To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: theistic dread
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

griggs 1947
Francisco Ayala,critic of creation ism and theistic evolutionist , avers that the religious need a deity in order to overcome the dread of death and to find a meaning for life. Those people need counseling to overcome that dread . I am my own meanings. I need no deity whatsoever! John Hick avers that that atheist contradict themselves when they would die for others. He sets up the straw man of egotism. He has dread that without a religion of any sort would behave worse. Look at the religious: they behave no better than we do. And pastors love toput dread into others with their nonsense that we have a yearning for a deity.Freud and Albert Ellis have maintained that religion is a neurosis.[ any sort people would ] Fellow skeptics ,do you find that the religious exhibit such a neurosis?
newguy
griggs 1947: Having the ability to "draw a crowd"(more like an angry mob at times), I figured that I'd help out your dying thread. Oooh, sorry...did I mention "dying"?

IS THERE A COUNSELOR IN THE HOUSE!

SOMEONE HELP ME, PLEASE!


About your suggested neurosis:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/neurosis

neurosis
One entry found for neurosis.

Main Entry: neu·ro·sis
Pronunciation: nu-'rO-s&s, nyu-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural neu·ro·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: a mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis, does not result in disturbance of the use of language, and is accompanied by various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances (as visceral symptoms, anxieties, or phobias)


It seems to me, upon reading several of your posts, that YOU have a serious neurosis where Christians are concerned.
Isn't this correct? Sure it is. Have a nice day.

P.S. BOO!
howtothinklikegod
God...

Psychiatrists had an experiment called the science of God. It states that only people with psychosis and epilepsy will have the ability to have a deep sense of God and to escape from consciousness to a dimension where God can be visibly seen.

Now, religion is a talent.

I think griggs dislike the news too, newguy. Diety???!!! Shut it off, for God's sake!!!!!!

We don't need counseling because we're intelligent enough... smile.gif
StevenA
I'm just going to quickly vent that I had a conversation on another forum a bit ago with one of the more frustrating "christians" (who I think give christianity a bad name) that more or less flat out said atheists are incapable of selfless acts and that they have a "to hell with everyone else" attitude, whereas christians are inherently selfless and can be nothing else. I tried to get the guy to realize the hypocracy of some of what he was saying - namely that it's entirely self centered to hold your own beliefs as so unquestionably meritous that anyone else not sharing them will go to hell, and secondly that atheists likely never even invented the idea of hell, so they couldn't wish anyone there, nor would they likely even care one way or another if someone wants to believe in some etherial God. Isn't it entirely in ones self interest to want to go to heaven? If someone acts charitably in some fashion does it matter (or deserve insults) whether they did it for God or for some personal reason? I think most people place their self interests above most other interests, and I don't think that's necessarily bad either ... as long it doesn't justify destruction of others interests.

Anyway it was just an entirely insulting, close minded, repetition of various "facts" the guy claimed and he accepted virtually no debate and told me I'd have to take up any complaints over it with God (I bet God just loves being pegged as deserving the blame for such a poor character). I shouldn't care really as I'm not a God proponent but I have some sympathy for other christians (I'm thinking mostly of some of my relatives of, I'm certain, a different denomination as well as my personal belief that christianity should include moral values that are beneficial to a society) who end up being stereotyped poorly by the actions of some other self proclaimed christians. I recognize there's b.s. that goes both ways and many times christians can also be treated poorly but most of it stems from single minded people on both sides of the camp who assume there's little room in the world for anyone else. It's fine if someone believes they have perfect answers to everything but obviously if this extends to being a jerk in how you treat others then it's likely what goes around, comes around. It's just a shame ... and then I become the blowhard too in response. Oh well, it's one thing to try to promote some moral ideals, it's an entirely different and more difficult prospect to live by them. I'm not goint to try to claim Godlike attributes but it seems insulting when someone who appears to represent worse morals claims to speak for God (shouldn't that be reserved as the pinnacle of some ideology? Or more realistically, IMO, God should be allowed to speak for himself ... of course people will claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" but when you consider that this "Word" had God doing things like asking people to kill their own child as a selfless sacrifice to God, it makes you wonder if the Bible really does speak for God. I'd assume God wouldn't need to play any such cruel jokes on people to demonstrate their faith). I don't want to be overly harsh on christians but there are entirely too many who lay claim to this title without representing much of any of the ideals you'd assume should attached to it.
MarkG
I've read them often enough myself but have some questions. First of all though, I'd like to thank each and every one of them for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws as outlined in the Bible and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in Her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this for us please?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How, in your opinion, should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

MarkG
griggs 1947
Thanks Mark for the Buy-bull lesson. [I printed it.] Now do the religious show dread or does that apply to only some of them .Ellis would say all .They just cannot take it that the polyverse is just an ultimate fact. How about those who proclaim their god is the ground of being? I t seems to me that is just obscurantism ,showing dread , so they just have to have a god of some sort . biggrin.gif
curious1
QUOTE
atheists are incapable of selfless acts and that they have a "to hell with everyone else" attitude, whereas christians are inherently selfless and can be nothing else.


Actually, I think most atheists subscribe to evolution and 'selfless acts' are acts which help promulgate the species, and for many people, it's instinct to protect women and young, hardwired into our genes. Most athiests I've known are pretty selfless as a whole.

Compare this to theists who are selfless because they want a reward because they must give it thought. I don't think either has a choice in reality, acts of unthinking selflessness (diving into a pool to save a drowning person, running into a fire to save a child, diving over rails to knock someone out of the way of a train) generally don't give the respondant time to think before acting anyway.

I read an article a while ago about a man who lost his legs knocking his dog off a railroad track. I don't think he thought about it, because as much as he loved his dog, that dog would only live another 5 years in it's natural lifespan, while he will live without legs for at least 50 more years, I believe he was in his 20s.

Was this a 'selfless' act? Most people would say so. I don't know how grateful the dog would be given that his master wasn't able to see him for a good chunk of his remaining life because he was in surgery and therapy, and no longer able to play with him for some time after.

What thinking person would put 5 years of a dog's life ahead of 50 years of his own if he were to think about it? The dog may not even have died to the train.

If it's not hard-wired, what is it?

On the other hand, that's the need to act NOW type of selflessness. What about thinking selflessness? Why would the guys in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania stop the terrorists from crashing into the White House? They had to think, then act. Because survival of the nation, survival of the many outweighted the needs of the few?

This doesn't require religion to appreciate.
Oshiwa
QUOTE
ve read them often enough myself but have some questions. First of all though, I'd like to thank each and every one of them for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws as outlined in the Bible and how to follow them.


I did not qoute the rest simply to save space. Mark you have fallen into the simple trap that all those who do not read the bible or fully understand the purpose of the law fall into. Let me give you some scripture from the new testament that may help you understand that we are no longer under the mosaic law, that it was given only to the Jews, is given to help us gain an understanding/knowledge of sin and in fact does not apply to Christians today because Christ has already fulfilled and given us a New Testament, or Covenant, that we adhere to.

Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Christ came to fulfill the law, and he did so, and so the law is fulfilled and it is no longer required that we follow it.

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

No one can keep the law and thus they cannot be justified by it. The law’s purpose was to show us the holiness of God and thus give us knowledge of sin.

Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace”

We are no longer under the law, since Christ fulfilled it, but rather we are under grace.

Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Here again we see Christ fulfilled the law for us and hence we need only believe on him.

Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Again the law gave us knowledge of sin but we are no longer obligated to follow it.

Read through Galatians 3 and you will get more of a picture of what the purpose of the law was.

When Christ came and died for us we were given a new covenant and thus the commands that we are to follow are those made by Christ and his apostles in the rest of the New Testament. That is why there is an Old Testament and a New Testament; the old covenant was the law, the new covenant one of belief and faith in Christ.

Fact is Mark the law does not apply to us today though we can glean principles about God's holiness from it. The commnads that were given were given to show that God takes sin very seriously and not only that but He judges it directly and swiftly. The law also was given only to the Jews in their day as they were God's chosen people and it was designed to demonstarte the difference between the one true God and those "gods" that were worshipped by the nations round about.

Ignorance of the bible is what leads you to the conclusions to which you have sprung and I think you should consider what the bible says in context before you post again.
DogsHead
Oh Mark G! Fantastic. Just beautiful. That made milk squirt out my nose. There are a couple of threads here that could use this posted holus bolus. Beware the response of the Gilksman!
conan
It appears our friend MarkG is not above a bit of plagarism.

http://skeptically.org/againstreligion/id3.html

I'm not too sure I would consider him an authority on morality.
DogsHead
Tsk, Mark - you should always give your sources mate. Unless you are Jerry
of course.
newguy
Hey, what's the matter MarkG? Just another "mindless follower" of someone else? Seems so. If you ever do have any questions OF YOUR OWN, then please feel free to ask them. In the meantime, have a nice "plagiarizing" day, won't you?
blue_bottle

I must admit, I know a number of theists who seem to be always saying that we're going to hell unless we repent to the lord almighty. So, from that perspective, I understand the post.

But in all honesty, God for myself and alot of Christians that I know (and I apologise, but I only know christianity) view God as our saviour, not condemer. God is the only way that I've been able to get through parts of my life, and I view him more as a friend, making my life better, and more fufilled.

So why I understand the post, I'm am inclined to disagree with the generalisation.
PuckSR
QUOTE
Mark you have fallen into the simple trap that all those who do not read the bible or fully understand the purpose of the law fall into. Let me give you some scripture from the new testament that may help you understand that we are no longer under the mosaic law, that it was given only to the Jews, is given to help us gain an understanding/knowledge of sin and in fact does not apply to Christians today because Christ has already fulfilled and given us a New Testament, or Covenant, that we adhere to.


Actually...you proceeded to quote Jesus once...and Paul several times.
The quote from Jesus is weak, since it doesnt explicitly claim that we no longer have to follow the law.
Im sorry, I might have missed something...but are you a follower of Jesus or of Paul?
Let us look at the quote from Jesus quickly....
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mark you have fallen into the simple trap that all those who do not read the bible or fully understand the purpose of the law fall into. Let me give you some scripture from the new testament that may help you understand that we are no longer under the mosaic law, that it was given only to the Jews, is given to help us gain an understanding/knowledge of sin and in fact does not apply to Christians today because Christ has already fulfilled and given us a New Testament, or Covenant, that we adhere to.


Actually...you proceeded to quote Jesus once...and Paul several times.
The quote from Jesus is weak, since it doesnt explicitly claim that we no longer have to follow the law.
Im sorry, I might have missed something...but are you a follower of Jesus or of Paul?
Let us look at the quote from Jesus quickly....
Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”


But most experts on the bible(textual critics and those who have studied the "best" ancient documents) do misinterpret this the way you do. This passage actually opposes your position. Jesus is claiming that He will keep the law. He is not going to "end" the law through fulfillment....
Textual Criticism of passage

Jesus and his followers continued to keep the law....but you should be able to find passages where Jesus points out conflicting points of the law, and resolves the conflict by deferring to the "purpose" of the law....like a judge would do.
These passages might aid you in your claim that impractical laws should not be followed...but you are not going to find direct evidence from Jesus(questionably) that support destroying the law.

The main proponent of "destroying" jewish law was Paul. He realized that jewish law was alien and impractical to gentile converts to christianity. There are several well-documented instances of debate between Paul and other early Christian founders.

BTW...you left out the last part of that quote from Matthew...
QUOTE
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

So it looks like Oshiwa will be counted least in the kingdom of Heaven.... ohmy.gif
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (griggs 1947+Jun 2 2006, 02:33 PM)
Francisco Ayala,critic of creation ism and theistic evolutionist , avers that the religious need a deity in order to overcome the dread of death and to find a meaning for life.

That's a terrible generalization.

QUOTE
Those people need counseling to overcome that dread . I am my own meanings. I need no deity whatsoever! John Hick avers that that atheist contradict  themselves when they would die for others. He sets up the straw man of egotism. He has dread that without  a religion of any sort would behave worse. Look at the religious: they behave no better than we do. And pastors love toput dread into others with their nonsense that we have a yearning for a deity.Freud and Albert Ellis have maintained that religion is a neurosis.[ any sort people would ] Fellow skeptics ,do you find that the religious exhibit such  a neurosis?

Animals are probably atheist...

Theism is basically just an indoctrinated idea, having nothing to do with how sane or crazy a person is. Believing in a god is no more crazy then believing there are alternate realities within black holes. You can't "prove" yes or no, because you haven't been there to see it.

The reason why "religion" becomes "neurotic" is this:
People all getting into a group and encouraging eachother to believe more firmly in a fantasy that has hidden agendas behind it.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (MarkG+Jun 11 2006, 11:31 PM)
I've read them often enough myself but have some questions. First of all though, I'd like to thank each and every one of them for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws as outlined in the Bible and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in Her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this for us please?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How, in your opinion, should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

MarkG

This only applies to semitic religion.

Come and tell me how evil Taoism is.

If you want to say Islam, Jewish and Christian religion is rubbish, then fine, say this instead:
"Semitic religion is evil insanity."

But when you say "Religion" in the general term of the word, you condemn all religion as you try to avoid the label of "Anti-semitism".

You've already proven that anti-semitism has reason, in your critic of the un-questional and perfect commandments of their "God".

This isn't ratial, it's cultural.
PuckSR
QUOTE
Come and tell me how evil Taoism is.

If you want to say Islam, Jewish and Christian religion is rubbish, then fine, say this instead:
"Semitic religion is evil insanity."

Theism-The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

However, Taoism, Confucism, and several others do not believe in any God or gods.
Therefore....they are not theistic....
Probably best to define several of them as pantheistic.

However...I can name some non-Semitic religions that have an equal share of problems.
I.E. Hinduism...a monotheism that has a diverse and confusing culture.
While he may not have attacked the evils of Hinduism with his statements...others have..
Including Gautama Siddhartha...who created a new religion to abandon the monotheistic worship of a deity.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 21 2006, 10:58 PM)
Theism-The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

However, Taoism, Confucism, and several others do not believe in any God or gods.
Therefore....they are not theistic....
Probably best to define several of them as pantheistic.

However...I can name some non-Semitic religions that have an equal share of problems.
I.E.  Hinduism...a monotheism that has a diverse and confusing culture.
While he may not have attacked the evils of Hinduism with his statements...others have..
Including Gautama Siddhartha...who created a new religion to abandon the monotheistic worship of a deity.

Hmm...

Anti-monotheism or anti-totalitarianism..?

...Anti-monotheism or anti-totalitarianism..?

I can't tell...

Animatism & escapism seem to arise due to insecurities and inabilities within, where the mind cannot handle reality in its pure, raw form, therefor a second, twisted version of reality is implimented?
skepticgriggsy
For the sake of completeness. The theologian Paul Tillich claims that without God we are so forlorn. He can give no evidence that that is so. It is just the old preacher's argument that without Him we are so bad off.
skepticgriggsy
This is the argument from angst that Augustine formulated when he stated that we are restless unless in the bosom of God. Then there is the feel-good argument that believers do so get their jollies in ever praising their Fuhrer.
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (Oshiwa+Jul 12 2006, 06:47 PM)

I did not qoute the rest simply to save space. Mark you have fallen into the simple trap that all those who do not read the bible or fully understand the purpose of the law fall into. Let me give you some scripture from the new testament that may help you understand that we are no longer under the mosaic law, that it was given only to the Jews, is given to help us gain an understanding/knowledge of sin and in fact does not apply to Christians today because Christ has already fulfilled and given us a New Testament, or Covenant, that we adhere to.

Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Christ came to fulfill the law, and he did so, and so the law is fulfilled and it is no longer required that we follow it.

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

No one can keep the law and thus they cannot be justified by it. The law’s purpose was to show us the holiness of God and thus give us knowledge of sin.

Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace”

We are no longer under the law, since Christ fulfilled it, but rather we are under grace.

Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Here again we see Christ fulfilled the law for us and hence we need only believe on him.

Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Again the law gave us knowledge of sin but we are no longer obligated to follow it.

Read through Galatians 3 and you will get more of a picture of what the purpose of the law was.

When Christ came and died for us we were given a new covenant and thus the commands that we are to follow are those made by Christ and his apostles in the rest of the New Testament. That is why there is an Old Testament and a New Testament; the old covenant was the law, the new covenant one of belief and faith in Christ.

Fact is Mark the law does not apply to us today though we can glean principles about God's holiness from it. The commnads that were given were given to show that God takes sin very seriously and not only that but He judges it directly and swiftly. The law also was given only to the Jews in their day as they were God's chosen people and it was designed to demonstarte the difference between the one true God and those "gods" that were worshipped by the nations round about.

Ignorance of the bible is what leads you to the conclusions to which you have sprung and I think you should consider what the bible says in context before you post again.

Ah, but rewriting the bible is a mortal sin, and will cast you DEEP into the flames of perdition.. So your new bible is just that, the devil's work.

You see, christ was actually Satan incarnate, get the throngs to support him, so he could capture all the souls who didn't have enough brains to read the frickin bible and find that it was full of murder, rape, torture, all in the name of god...

and Satan knew just which god... huh.gif

Enjoy your days in the fires my man, if you truly believe in such crap. laugh.gif

MM
photojack
I wish this ridiculous retired thread had stayed that way. But since it got "resurrected" from the dead, I'll post a recent discovery slamming ALL religions, the book, "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris.

The End of Faith opens with a literary account of a day in the life of a suicide bomber – his last day. In an introductory chapter, Harris calls for an end to respect and tolerance for the competing belief systems of religion, which he describes as being "all equally uncontaminated by evidence". While focusing on the dangers posed by religious extremist groups now armed with weapons of mass destruction, Harris is equally critical of religious moderation, which he describes as "the context in which religious violence can never be adequately opposed."

Harris continues by examining the nature of belief itself, challenging the notion that we can in any sense enjoy freedom of belief – for as he points out, "belief is a fount of action in potentia." Instead he posits that in order to be useful, beliefs must be both logically coherent, and truly representative of the real world. Insofar as religious belief fails to ground itself in empirical evidence, Harris likens religion to a form of mental illness which, he says, "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy." He argues that there may be "sanity in numbers", but that it is "merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your prayers, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window."

Harris follows this with a brief survey of Christianity down the ages, examining the Inquisition and the historic persecution of witches and Jews. He contends that, far from being an aberration, the torture of heretics was simply a logical expression of Christian doctrine – one which, he says, was clearly justified by men such as Saint Augustine. Going still further, Harris sees the Holocaust as essentially drawing its inspiration from traditional Christian anti-Semitism. "Knowingly or not," he says, "the Nazis were agents of religion."

Possibly the most controversial aspect of The End of Faith is an uncompromising assessment and criticism of Islam, which Harris describes as being a "cult of death." He infers a clear link between Islamic teaching and terrorist atrocities such as 9/11, something which he backs up with five pages of quotations from the Koran, all extolling the use of violence. He also presents some Pew Research data, showing that significant percentages of Muslims worldwide would justify suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith

QUOTE
The only angels we need invoke are those of our better nature: reason, honesty, and love.  The only demons we must fear are those that lurk inside every human mind: ignorance, hatred, greed, and faith, which is surely the devil's masterpiece.
Sam Harris quote.

Harris makes an equally strong critique of the role of the Christian right in contemporary America, in influencing such areas as sex and drug policy, stem-cell research, and AIDS prevention in the developing world. In what he sees as a steady drift towards theocracy, Harris strongly criticizes leading figures from both the legislature and the judiciary for what he perceives as an unashamed failure to separate church and state in their various domains. "Not only do we still eat the offal of the ancient world," he says, "we are positively smug about it."

Next, Harris goes on to outline what he terms a "science of good and evil" – a rational approach to ethics, which he claims must necessarily be predicated upon questions of human happiness and suffering. He talks about the need to sustain "moral communities," a venture in which he feels that the separate religious moral identities of the "saved" and the "damned" can play no part. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith (Emphasis mine.)

Harris' basic message is that the time has come to speak openly and honestly about religion. He feels that the survival of civilization is in danger because of a taboo against questioning religious beliefs. While highlighting what he regards as a particular problem posed by Islam at this moment with respect to international terrorism, Harris makes a direct criticism of religion of all styles and persuasions. He sees religion as an impediment to progress toward more enlightened approaches to spirituality and ethics.
While an atheist by definition, Harris asserts that the term is not necessary. His position is that "atheism" is not a worldview or a philosophy, but the "destruction of bad ideas." He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised." He compares modern day religious beliefs to the myths of the Ancient Greeks, which were once accepted as fact, but are obsolete today. In a January 2007 interview with PBS, Harris noted that: "We don't have a word for not believing in Zeus, which is to say we are all atheists in respect to Zeus. And we don't have a word for not being an astrologer." He goes on to say that the term will be retired only when "we all just achieve a level of intellectual honesty where we are no longer going to pretend to be certain about things we are not certain about."

Religious America.

Harris focuses much of his critique on the state of contemporary religious affairs in the USA. Harris worries that many areas of American culture are harmed by beliefs that are driven by religious dogma. For instance, he cites polls showing that 44% of Americans believe it is either "certain" or "probable" that Jesus will return to Earth within the next fifty years. The same percentage believe that creationism should be taught in public schools and that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews.

Such unfounded beliefs, often sheltered from objective criticism, impede planning a sustainable future argues Harris. He points out that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded by many as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture as some call it. Harris suggests that a significant proportion of the American population may see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East as a welcome portent of the End times.

Harris further notes that the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents and senators and representatives, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office. When President George W. Bush publicly invokes God in speeches regarding either domestic or foreign affairs, Harris invites us to consider how we might react if the President were to mention Zeus or Apollo in a similar vein. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author) (Emphasis mine.)

NEONOM
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 1 2008, 02:09 PM)
I wish this ridiculous retired thread had stayed that way. But since it got "resurrected" from the dead, I'll post a recent discovery slamming ALL religions, the book, "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris.

The End of Faith opens with a literary account of a day in the life of a suicide bomber – his last day. In an introductory chapter, Harris calls for an end to respect and tolerance for the competing belief systems of religion, which he describes as being "all equally uncontaminated by evidence". While focusing on the dangers posed by religious extremist groups now armed with weapons of mass destruction, Harris is equally critical of religious moderation, which he describes as "the context in which religious violence can never be adequately opposed."

Harris continues by examining the nature of belief itself, challenging the notion that we can in any sense enjoy freedom of belief – for as he points out, "belief is a fount of action in potentia." Instead he posits that in order to be useful, beliefs must be both logically coherent, and truly representative of the real world. Insofar as religious belief fails to ground itself in empirical evidence, Harris likens religion to a form of mental illness which, he says, "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy." He argues that there may be "sanity in numbers", but that it is "merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your prayers, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window."

Harris follows this with a brief survey of Christianity down the ages, examining the Inquisition and the historic persecution of witches and Jews. He contends that, far from being an aberration, the torture of heretics was simply a logical expression of Christian doctrine – one which, he says, was clearly justified by men such as Saint Augustine. Going still further, Harris sees the Holocaust as essentially drawing its inspiration from traditional Christian anti-Semitism. "Knowingly or not," he says, "the Nazis were agents of religion."

Possibly the most controversial aspect of The End of Faith is an uncompromising assessment and criticism of Islam, which Harris describes as being a "cult of death." He infers a clear link between Islamic teaching and terrorist atrocities such as 9/11, something which he backs up with five pages of quotations from the Koran, all extolling the use of violence. He also presents some Pew Research data, showing that significant percentages of Muslims worldwide would justify suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith

Sam Harris quote.

Harris makes an equally strong critique of the role of the Christian right in contemporary America, in influencing such areas as sex and drug policy, stem-cell research, and AIDS prevention in the developing world. In what he sees as a steady drift towards theocracy, Harris strongly criticizes leading figures from both the legislature and the judiciary for what he perceives as an unashamed failure to separate church and state in their various domains. "Not only do we still eat the offal of the ancient world," he says, "we are positively smug about it."

Next, Harris goes on to outline what he terms a "science of good and evil" – a rational approach to ethics, which he claims must necessarily be predicated upon questions of human happiness and suffering. He talks about the need to sustain "moral communities," a venture in which he feels that the separate religious moral identities of the "saved" and the "damned" can play no part. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith (Emphasis mine.)

Harris' basic message is that the time has come to speak openly and honestly about religion. He feels that the survival of civilization is in danger because of a taboo against questioning religious beliefs. While highlighting what he regards as a particular problem posed by Islam at this moment with respect to international terrorism, Harris makes a direct criticism of religion of all styles and persuasions. He sees religion as an impediment to progress toward more enlightened approaches to spirituality and ethics.
While an atheist by definition, Harris asserts that the term is not necessary. His position is that "atheism" is not a worldview or a philosophy, but the "destruction of bad ideas." He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised." He compares modern day religious beliefs to the myths of the Ancient Greeks, which were once accepted as fact, but are obsolete today. In a January 2007 interview with PBS, Harris noted that: "We don't have a word for not believing in Zeus, which is to say we are all atheists in respect to Zeus. And we don't have a word for not being an astrologer." He goes on to say that the term will be retired only when "we all just achieve a level of intellectual honesty where we are no longer going to pretend to be certain about things we are not certain about."

Religious America.

Harris focuses much of his critique on the state of contemporary religious affairs in the USA. Harris worries that many areas of American culture are harmed by beliefs that are driven by religious dogma. For instance, he cites polls showing that 44% of Americans believe it is either "certain" or "probable" that Jesus will return to Earth within the next fifty years. The same percentage believe that creationism should be taught in public schools and that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews.

Such unfounded beliefs, often sheltered from objective criticism, impede planning a sustainable future argues Harris. He points out that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded by many as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture as some call it. Harris suggests that a significant proportion of the American population may see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East as a welcome portent of the End times.

Harris further notes that the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents and senators and representatives, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office. When President George W. Bush publicly invokes God in speeches regarding either domestic or foreign affairs, Harris invites us to consider how we might react if the President were to mention Zeus or Apollo in a similar vein. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author) (Emphasis mine.)

Excellent find photojack. smile.gif
skepticgriggsy
[B] Augustine uses the argument from angst/dread when he avers that we' re restless unliess in the bosom of Yahweh, but there is no evidence whatseover for this argument! Peope just use this argument as a pareidolia for what people actually experience.
I just wanted to add this comment. If others still want to comment here, fine, or otherwise it is a dead thread.
TracerTong
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 21 2006, 09:59 PM)
This only applies to semitic religion.

Come and tell me how evil Taoism is.

If you want to say Islam, Jewish and Christian religion is rubbish, then fine, say this instead:
"Semitic religion is evil insanity."

But when you say "Religion" in the general term of the word, you condemn all religion as you try to avoid the label of "Anti-semitism".

You've already proven that anti-semitism has reason, in your critic of the un-questional and perfect commandments of their "God".

This isn't ratial, it's cultural.

Jesus paid the price for our sins. (I realize now I'll probably be mocked)

I'll define one definition of religion as rules you live by in that sense everyone has religion.

I'd be crazy if God didn't exist. It is evident that the spiritual (nonphysical) does exist.

What does God require? Hint: Micah 6:6-8

AlexG
QUOTE (TracerTong+Apr 30 2009, 11:45 AM)
Jesus paid the price for our sins. (I realize now I'll probably be mocked)

I'll define one definition of religion as rules you live by in that sense everyone has religion.

I'd be crazy if God didn't exist. It is evident that the spiritual (nonphysical) does exist.


Three statements of personal belief.

That's all they are.

buttershug
QUOTE (TracerTong+Apr 30 2009, 04:45 PM)
I'd be crazy if God didn't exist. It is evident that the spiritual (nonphysical) does exist.

But yet none of you will share that evidence.

And spiritual <> non-physical.
AlexG
QUOTE
I'd be crazy if God didn't exist.


This can be taken as proof that God doesn't exist.
TracerTong
QUOTE (TracerTong+Apr 30 2009, 04:45 PM)
Jesus paid the price for our sins.  (I realize now I'll probably be mocked)

I'll define one definition of religion as rules you live by in that sense everyone has religion.

I'd be crazy if God didn't exist.  It is evident that the spiritual (nonphysical) does exist. 

What does God require?  Hint: Micah 6:6-8

Actauly (spellcheck) they have documented cases on the discovery channel (Ghost Hunter) and throughout history as well that spirits exist. Would you atheistic people need signs once a day? I think only He can convince you. It is so useless to argue, insanity is said to do the same thing over and expect a different result. You can pray and ask God/Jesus to reveal himself to you. Once again you are using logic and intelligence which is nonphysical.

On another topic. Is there any way that I can prove to myself that for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction? Is "a briefer history of time" a good read? I'm pretty bad at math/physics.

Pascals wager is once again coming to mind. Before you talk about deism, there are many gods but only one God. Can you provide evidence that people throughout history are insane? Is this whats called fallacy on authority? Please show, proof to support your claims. Are you God? (no)
Please do not troll the forums with one sentence answers it makes for a boring read (I do the same thing).

You can look at FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS http://reluctant-messenger.com/fox.htm

AlexG
QUOTE
Actauly (spellcheck) they have documented cases on the discovery channel (Ghost Hunter)


Riigghhtt.... laugh.gif laugh.gif
O_o
"religion, an opiate for the masses" By Karl Marx


says it all really.
El_Machinae
That's a heck of a bump.
John Galt
QUOTE (TracerTong+Apr 30 2009, 08:33 PM)
Actauly (spellcheck) they have documented cases on the discovery channel (Ghost Hunter) and throughout history as well that spirits exist.  Would you atheistic people need signs once a day?

You don't have to be an atheist to have severe reservations* about the evidence to be found on Ghost Hunter.


*Politically correct form of "total confidence that the exploitative producers of Ghost Hunters have less evidence for the spirit world than there are brains in a cardboard model of a stuffed wombat".
Meem
I always thought atheism, was in fact, the dread directed at a theist.


Money, power, popularity, has become the new opiate of the masses.
skepticgriggsy
[B][/B] Fellow posters, thanks for keeping this topic alive!
Advanced theologian Keith Ward claims that his being born- again has made him better. Man, any religion or ideology can do that. People just have to have faith to avoid the dread of living, it doth seem.
Lately, hughes.net and the weather are at odds, thereby keeping me from posting here and elsewhere. blink.gif
skepticgriggsy
Ayala in " Darwin and Intelligent Design," implicitly tries to make the case for religions' hold on morality and values in order to overcome dread. Nay, the Euthyphro knocks that out of reality! Our covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism declares our being able to devise an objective morality.
Theists have no evidence for maintaining that we all have this dread, and He could not overcome it.
Ah, those poor people like him who find no value and no purpose for them without Him! I had anxiety and paranoia but I thought therapy, which overcame them.
I use this old thread now to further the case against Him.
And, then theists have the argument from happiness self-described to accompany that. These are part of the arguments against Him but separate here as theists so insist on these two arguments.
And then there is their argument that there are no atheists in fox holes by which they contend that we'd become God-lovers were we under fire. There is no evidence for this. Indeed, why wouldn't a theist become an atheist, knowing that He would not hep him! Nay, this nonsense resonates with the argument from dread. Nay, we are ot denying Him to do wrong but, because we find no evidence and for some of us, no real meaning.
Again, these twp arguments boomerang on theists! And we don't need Him for happiness as " The Reason-Driven Life" and ' The Myth of Self-Esteem " exhume.
[I] Good will and blessing to all! biggrin.gif
nopEda
QUOTE (griggs 1947+Jun 2 2006, 02:33 PM)
Francisco Ayala,critic of creation ism and theistic evolutionist , avers that the religious need a deity in order to overcome the dread of death and to find a meaning for life.

For one thing death might be worse if God does exist, and for another thing God doesn't necessarily bring any more meaning to life. Don't forget that part of the deal is to surrender you life to him by accepting him as Lord of your life. DUUUUHH wacko.gif

Okay, so we have now seen that the above position is wacko.gif. However let's turn it around and see how it applies to strong atheists: They are afraid of the idea of God existing, afraid of the influence he could have on their lives and even more afraid of the influence he could have on their afterlife. So they deny him claiming that all evidence of his existence does not exist, so they can pretend to be innocent if the day of judgement really does come to pass. Lame? Unless they're "right" unsure.gif we eventually will see.
QUOTE (griggs 1947+)
Those people need counseling to overcome that dread . I am my own meanings. I need no deity whatsoever!

laugh.gif
If God exists people can't make him become nonexistent by "not needing" him.
laugh.gif
buttershug
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 20 2009, 03:32 PM)
Okay, so we have now seen that the above position is wacko.gif. However let's turn it around and see how it applies to strong atheists: They are afraid of the idea of God existing, afraid of the influence he could have on their lives and even more afraid of the influence he could have on their afterlife. So they deny him claiming that all evidence of his existence does not exist, so they can pretend to be innocent if the day of judgement really does come to pass. Lame?

What do you base that on.
And why do Theists keep talking about "evidence" but never ever give any that stands up to scrutiny?
skepticgriggsy
buttershug, amen and indeed!
nopEda, silly comment! That is no argument, but it boomerangs on you. We find no evidence for Him, and we ignostics find Him meaningless.We have the superior covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism. And at our level of consciousness, we need no shepherd and we are not clay at the mercy of a potter. Therein lies our rights- neither from Him or the government! And this destroys the argument from God for rights.
Thanks for the opportunity to state that!
That ranks on par with the no atheists in fox holes non-argument, which also reflects your arguments from angst and happiness. We have substantive reasons for our atheism and so, we would hardly need Sky Pappy. And we'd engage in doing our jobs and- protecting our lives! And why wouldn't Godists become atheists there when others are dieing around them, maybe themselves Your boomerang!
buttershug, it irks me when people just make inane statements rather than responding to my arguments! My baroque style seems to unnerve some! Again, thanks.
nopEda
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Oct 20 2009, 09:51 PM)
buttershug, amen and indeed!
nopEda, silly comment! That is no argument, but it boomerangs on you. We find no evidence for Him, and we ignostics find Him meaningless.We have the superior covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism. And at our level of consciousness, we need no shepherd and we are not clay at the mercy of a potter. Therein lies our rights- neither from Him or the government! And this destroys the argument from God for rights.
  Thanks for the opportunity to state that!
  That ranks on par with the no atheists in fox holes non-argument, which also reflects your arguments from angst and happiness. We have substantive reasons for our atheism and so, we would hardly need Sky Pappy.

For one thing I'm a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider the possibility of God's existence. That possibility having MUUUUUUUCH more to think about than the other one, I give it a lot more thought than the other one.

Also, you refer to God as Sky Pappy in your smartass way presumably because you feel it's more realistic to think of him as a resident of Earth. Why???

QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+)
And we'd engage in doing our jobs and- protecting our lives! And why wouldn't  Godists become atheists there when others are dieing around them, maybe themselves Your boomerang!

The fact that things die on Earth is no reason to put faith in the possibility that God does not exist, but if you want to try arguing that it is then try defending the idea.

QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+)
buttershug, it irks me when people just make inane statements rather than responding to my arguments! My baroque style seems to unnerve some!

That means nothing if you have nothing to back it up. Try explaining why you think it's less realistic to believe God would reside somewhere other than on Earth than it is to think he would be a resident of this planet, or your attempted smartass way of referring to him will make you appear far more clueless than clever. My prediction is that you can't even make an attempt, but even if you try you will still remain with the clueless appearance you thus far do have.
vkamath
QUOTE (nopEda+)
For one thing I'm a weak agnostic.


No you are not. You have strong belief in Christian theology and you pray, hence you are a Christian.
Derek1148
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 25 2009, 06:43 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
For one thing I'm a weak agnostic.


No you are not. You have strong belief in Christian theology and you pray, hence you are a Christian.

It is probably best to let an individual determine his own religious status rather than assigning it.
buttershug
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 25 2009, 10:35 PM)

No you are not. You have strong belief in Christian theology and you pray, hence you are a Christian. [/QUOTE]
It is probably best to let an individual determine his own religious status rather than assigning it.

What about Dad1?
He claimed he became Catholic because his wife wanted him to.

BUT he didn't believe in anything supernatural.
He had a lot of stuff he didn't believe in that contradicted what the Pope says.
And I think the Pope knows more about Catholicism than Dad1.

Derek1148
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 12:44 AM)
It is probably best to let an individual determine his own religious status rather than assigning it. [/QUOTE]
What about Dad1?
He claimed he became Catholic because his wife wanted him to.

BUT he didn't believe in anything supernatural.
He had a lot of stuff he didn't believe in that contradicted what the Pope says.
And I think the Pope knows more about Catholicism than Dad1.

It is not a good thing to get into the business of assigning religions to individuals in spite of their claims of non-belief. For example, define a Jew. A European country about 70 years ago defined religious groups, by law.
Derek1148
"If my theory of relativity proves to be correct, Germany will claim me a German, and France will claim me a citizen of the world. However, if it proves wrong, France will say I’m a German, and Germany will say that I’m a Jew." - Albert Einstein
buttershug
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 26 2009, 12:50 AM)
What about Dad1?
He claimed he became Catholic because his wife wanted him to.

BUT he didn't believe in anything supernatural.
He had a lot of stuff he didn't believe in that contradicted what the Pope says.
And I think the Pope knows more about Catholicism than Dad1. [/QUOTE]
It is not a good thing to get into the business of assigning religions to individuals in spite of their claims of non-belief. For example, define a Jew. A European country about 70 years ago defined religious groups, by law.

Personally I think the Pope knows more about Catholic belief than Dad1.
But I could be wrong.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 25 2009, 07:50 PM)
It is not a good thing to get into the business of assigning religions to individuals in spite of their claims of non-belief.  For example, define a Jew.  A European country about 70 years ago defined religious groups, by law.

Good point... Until you consider that the country in question did a lot more than just define religious groups.

Call me crazy, but I think the defining itself wasn't the problem. I just get hung up on that whole 'murdering millions of people because they're supposedly inferior' thing and can't seem to blame the problems on the act of defining religious groups. Maybe it's my own bias, who knows? wink.gif

From where I sit, defining a person's religion is not a problem. Quantifying a person's worth due to their religion is.

It's easy to define characteristics of an adherent of a specific religion, and then compare a person's behavior and expressed thoughts to that definition, to see if he fits it.

In NoPeDal's case, he's clearly either a Christian (and an especially stupid and dogmatic one at that), or some sort of anti-scientologist/South Park executive (HAIL XENU!!!).
Derek1148
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 01:51 AM)
Call me crazy, but I think the defining itself wasn't the problem. I just get hung up on that whole 'murdering millions of people because they're supposedly inferior' thing and can't seem to blame the problems on the act of defining religious groups. Maybe it's my own bias, who knows? wink.gif

Before one persecutes, one needs to define.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 25 2009, 10:32 PM)
Before one persecutes, one needs to define.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany

But defining does not inevitably lead to persecution. I define anyone with obvious south or central African ancestry who lives in America as "Africa-American." Does that make me racist?
I define anyone who identifies their gender identity as female to be a "woman," or "girl," does this make me sexist?
I define people who commonly make me laugh as "funny," does this make me a prosecutor of comedians?
Derek1148
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 04:41 PM)
I define anyone with obvious south or central African ancestry who lives in America as "Africa-American." Does that make me racist?
I define anyone who identifies their gender identity as female to be a "woman," or "girl," does this make me sexist?
I define people who commonly make me laugh as "funny," does this make me a prosecutor of comedians?

Well, probably not.

But you see, the first thing they did was define Jewish as a race (not a religion). It is somewhat more difficult to change one's race rather than one's religion.

The first weapons is any war are words (not guns). You have to define and identify the enemy.

Don't forget, in order for one to claim to be right, one must declare others to be wrong. In order for one to claim to be superior, one must claim others to be inferior.

Mein Kampf was written to define the enemy.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 26 2009, 11:53 AM)
Well, probably not.

But you see, the first thing they did was define Jewish as a race (not a religion). It is somewhat more difficult to change one's race rather than one's religion.

The first weapons is any war are words (not guns). You have to define and identify the enemy.

Don't forget, in order for one to claim to be right, one must declare others to be wrong. In order for one to claim to be superior, one must claim others to be inferior.

Mein Kampf was written to define the enemy.

Well, the Jewish people do form an ethnic group if not a distinct race. Interestingly enough, even Alfred Rosenberg acknowledged that the semitic people constitute a 'confusion of races' rather than a distinct race in and of themselves.

I agree that definition is necessary for discrimination, but discrimination is not an inevitable product of definition.
Derek1148
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 06:46 PM)
Well, the Jewish people do form an ethnic group if not a distinct race. Interestingly enough, even Alfred Rosenberg acknowledged that the semitic people constitute a 'confusion of races' rather than a distinct race in and of themselves.

I agree that definition is necessary for discrimination, but discrimination is not an inevitable product of definition.

What do you believe determines one's race? What percent?
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 26 2009, 01:53 PM)
What do you believe determines one's race? What percent?

A person is capable of belonging to more than one racial group. If that person identifies themselves as, and bears all or most of the defining qualities of a specific race, then that is enough to categorize them as belonging to that race alone.

A good example is myself. I have Norwegian, Irish and Native American ancestry, yet because my family name is Norwegian, I have coloring typical of Scandinavian people, I have facial features and a body type closely associated with Scandinavian people and the Irish people tend to be of the same racial group as Scandinavians, I identify myself as Scandinavian. I would be well within my rights however (even legally, thanks to my Miccosukee grandmother) to assert that I am Native American, however I choose not to do so.

So as far as determining one's race or races, that's simple. The presence of genetic markers with a strong or absolute correlation to a specific race. I have a great many physiological indications of genes strongly or absolutely correlated with Scandinavian ancestry. This standard would also support a claim of being Native American, as I undoubtedly have at least some genetic markers strongly or absolutely correlated with Native Americans.

Note that I don't consider the issue of race to be of any particular importance, except in certain specific circumstances such as a racial weakness to certain diseases (such as sickle-cell anemia), or issues of ancestry (for obvious reasons).
nopEda
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 25 2009, 10:35 PM)
It is probably best to let an individual determine his own religious status rather than assigning it.

I have been called an atheist and also a believer. Yet so far no one has called me what I am, which turns out to be a weak agnostic. At first I thought all agnostics believe it can't be known whether God exists or not, and since I believe it's likely some people have known it if God does exist I figured that I could not be any kind of agnostic but must be a weak atheist. But later I learned that weak agnostics believe it's possible for some people to learn of God's existence if he exists, so that makes me more of a weak agnostic than a weak atheist.

Of course a person must have faith that God does not exist in order to be a strong atheist, and the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not.
Derek1148
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 05:05 PM)
I have been called an atheist and also a believer. Yet so far no one has called me what I am, which turns out to be a weak agnostic. At first I thought all agnostics believe it can't be known whether God exists or not, and since I believe it's likely some people have known it if God does exist I figured that I could not be any kind of agnostic but must be a weak atheist. But later I learned that weak agnostics believe it's possible for some people to learn of God's existence if he exists, so that makes me more of a weak agnostic than a weak atheist.

Of course a person must have faith that God does not exist in order to be a strong atheist, and the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not.

Religious beliefs are sometimes "inherited" from parents. What is important is an individual's conduct, not his religious background or beliefs. You apparently believe it is possible that God exists. Hey, I don't have a problem with that.
vkamath
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 28 2009, 08:29 AM)
Religious beliefs are sometimes "inherited" from parents. What is important is an individual's conduct, not his religious background or beliefs.  You apparently believe it is possible that God exists.  Hey, I don't have a problem with that.

He insists that the only possible way for God to exist is if he were a technologically advanced Alien.

Actually he has so many contradictory beliefs that any label you give to him wouldn't be entirely wrong or right.
nopEda
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 28 2009, 08:35 AM)
He insists that the only possible way for God to exist is if he were a technologically advanced Alien.

That's not entirely my fault. I only insist that because between myself and EVERYONE I've ever discussed it with we have never been able to come up with a realistic way that he could be anything else.

QUOTE (vkamath+)
Actually he has so many contradictory beliefs

Like what? Please list several so I can get an idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
nopEda
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 28 2009, 02:59 AM)
Religious beliefs are sometimes "inherited" from parents. What is important is an individual's conduct, not his religious background or beliefs.  You apparently believe it is possible that God exists.  Hey, I don't have a problem with that.

It's refreshing to be granted so much freedom of thought from anyone in this bunch smile.gif
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 29 2009, 02:37 PM)
That's not entirely my fault. I only insist that because between myself and EVERYONE I've ever discussed it with we have never been able to come up with a realistic way that he could be anything else.

It's not worth discussing for three reasons:
1) Those who believe in God would never consider the possibility that he is anything less than eternal and omnipotent, two traits which you have thrown out the window right off the bat.
2) Those who believe that God does not exist consider the idea to be silly and completely useless.
3) Those who neither believe or disbelieve might be more willing to consider the possibility of an alien god-like being, but that is not the god that they would prefer to believe in.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 29 2009, 01:37 PM)
That's not entirely my fault. I only insist that because between myself and EVERYONE I've ever discussed it with we have never been able to come up with a realistic way that he could be anything else.

Can you name a single, known principle of any science which absolutely prohibits an omnipotent, omniscient being with ties to this universe, but not existing entirely within it from existing?

The whole problem is your excruciatingly narrow and closed-minded definition of "realistic." So here's a perfect chance for you to show that a theistic concept of God is unrealistic, simply by pointing us all to the known mechanisms which render it unrealistic.

Here's a good start:
http://arxiv.org/multi?group=grp_physics&/find=Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_portal
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html
Derek1148
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 28 2009, 08:35 AM)
He insists that the only possible way for God to exist is if he were a technologically advanced Alien.


That would be contradictory to the definition.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 30 2009, 12:38 AM)
That would be contradictory to the definition.

He tends to make up his own definitions when the existing ones don't suite him.
skepticgriggsy
Ayala [ See my introductory post to this thread on him.] also in " Darwin and Intelligent Design ," states that whilst science might lead one to think that we inhabit a valueless, purposeless world but religion gives us value and purpose. Rubbish. We make our own values and purposes and- hopes!
No evidence exists for this argument from angst. Augustine implicitly that we all suffer from this unless we are in His bosom.
And the argument from happiness fares no better.[/U][
/B] think like a god,yes!

posts 285. I asked to powers that be to put all my threads and posts under one name with the total number of posts. griggs1947, skeptic griggsy and skepticgriggsy
Depression is ever so depressing! Please help Glenn Close and her sister to take away the stigma attached to mental illness and support mental health.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.