tolerated, were tolerated because they weren’t a threat to State Atheism. For those that were persecuted, the experience was rather brutal and oppressive indeed. But, I do love what you did there. Pass off the extremes of atheism, as religious extremes.

Well, lets see.

Those movements were collectivist, manichäic, gnostic and even eschatological.

They had prophets, martyrs and saints and they had their holy wars.

What more does a religious movement need? If Buddhism is a religion so were they.

You say it yourself, the religions that were not attacked were no threat, but not to STATE ATHEISM, because any classic religion by definition would be by its sheer existence, but a threat to the movements control of a country.

Also, these movements never killed in the name of atheism but to build their echaton, which was naturally free of other religions, but how many Jews are in Christian heaven?

So, let’s see if I understand you. Atheism, with the means of force (the state), is incapable of extremism, because at that point it becomes religion. What a clever idea!

The pacifist atheist= an atheist
An extremist atheist= a religious person…

Man, you guys sure set the argument up so you can’t lose, don’t you?

I never wrote that.

What I wrote is that what you call STATE ATHEISM , and imagine to be some kind of atheist theocracy (which it kind of was) with the sole purpose of killing in the name of atheism (which never happened).

Meaning, they were NOT atheist extremists, because atheism was not even a necessary part of their ideology.

They were national-socialist and communist extremists that happened to be atheists.

You cannot lump people who kill people in the name of religion together with killers that just happened to be atheists.

Them being atheists had nothing to do with the killing whereas in the case of the Spanish Inquisition or the witch hunts religion undoubtedly had.

Now, if you call them national-socialist and communist killers, I remind you again that those movements had many traits, if not all, of organized religion.

[/quote]

I’m not lumping people who kill in the name of religion with killers who just happened to atheists. I’m lumping them with Atheistic regimes who killed/oppressed religious people.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:

Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.

It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.

[/quote]

I don’t see communism as a quasi religious movement. I see it as a secular movement.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.

It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.

I don’t see communism as a quasi religious movement. I see it as a secular movement. [/quote]

Why can´t a quasi religion not be secular?

Surely the need for organized religion is not gone just because we killed God?

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.

It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.

I don’t see communism as a quasi religious movement. I see it as a secular movement.

Why can´t a quasi religion not be secular?

Surely the need for organized religion is not gone just because we killed God?

[/quote]

Exactly what is a “quasi religion?” Is it a secular and atheistic regime, or not? You seem to want to define religion simply as “organized.”

[Electric_E]

I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…

Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit

[Varqanir]

I agree with Orion that Communism and Fascism… or Capitalism, even, can loosely be described as religions, in that they have their prophets (Marx and Engels, Mussolini and Hitler, Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises), their sacred texts (Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Wealth of Nations), their absolute faith in unobservable entities, unprovable postulates and supernatural forces (the “dictatorship of the Proletariat”, the “Ubermensch”, the “invisible hand”), and the incontrovertible belief of their adherents that they and they alone hold the truth.

Religion can exist, indeed, surely does exist, in the absence of the worship of God.