Total posts: 1,044
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Most of what you listed I think are humanist organizations. At least one of them for sure (Foundation Beyond Belief), so depending on their sentiments towards religion, they may take that outlook. UNICEF probably has many Christian volunteers, but irregardless I don't think The UN has the same mindset as militant atheists. The other problem is that The Goodwill is a Christian organization. I did notice you were being cautious about who you included (like the YMCA), so I don't know if you didn't know The Goodwill started out as a ministry (and still is), or included them so you wouldn't look like you were limiting the list to humanist groups.Those people aren't stupid, Rod, they don't appreciate the work churches do at all for the very same reason everyone understands, that they are only in it to convert others to Christianity. This is common knowledge and the only folks who deny it are the Christians.
Humanist groups work in the same network as atheist activist groups. They have an agenda. Yes, they are looking for conversions (to atheism). If you're going to make a list of pure charity orgs, you cannot include humanist groups. They're as religious as any other group. Their religion is anti-religion (or culturally modified religion in a more PC sense).
You're being dishonest again, there's no such thing driving non-religious charity organizations, but you're only to happy to say such things so you can pretend to be the victims here.
I didn't say militant atheists are driving non-religious charity organizations. For one, not all non-religious organizations are associated with humanist
and atheist organizations. Or are you objecting to the term militant atheists?
Far less people will be converted if the churches weren't there to deceive them into pretending they're helping them.
I seriously think you'd rather see someone starve to death than be converted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think you're thinking of a comment I made in another thread. It seemed at the time that the conversation was leading into a different topic, but as we continued on I felt we were covering what I might in another thread. At least it seemed so. Plus, i wouldn't want to start a thread where there might be name calling.I'm still waiting for some other topic you proposed starting, but I'm game for any discussion that doesn't involve name calling around here. THey're few and far between.
Atheists are a vanishingly small minority and are poorly funded. That's why they're invisible in the political arena. There are way too many religious votes to risk if you're going to just say "Well, all you religious folks are just gullible rubes." It's not politically prudent, and it explains why most politicians never talk in public about HOW they practice their faith, they only talk about the things those that practice care about. THere's no special level of intelligence required to, say, identify that gay people should be able to get married and enjoy the benefits of being married: people are people and in a country where freedom of choice and equality of all are supposedly pillar tenets, there's no reason to say their version of love doesn't qualify.The ONLY reason I've ever heard to object to such unions is religious in nature, and it's not unique to Christianity. It's politically prudent...do you think for one second a Ted Cruz or a Joe Kennedy really thinks their own marriage is somehow invalidated by Adam and Steve getting married? Not even a little. What they do think is that their constituency of bible thumping rubes thinks that's a threat to them somehow, so they do the politically expedient thing and oppose it, knowing there's no cost to them: the gay vote isn't as big as the Christian vote.
I also hear the opposite (from mostly atheists) that atheism is growing. And what do you mean by poorly funded? Was Jessie Ventura poorly funded?
I don't get the reference to Ted Cruz or a Joe Kennedy. It almost looks like you're saying they're in a same sex marriage. But that couldn't be the case I'm sure.
I do love that you still seem to be inventing these shadow "atheist activist cabals" that are nameless and invisible though. Never change Rod! :)
it's odd I get challenged on this sometimes. I can't imagine why. You've never heard of atheist activist groups like The American Atheists?
And if small storefront churches provide services without any tether to faith, hey, great...then why not just stop doing the faith stuff and just be a charity? You're kidding yourself if you don't think they want to lure in new followers, I'm glad homeless people are being served, sure, but religiousorganizations all over the world preach against vaccines and birth control...just ask Africa.
What do you mean by stop doing the faith stuff?
May I have examples of religious organizations preaching against vaccines and birth control?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Fortunately Goldtop, we don't live in a Nazi-type dictatorship.Yes, we are, Trump and Republican Party are in power and we know how much Trump loves Nazi's.
Yes, the inevitable Trump card.
No, I'm fully confident that Trump is not going to turn America into a Nazi-type dictatorship. Republican is not a Christian political party. Most Americans identify with a Christian denomination, so just as probably most Trump supporters are Christians, the same holds true with Obama and the Democratic party. Most of Obama's supporters were Christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
GoodwillRotaryFoundation Beyond BeliefEngineers Without BordersDoctors Without BordersUnicefWheelchair FoundationPlanUSAAll of these charity organizations (and many more) can do what your churches do and much much more, all without the threat of being converted to Christianity. And, there aren't thousands of denominations of each organization fighting each other over what brand of Christianity is right and what others are to be converted. Once closed down, the buildings and land could be used to house homeless folks. Win win all around.
These organizations are fine, and do wonderful work. You live in a fantasy if you think they're enough. I bet most of the people in those organizations understand that, and appreciate the work local churches do. I don't think they'd appreciate being placed on a false pedestal as anti-religeous role models.
I wouldn't claim you don't care about the poor and needy, but it's crystal clear that you're more concerned about whether or not someone receiving
help decides to attend church, and/or become a Christian. This is what is going to continue to drive militant atheists up the wall. People are always going to examine, consider, convert to religion. Some may become theists, some polytheists, some deists, etc. No one thinks militant atheists and activists are particularly intelligent. There are brilliant atheists no doubt. But collectively, the core messages being extended by activist orgs doesn't impress too many in the real world. This is probably why atheist activists are relatively invisible in the political arena. It's not because of some outdated unpracticed law in a few states.
And it's not really clear if you're talking about closing mega churches or all churches including small store front churches in urban areas. I think you understood when I said the services provided are without evangelizing. They don't mandate anyone to attend church. But I think you're including small urban churches in your totalitarian scenario because even if they don't say anything, since they're charity run by churches we all know what
they believe.
And the Christians fighting each other is one of the stupidest arguments some atheists make. I wish some of these silly arguments could get placed on a higher platform where they can get properly sifted out the logic and reasoning arena. I'd be happy to get into it if you want (and Ludo often joins in the fun), but I'll leave it at that for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Which places?Yes. to the tune of some bilions of dollars in lost revenues that could be used for places of community work that have no agendas to convert people.
You don't have to lie, Rod, everyone knows it's all about converting people to Christianity and very little to do about helping others. Those churches need to be shut down.
Fortunately Goldtop, we don't live in a Nazi-type dictatorship. And I look on the positive side and am confident this won't happen anytime soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Churches always have an agenda to convert those they allegedly try to help, they should be closed down in favor of places that have no such agenda.
No. I went to a church in an urban area that fed the local vicinity. They have a food bank as one of their services where they simply hand out food to those who ask. This is one of the common church services held throughout the country in big city urban areas. I wouldn't suggest going into one of these neighborhoods and telling their residences churches that help them should be shut down.
But even if such a silly thing happened, if we limited it to places with no such agenda as you put it, we'd have to exclude atheist activist organizations. But maybe you can fill me in on what type of places are you talking about?
Why don't you start such a place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
When you claim your god is the only true god you are more than implying poly is wrong you are staying it plainly.
From what I understand, Poly doesn't believe in a creator, whereas I do. (Egads, we disagree). But I could be wrong about that. Since thegods that poly believes in (small 'g' meaning non-creators) are not creators, they wouldn't rule out any creator God. At least not from my standpoint. But I don't really know enough about her beliefs to make any substantial claims.
May I recommend that you check out the cited sources for this article to see how we have determined that chimpanzees display intelligence (otherwise known as sophisticated thought processes).
Well of course there's no reference to primitive humans and deities since this is a religiously neutral article. So basically the idea is that since monkeys show signs of considerable intelligence, then assumingly they might have the ability to imagine a higher form of monkeyhood.
Well so do octopuses. And they're intelligence is a bit more puzzling. In light of intelligent design, we could say monkeys have common design with
humans with remarkably high intelligence, and octopuses have far less common design with humans with remarkably high intelligence.
I appreciate the honesty. I will in turn be honest with you. If the conversion process of which you speak is not unique to christianity it does not separate christianity from other religions in any way and does nothing to answer the op.
Christianity is not unique with Buddhism, and any other religion that faced persecution. More specifically, Christianity is not the only religion that faces persecution. That's all I meant.
I may not be sure what you're getting at, but specific religious conversions are unique. For instance, Buddhists don't adhere to any god or deity.
Buddhists generally, particularly western Buddhists don't convert due to deity identification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think that hearing voices (or more to the point immaginimg you hear voices) makes you crazy. It is when you do not recognize that the voices have no external source that I would recommend that some one seek help.
You veered completely away from the question.
I did not say no evidence. I recognize that testimonial evidence is,evidence it just isn't sufficient evidence. Sufficient scientifically proven evidence is what all the god claims that I know of lack. As to preferred I only mean the belief that you subscribe to.
The evidence is for me. The evidence of God has already been provided. Wouldn't you agree that the creator of the universe would be able to provide evidence, and/or proof of his existence to where an individual would know he was the creator?
As far as preferred religion, I probably would have chosen Buddhism. Or, possibly Catholicism strictly for superficial reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is interesting. I would reject both those claims.
That's just one example on how might one become a believer. For some, they may want to kill that person who they respected. I think if a high profile atheist activist, like the white Fu Manchu looking dude from Texas became a believer he'd be bashed all over the internet. This seems to be the case with Antony Flew, and possibly even Richard Dawkins.
So what would you consider favorable evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But we're not talking about trying solve a crime.No that is an example of a flaw in the way people examine evidence.
What exactly would you do if you wanted to find God?
There's a big difference in wanting to find God for trivial reasons, and wanting to find God for answers that no one else can provide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And likewise I'll try to avoid giving the impression that I'm claiming you personally make said claims. Because in this case I wasn't. Obviously claiming someone is hearing voices in their head (a sign of mental illness) is pretty derogatory. And usually made by people with less tact, or have the specific intent of insult.I do not recall bringing this up but I promise I will drop it if you can supply a method whereby I can tell the difference when it happens to you.
I'll just have to try and use the closest analogy I can think even though it's not an absolute description.
Let's say someone is trying to make a business deal with you, you strongly consider it, but something tells you to back off from the deal (whether justified or not, or whether you back off or not). When this intuitive phenomena happened (I'm assuming you experienced something like this)?, did you hear a voice in your head?
I have no problem saying that I do not know where the universe originally came from or even if that is a nonsensical thing to say about the universe. As faras I can tell there is equal valid scientific evidence for all gods, spirits, deities and pasta monsters. I'm just curious how you have counted every single other cause besides your preferred one out of the running. I know why I don't believe in them (because there is no sufficient evidence) but why do you not believe (you believe one thing without sufficient scientific evidence why not two? If two why not a thousand?) What makes poly wrong? Specifically.
Well I'm not implying Poly is wrong. But I have to ask, why do you suggest I don't have evidence, and why do you think my belief is preferred?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You did not ask for THE answer. You asked for AN answer.I never claimed to be certain where the tendency came from only gave a possible candidate for the phenomenon which was monkey gets frightened by thunderstorm. Imagines danger shakes stick and this imagination evolves to be something more sophisticated such that it can imagine god(s). If webrainstorm together we might come up with others as well with no way to know which to believe over any other we just don't know for sure but I'm not claiming a provable truth here I'm just pointing out possible evolutionary avenues to the behavior. You are far overstating my actual argument.
Fair enough. You don't see reason to assign a god agency, and I don't see any reason to assume any mental thought process in monkeys. I can
respect that.
Huh. I had never heard this chestnut. I am afraid I didn't get your reference. The faith of a child is not unlike faith in god(s). Just because a child alwaysbelieves their parent does not mean the parent is correct. As you said many people believe in fictional gods so faith in god(s) does not mean the god(s) are real. As a child grows up they begin to understand that many stories like this were just in fun. In religions (fictional ones included) you are never told this. If they are incorrect they continue to have faith anyway. As you said one could be forgiven if one were to conclude that there is no observable differencebetween the methods you use to confirm your faith and the way practitioners of fictional religions confirm theirs.
Well it's definitely not about children and what their parents tell them.
The illustration was simply a way to compare the absurdity of how claims are considered etched-in-stone answers to why individuals believe in God, or identify with a religion. The observation that nations and regions have cultural religions is of course correct though. So my analogy I admit is over-the-top. But cultural religion is a separate entity with religious conversion, becoming a believer (a reference usually referring to Christianity), and theism. An example would be within the prison system. Some atheists use the fact that the majority of inmates statistically identify with a religion, or Christian denomination when stats are employed, to suggest that atheists are less likely to commit a crime than a believer. The problem is that there are many Christian converts within prison (inmates who convert to Christianity). So who are these converts? Obviously most of them are those who statistically fall into the Christian or denominational category. Cultural Christians that were not believers. Ludo would probably say I'm using a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Of course the problem is that if these converts are mostly atheist (in American prisons), that would suggest that there's a whole lotta atheists in prison.
I can kindly mention that to Ludo, with no response, and one or two months down the road I'll say something that will cause him to retort with the
empirical claim that I only became a believer because I live in America. This is just one example by the way.
We might equate this, if we could say, frustration, with maybe me constantly saying we didn't evolve from monkeys. And then you correct me without a response, and 1 or 2 months down the road I say the same thing.
Your religion is far from unique in this way many religions have adult converts sometimes joining the faith at great personal cost. What separates this from exactly the same thing happening in fictional religions?
But I never claimed it was unique. That's why I mentioned Buddhists in China were persecuted as well to make sure I didn't give that impression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And judges don't?Because lawyers do not care about truth.
An example of the flaw in your theory is that people do become believers because of someone's personal testimony.
So God places his giant finger in the sky so everyone in the world can see it, and sort of does a skywriting message about his existence. Some people will say it's scientific proof (because we all can see it) that God exists, and a number of people become believers. Inevitably, some people will say the performance was manufactured by aliens. There are people who already claim religious experiences are somehow crafted in our minds via extraterrestrial experimentation.
However, if someone they highly respect becomes a believer, gives their personal testimony, that may hold far more water to said individuals as opposed to a giant skywriting finger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why is it used in court?Experiences (otherwise known as testimonial evidence) is notoriously untrustworthy. It does not justify belief in the way that evidence in the scientific sense does.
But keep in mind, I just gave you a reason why I believe, not why you should believe.
Both of these phenomena are imminently explainable from a scientific perspective. One is caused by the fluid in the inner ear "floating" and giving a false positive to the sense that determine if you are falling and the other has to do with helium effect on the vocal cords. I'm not sure why that doesn't "add up" to you but the answers to these and Amy other questions van be found with a simple Google search.
What I mean was, if you were in a space craft and upon returning brought back film showing you floating, you hear a child ask his parent how you were floating, and the parent says, he sucked too much helium from a balloon to get that Mickey Mouse voice to make the crew laugh. This parent would have to be very ignorant of course not understanding that in space one needs gravity boots. The parent can only understand that since a balloon will float away when filled with helium, a human will float too.
To give an example, Ludo just indicated that people choose their religion based on where they're brought up. While it's true that helium makes things float, it's also true that people often become cultural Christians (like Richard Dawkins), cultural Hindus, etc., due to where they grew up. But conversions are a different story. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to Ludo that I was brought up in an atheist home, and if I was to be culturally influenced by a religion it would probably have been Buddhism because we had Buddhist icons in our home instead of Christian icons. I also brought up that China, which has a tremendous growth of Christianity, not only was a non-culturally Christian nation, there was tremendous opposition
resulting in imprisonment, torture, and execution for Christians and Buddhists.
Now imagine explaining to that parent you were floating because you were not being held down by gravity, and the parent still insisted you sucked on too many helium balloons? That's kind of how it comes across when someone keeps trying to pull the cultural influence card.
I'll also refer to the constant equating of hearing from God in one's spirit man, and hearing voices in one's head. It's an endless game.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem is that I don't see any reason to suggest anything other than a monkey observing potential danger. I think a monkey will shake a stick at anything they feel is a threat. I don't see any reason to think there's any particular thought process as to what it is. To think otherwise to me would be assuming an agency of an agency. Assuming a monkey observes a thunderstorm as one if it's own on a higher level to support the idea of similarity between tribesmen who assign an agency to nature. Not seeing the enemy doesn't really change anything because the monkey may not see a roaring lion obscured by bushes, or not seeing an animal making a noise it's not familiar with. It seems one has to make leaps and bounds to support your particular theory. Even in the scenario of the caveman seeing depressed grass. He might have a better chance of survival assuming it's a lion, but may also have a less chance of surviving if he doesn't learn to fight. If most available food for hunting is in the area of dangerous predators for instance, he may eventually suffer from hunger. In other words, most of the theories involving survival also have variables.I See a difference from the thunderstorm. Namely that while the chimp is still shaking a stick no animal is visible. Whether it imagines a chimp or a lion or just some vague conception called "enemy" he clearly is behaving in a way that suggests he thinks there is something to the thunderstorm that is impressed by his stick shaking. Not much different from imagining there is something to the universe that is impressed by prayer if you ask me. Can you tell the difference other than the level of sophistication to the belief?
I think what you mean is that the mythology presented by humans concerning Zeus does not mention that he is a creator god. That is co.pletelydifferent from proof positive that Zeus was involved. Ditto the flyi g spaghetti monster. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the truth. Unless you can prove it doesn't exist then I have exactly as much logical reason to believe in it as to believe in the Yahweh.
No, it's not that the mythology doesn't mention Zeus being a creator allowing it to be an option. Zeus cannot be a creator according to the mythology itself because any deity produced by, say a thunder storm, cannot be a creator of the universe or the world. In Zeus' case, he actually had parents. So how could he be a creator?
You see you really need to make the distinction between creator, and created deity. With a creator for one, unless one tries to make mythological comparisons, he can have a more universal identification (Yahweh, Allah (which means god), The Great Spirit, The Grand Designer, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Good point. Paul was merely struck down by a blinding light and heard a voice from the sky.I'd settle for that too.
As far as conversion experiences, they tend to differ. Some Christians cannot even identify any conversion experience at all because they've believed ever since they can remember. I had a pastor like that. Each person is unique.The apostle Paul was a zealot. He was either going to be zealous for the Jewish law, or for the Gospel of Jesus who was in conflict with the Jewish law.
Most people who claim a particular experience along with their conversion express a feeling of extreme joy. That certainly how it was with me. And mine was actually a pretty profound experience. Maybe because I needed that to convince me. The apostle Paul's experience however was we could say probably far more profound than mine. But was obviously extremely frightening. Paul made a comment in one of his letters that it's a frightful thing to fall into the hands of God. While the statement may have different references, like maybe after death, I'm pretty sure he had his conversion experience in mind. So it's probably not the preferable way to become a believer.
I think what you're leading into is the alleged predestination conflict that cause some to believe that there actually is no choice, and that God simply chooses some, rejects others, and the one's he rejects really have no chance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think psychics, at least some, might be an example of this as well.Atheists with no soul concept feel all spiritual experiences are invalid because they are spiritual or had by a theists. Theists are mental deficients and therefore not able to have an experience without mixing supernatural into it. Even though there are atheists who believe in such things, for instance atheistic witches who work with the dead and land spirits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well Paul's donkey didn't actually talk. I don't know if that's significant to your point though. I thought I'd just clarify that. Or did I misread your statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What do you think our experiences are? That is Poly's and mine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The African continent, the same one that was colonized and brutalized by Christian-majority powers?
The African continent right below southern Europe.
Do south Korean and Chinese christians make up the 'vast vast vast' majority of Christians? or do people born in heavily Christian areas like the Americas?
Christianity is actually growing throughout the Asian continent. There's predictions that just China might surpass the U.S. It might become the new Christian nation. and of course Christianity is growing in South Korea.
Isn't part of the atheist activist shtick that atheism is, or will surpass Christianity in the west? They don't talk much about Christianity growing elsewhere though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well I'm asking you specifically what you think of Poly's experience(s) (or characterizations)?
I honestly don't think I avoid anything you ask unless it's something I missed due to multiple posting. I might refrain from answering a question or two if I think my questions are being avoided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You mean if you saw a talking donkey you'd become a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The vast, vast, vast majority of them are tied to geography and family tradition.
You mean like China, South Korea, and the African continent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ok, so you don't think my experiences are valid. Do you think Poly's might be? How about that aborigine"s?I find your characterization of your experiences as 'spiritual' and 'proof of the veracity of the entire Christian bible mythology' to be invalid: spiritual has very little in the way of usable definition, and there's absolutely no connective tissue that says, for example, you had a dream about Jesus that the whole bible is then real, since books can contain both true things and false things. I don't doubt you had some profound experience, it's the conclusion you reach and the method you use to get there that I find invalid.Her experiences lead her to believe in a totally different set of rules and characters than you do. Your mythology says she's going to hell for doing so. Are her experiences therefore invalid? THis can be generic to any belief system that isn't yours, any believer that isn't of your faith. If the primitive aborigine has an experience that leads him to be SURE Jesus isn't real, would you consider his experience invalid? One of your experiences, yours or his, would have to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think I see your point. Specifically, "fear of the unknown" does not in and of itself = god(s).However, I believe "an abundance of caution" might contribute to a susceptibility for people to fall victim to the "Pascal's wager" scam.
I think it could too. But from my experience, Christians have come into belief for various reasons. For myself, it wasn't fear. Or....I didn't become a believer (Christian) due to a fear of hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How can I think her experiences are invalid when I don't know what they are?Have you tried looking at the inverse of "I don't see any reason at all the think my experience(s) are invalid," because what follows unspoken in there is that you do, somehow, feel that her experiences ARE invalid. You don't allow for the possibility of her gods being real for some reason. Or do you? Wouldn't doing so violate the tenets of your own faith?
How about you? Do you think my (spiritual) experience(s) might be valid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
First off, there's really not much difference between you and I in this manner, except you believe in one less God than I do.In short what makes you right and poly wrong? Her beliefs seem more logically consistent to me since she does not distinguish between one unprovable being or another bit merely accepts many beings with equal (that is to say only testamonial) evidence.
My belief is based on my experience(s). I don't know what her, or anyone else's experiences are. If my experiences are somehow invalid, then I'm the one, or one of the one's that are wrong. I don't see any reason at all to think my experience(s) is (are) invalid. And the reasons given to my at times as to how they might be invalid don't add up. They're similar to explaining the floating phenomena in space as having sucking too much helium from a balloon to get that squeaky voice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Excellent then we can start discusding other religions (which is the point of this thread after all).Let's start with the chimp. A chimpanzee may put on the same display when faced with a thunderstorm that he dies when faced with a rival. It does not then seem illogical to think it possibke that he is imagining a great chimpanzee in the sky outing on a fearsome display.Now we are going to ask ourselves us that less rational for a primitive tribesman to imagining a great man in the sky (GMITS)who is respinsible for a whole host of events? (since being more sophisticated than a chimp he is able to connect the GMITS to more sophisticated events such as drought, disease and famine)After all the primitive tribesmen cannot disprove the GMITS.Now picture the passage of the centuries. Science and politics change what the GMITS means to us. We now have a naturalistic explanation for many if the events that were once attributed to the GMITS are now just things that happen when certain forces interact with each other. But there are still some things we don't know. Like how the universe began. So the GMITS could still be responsible for that. Of course that makes him the great man outside the universe (GMOSTU).At this point in our thought exercise GMOSTU is a stand in for any imaginary being not the real god(s) if there is such a thing. All of which begs the question is it less rational to believe in a GMOSTU on the grounds that it cannot be disproved than it is to believe in actual god(s) on the grounds that they cannot be disproved?
I'm not an expert on monkeys, but I don't see any reason to think they imagine a great monkey/chimp in the sky. You mention them shaking sticks at rivals. If they only do that with other chimps, and thunderstorms, that might be one thing. But if they shake sticks at any animal they feel threatened by, like a lion (which I think is the case), then I don't see any reason to think a monkey is seeing (or hearing) anything other than simply a threat to them. I don't think they contemplate what species a lion is, or from. They may notice the physical difference, but I don't think there's much of a thought process that goes on as far as what is that 4 legged thing with a mane. I don't think it any different than the thunderstorm.
As far as the GMOSTU, what makes him (or it) different than something like the multiverse, or any natural themed theory meant to explain the
unexplainable?
In other words what is the difference from my point of view between Yahweh or Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster or even all of them acting together yo create the universe? Can you prove that your god did not work alongside a flying spaghetti monster to create the universe? Maybe with Baacus serving drinks to get those creative juices flowing.
Sure, well Zeus is not a creator deity. Most deities are not creators in their religious texts or mythology. Most deities in mythology seem to be products of nature (or created by elements of nature). But you might want to check with poly on that as she knows a lot more on the subject than I do.
The Spaghetti Monster is only a parody of God. No one actually believes it exists. Or if there is, they would be an extreme minority. The person who
invented the character doesn't believe it anymore than Stan Lee believes in the Silver Surfer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If there is only one god and that god designed us with the inborne tendency to believe in him then why do people believe in thousands of different often mutually exclusive god concepts? Doesn't it stand to reason that most gods are man made fictions? And if most gods are an made fictions doesn't that display a tendency in humans to make up gods to e,plain the unexplainable? Even if your god is somehow the only real one you would still have to be very obtuse not to recognize this tendency and if we display this tendency then we have this tendency wherever it came from.
Actually, we don't have a tendency to believe in him. According to scripture, and seems very evident to me concerning my own life, we have a tendency to reject him. I myself was never angry towards Christianity or religion, but I didn't want anything to do with a creator that holds me accountable for my actions. On the day I found out that Jesus is real, it was indescribable. I was filled with tremendous joy. However, the following day, or at some point shortly after, it was also sobering to realize things are not going to be as they have been. And I assure you they haven't been.
As far as a tendency to create fictional gods, I don't deny that, and don't blame anyone for employing the idea that we can include the God of the Bible. All I can suggest is that one be open-minded enough to consider all possibilities as opposed to assuming false gods = no God. Or even no gods. If one is going to explore the possibility of God/god/gods, then by all means, check out what others have to say. If someone tells me they believe in a different god or deity, I'm more than happy to discuss it, and we can compare notes. But most of the time people who believe in a different god or deity seem content in what they believe, and no need for any real discussion. Outside of the internet, and even within the internet, I'm more likely to converse with an atheist, or on occasion a Buddhist.
Also, I think we need to consider a time-period element to the creating gods theme. Unless we mainly focus on remaining primitive tribes that still may employ deities to nature, what we call creating gods for yesteryear may have been replaced with a more material element. Either material objects like cars, or deifying musicians, extra-terrestrials, etc. Today, fantasy is huge in spite of the villification of religion. Superheroes with superpowers dominate the cinema screen. Even on rare occasions where a western movie is made, there seems to be some sci-fi twist to it. Even if they don't believe, say, mutant superheroes exist, it's kind of borderline with primitive deities. I saw an interview on youtube where a woman who was heavily into the Star Wars franchise stated that she doesn't know about earthly politics, or doesn't give it any attention, but her focus is on Star Wars story lines. Almost as if it was real. And there are people who literally believe that there's some sort of interplanetary government like the one in the Star Trek story line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you are mischaracterizing atheists here. There are nearly as many different kinds of atheists as there are atheists including spiritual and religious atheists. Many atheists must surely have told you that the problem for them is that no god claim has met its burden of proof. This has nothing to do with hedonism or being righteous or even ones desire to believe or not believe.If you had sufficient evidence many agnostic atheists would have no choice but to believe. Evidence is what makes us believe.
I made it pretty clear that I don't place all atheists in the same boat. I think the majority of atheists have a healthy view of pluralism. I think it lessens though with atheist activists, and lessens even more with militant atheists.
it works both ways. If some atheists want to categorize all Christians, Abrahamic religionists, or religionists in general as being wackos, then I have to point to the nutjob militant atheists witnessed throughout the internet.
It's quite possible that the new religious wacko will be the militant atheist wacko.
I'm running out of time here, but I will make a thread centered specifically on the topic of why other gods? I think it deserves it's own thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So now your argument is that the chimp would not know a real predator If he saw one? That is patently false.
No. That's not my argument at all. Like the caveman, the monkey does know who the predators are by experience. The monkey is not going to add an agency for a creator of the universe though. The caveman most likely wouldn't either as the caveman would be closer to the animal kingdom per evolution theory. If the caveman contemplated any type of creator, then that would be an intellectual progression rather than primitive.
The idea that early man's belief in God/gods is primitive suggests that somewhere along the evolutionary line man or one of our common ancestors advanced intellectually to where we could contemplate a creator. And then in modern times the atheist activist claims to be the nouveau intellectual by proposing their view to be an intellectual advancement. Which is fine, but doesn't jive well with any claims to the contemplation of a creator being primitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
For one, in the scenario he gave, the assigned agency was a known natural predator. The caveman knows what a lion is, probably from experience, and knows how dangerous they are. So his precaution, even if over-precaution will save his life. We can change the scenario to the caveman seeing a parched piece of land near a volcano. The lava is no longer flowing, so there's no real danger. So he can assume the land is parched due to an earlier volcanic eruption, or he can take the more cautionary approach and assume it's parched due to a fire breathing dragon that may still be in the area.The problem is that the caveman won't assume that because he probably never saw a fire breathing dragon. That....and there probably are no fire breathing dragons. So his caution is probably fairly meaningless.He gave you the explanation that made sense, from a logical and evolutionary standpoint, of our tendency to assign agency where there isn't any. It seems to me he addressed it, you just say he didn't and then don't really say what you object to, just that it doesn't explain Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Which seems more sensible:
- A universe creating god implanted in his favorite creation (man) a tendency to assume it was there, but did not leave any evidence to conclusively prove the fact that he exists, meaning that it's really not all that important to this creator OR
- Assigning agency to an otherwise inert rustle in the grass helped avoid the one time in fifty that rustle might be a predator and therefore helped specimens of every species reproduce
One has a demonstrable explanation.
A question you probably shouldn't really ask me. But, ok.
Believing in the creator is a choice. There are reasons not to choose the biblical creator.
1. One might avoid choosing the creator if they're a hedonist. That one hits home for me because that's why I initially did not want to find out that the God of the Bible is real.
2. One might avoid choosing the creator if they think they're righteous. Since you mentioned the super righteous aborigine in the other thread, the problem is that the super righteous aborigine is only super righteous by human standards. And our opinion could change once we found out that said aborigine committed something immoral by our current standards. Ghandi would be a good example. A man many westerners considered equivalent to the righteous aborigine. Any bad he may have done would be trivial. A human weakness we're all subject to. Now it's been alleged that he had some practices that are considered highly immoral by today's standards, so some people are taking a different stance on Ghandi's righteosness.
3. One might avoid choosing the creator if they think he is evil. (Of course when I refer to the creator I'm referring to the God of the Bible). But I think most of the time it's an excuse due to either problems #1 and 2, or any other reason I haven't mentioned.
The choice not to believe is merely one of a number of manifestations when facing the choice. And I'm sorry but I think God does have your attention. It's evident by how often you come here. God is a part of your life whether you want to admit it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think most secularists (like myself) whether religious or not can ignore what we don't agree with.
Interesting. SO there are portions of your religious doctrine that you simply ignore because you personally don't agree with them? Isn't that basically a denomination of one person? I guess I can't square how you believe in an afterlife whose reward is based entirely on what team you're on (according to the book you could be a super-righteous aborigine but you don't know Jesus, you're out!) with how you make the decision what to ignore. You don't sound very convinced. Maybe you could flesh this idea out further?
I'm just not convinced you know what I'm talking about. I don't ignore anything in the Bible. What I was getting at is I'm not bothered by someone with a different viewpoint than mine. I'm not bothered by anyone not believing that God exists. I'm fully content with a free pluralistic society. I think most atheists are as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think it sounds like a sensible explanation that is in keeping with what science has demonstrated about genetics, consistent with Occum's razor and offers a natural take on humans' collective tendency to assign agency even if there is not enough evidence to make that determination. It keeps a specimen safe longer over larger population numbers. It's survival instinct. What do you think of chimpanzees shaking sticks and screaming at thunderstorms? Do you think their thunderstorm enemy might be real out to take the monkey's territory, or do you think they might be assigning agency where there isn't any?This is the thing with evolutionary theory that religious people just don't seem to understand. It doesn't require any real imagination, it doesn't require any element to be added, it's insanely simple: traits and behaviors that over the long term benefit the large population propagate (like being startled and running when you are not sure the source of a noise in the dark, which increases your chances of survival), traits and behaviors that are deleterious over a long term to a population are deselected, only through the pressure of the environment around you. TO use a clumsy example, there's no need to add a magical being that says to baby giraffes "This is how you walk from the moment your born!", adding that only leads to more unanswerable senseless questions. The giraffes that walk from the day they're born can evade predation and pass on their "I'm a good walker!" traits to their own offspring. THe ones who couldn't walk are a delightfully easy snack for a cheetah and do NOT get to reproduce their bad walking genes.
Do I think a thunderstorm is a real enemy out to take the monkey's territory? Obviously that's a rhetorical question, the answer of course being no.
Do I think they're assigning agency where there isn't any? No. In fact, the fact that they cannot distinguish between a real predator, and a simple act of nature strengthens my point as far as I'm concerned. I don't think they have any clue what they're shaking their sticks at. They are not mentally able to determine that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not personally concerned about anything anyone claims they may hear voices from. Hearing voices in the head is certainly not what I claim by the way.Yeah, I'm sure somany Christians are really not at all interested in riches or notoriety, that's exactly why they're not making headlines. They're not making headlines because their stories sound an awful lot like something you'd be really concerned about if it were another god. Imagine a story on the news where they talk to a ton of middle eastern people and they're all going on about hearing voices in their heads, getting visions in their dreams, and receiving orders from their god? Wouldn't you think "fuck, they're crazy!" If this were a homeless man on the street talking about his personal encounters with Abraham Lincoln, you'd think he needed help. Change that to Jesus and you think "Well the lord's taking care of this guy"? I have to answer my own questions because often you don't, and I want to move the conversation forward. I am also trying to keep things moving, so I am raising my objections to answers I think you'd have. Feel free to refute them, offer different answers, it'll help us converse, far more than your complaining.
Nowadays, there seems to be a lot of people who claim they communicate with aliens. And many are probably not religious since the notion of ETs is not a religious theme. Am I concerned about it? No.
Muslims generally don't claim to have visions as the religion for the most professes to rely on the words of a prophet extending a message to humans not able to have any sort of relationship with Allah.
As far as answering your own questions, if you want to do that fine, but expect to have to be corrected all the time, because that's what I often have to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Well I don't consider atheist activists (especially militants) as representing the rest of the modern world.Theists are yet to enter the modern world as reason, logic and rationale are what represents it; and they have floundered.I think obsession is a sign of weakness.I still have yet to understand why theists are so obsessed with living in the past rather than joining the modern world. Weakness of the brain, perhaps?
You might actually have something here.
I've noticed that a number of Christians like to go camping. Maybe it comes from our primitive cavemanaic mindset.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What is? @RoderickSpode?--> @RoderickSpodeThat IS the explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No, at this point I'm just asking him to explain how the survival of a caveman due to extreme caution relates to belief in a god/creator. I made it fairly clear that at this point I'm not claiming he's wrong. The fact that you and GoldTop understands it is wonderful. But my interest is more on his explanation than hearing from supporters who have no interest in providing an explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you explain why in this very specific proposition you do not feel that this assignment of an unseen agency to an undemonstrated agent does NOT explain why we as a species have invented gods who act as unseen agents over naturally occurring events?
He responded to a post I made directly challenging a notion that humans have a tendency to assume a god or creator. I mentioned that it doesn't make sense even from a naturalistic evolutionary standpoint. He mentioned that he disagreed with me, but didn't really address my statement which really had nothing to do with survival.
So at this point I'm not making any claims of his scenario not being related to a tendency to assume a god or creator. Rather, I'm the one asking for an explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The denominational question has been addressed to you at least by myself. I pointed out, which you can test for yourself, the core belief of what each individual church believes. You can go to any evangelical church website, click on to the section that states their belief, and you'll see that they're pretty much all the same. Even between Pentecostals and Baptists which traditionally are alleged to be the evangelicals that have the least in common. Usually the link will say something like mission statement, what we believe, etc. When Billy Graham went to seminary, there were students from a wide variety of denominations. He stated how intrigued he was by how similar they all actually were in their beliefs.I mean versions that are not yahweh, not jesus, in any way. I know this question gets too difficult once I start asking things like "how many people believe in different versions of your god's rules?" which is essentially the denominational question no christian can answer. How many times did you pray to, say, the ancient Egyptian gods, or the Aztec gods, or the Hindu gods, before Jesus took your call? Why are there so many more people that do NOT believe, if it's so obvious and he can communicate with all of them?
As far as praying to different gods, I didn't pray to any of them. I prayed to God, the creator of the Universe, whomever that may be. This is what you can't seem to grasp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I understand full well what he's saying. It's a scenario at times used to explain how some people/families have been able to survive. The one who assumes lion is less likely to be killed by a lion because they're taking that precaution.
But I don't think the scenario is commonly used to explain human tendencies towards assuming a creator. That's where the problem lies. Not with the scenario itself, but it's alleged relation to the cave man's tendency to assume a creator or deity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes. I assume my dog loves me. This is anthropomorphize a nonhuman.
Well for one, animals are far more physically beautiful (IMO) than humans. So it's not too much of a surprise that this tendency may exist. Humans often seem to try and look like animals by dying their hair multiple colors, place designs on their skin, etc.
A tendency to assume a deity doesn't negate a creator. The existence of a creator might even be why primitive tribesmen assume a deity in every part of nature, human activity, etc.
Some religious people may have had a tendency to create flamboyant gods with outlandish appearances. But that doesn't mean a simple theist has anything near such a tendency. Some atheists do the same with alleged extra-terrestrials. It's to the point now where UFOlogists proclaim there are literal alien races they can identify. But not all atheists have this tendency.
And as I said earlier, some theists approached their belief neutrally, or were even atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Sec is trying to explain something to you about how nature works, pay attention and learn.
No problem. I'm perfectly content with keeping the conversation between him and myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That is incorrect, theists make efforts to sound like primitive tribal folk, they do that entirely on their own with no help from anyone else. The rest of the modern world would like to ignore them, but they keep rattling their skulls and bones and beating their drums all day long.
Well I don't consider atheist activists (especially militants) as representing the rest of the modern world. I think most secularists (like myself) whether religious or not can ignore what we don't agree with. I think obsession is a sign of weakness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
So what do you think about Secular Merlin's grass wind/lion scenario?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You have strayed into conjecture. We do not know enough about the two tribes to make an accurate prediction. As for "my scenario" I do not remember presenting any scenario that assumes a deity is dangerous.
Nature favors the cautious and caution assumes (dangerous) agency.
And
and that assuming a lion moved the grass is not that dissimilar from assuming a god moved the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That wasn't the term I really wanted to use. That's why I said for the lack of a more relatable term. The problem with the term is that it automatically conjures up a religious image. I also didn't want to use the term unnatural because in the case of an outside agent being responsible for our existence, whatever a universe creator does as far as a creation process wouldn't be unnatural for the creator.Unless you rigorously define divine and demonstrate some devinity (other than the desert) I'm afraid that I do not accept this as a valid term. Even if I did you would still need to explain the practical observable difference between a natural and a devine tendency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So you interpret the snake as a stand-in for amoral animal behavior? Our base instincts?
Not as such. I have to forewarn you, my view of who the serpent is might be different than others, but......it'll probably still sound crazy to you. In other words, I'm not going to try and give the impression the account in general was purely symbolic to make it sound plausible, and myself more sane.
I do think the serpent is symbolic of an actual encounter Eve had with Satan (crazy right). I think the author referred to Satan as a common snake one would find in the middle east, maybe somewhat similar to Jesus referring to the pharisees as a brood of vipers. Abraham was certainly familiar with snakes as an example evident in Exodus. The author observed the cunning nature of a common snake, and used it symbolically to describe the fallen angel. And the cursing of the snake was an observational curse (the various unpleasant conditions a snake faces including maybe animal abuse by magicians).
Some of the other views are that the snake was an impressive looking creature that lured Eve by it's attractiveness. And some even believe there was a sexual encounter. The more common one is an actual snake possessed by Satan.
But I don't think Eve's focus was on Satan/the serpent so much as it was the fruit. I don't think Satan took on a physical form when communicating with Eve. I think Eve knew who Satan was, at least to some degree. But I think Eve was open for negotiation, so Satan became a source for a second opinion that Eve was able to use to convince herself it was okay to eat the fruit.
I think this is one of those portions of texts Christians will never agree on as far as your question. Many would disagree with me, and probably with good reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive? Tribe A because they have that extra boost of confidence that B doesn't have? Or Tribe B because they are forced to fight a more do-or-die battle, and A is over-confident?All I am saying is that a primitive human who runs every time the grass moves is more likely to survive even if it is only a lion one time in fifty, or even one hundred, and that assuming a lion moved the grass is not that dissimilar from assuming a god moved the universe.
And the problem with your scenario is it seems to assume the tribal view of a creator or deity is dangerous.
Created: