[zk]

Them with a capital T. Love it.

[zk]

[quote=flyer]I find it amusing that “nonbelievers” think their opinion is more valid than “believers.”

Cheers![/quote]
If Russia nuked Ukraine tomorrow and the stock market crashed, and I was certain that the stock market crash was because my brother telepathically told everyone to sell, would you think my certainty that my brother caused the crash was less valid than your opinion that the nuclear war caused it?

[zk]

[quote=flyer]I find it amusing that “nonbelievers” think their opinion is more valid than “believers.”

[/quote]

Not more valid necessarily, but definitely more rational.

[zk]

[quote=doofrat]

I always find it funny when religious people bash on Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Scientologists, etc. for how crazy their story is while they themselves choose to believe some bizarre tale spun by a science fiction writer, a con man from Chicago, or some asshole a few thousand years ago claiming he is the son of God himself.

[/quote]

I remember when the 39 heaven’s gate cult members killed themselves in order to catch a ride on the spaceship that was hidden behind a passing comet. So many people were saying, “how could they actually believe that.” I remember thinking (but not saying out loud) what you’re saying. Funny that all these religious are people shaking their heads in disgust at those people for believing that story, when the story they believe is at least as ludicrous.

Most of my friends, and most of the people I know, are christians, and many of the rest are some other religion. I don’t have the social skills to bring this kind of thing up to my religious friends and not sound like an asshole. So I don’t say anything. (In fact, a lot of them probably don’t even know that I’m essentially an atheist.) It’s easy here on a blog, to discuss these things, but not so much in real life. For me, anyway.

Any of you non-believers bring this stuff up in real-life conversations with religious friends?

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I’m looking around waiting for a laugh.

My wife was right.

I’m not funny.[/quote]

You could hire me with my drum set to give you rim shots and laughter, like the guy in the classic second city / snl skit. I’d set up right there in your kitchen and be there while you’re eating breakfast with her.

“cheese is for real.” Ba-dup-tshhh. (Ed McMahon laugh).

Then she’d know you’re funny.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk] The universe is a cold, dark place that cares not for anybody or anything.
[/quote]

zk: Or, maybe it isn’t.

Michio Kaku on the mysticism inherent to Quantum Mechanics: http://www.starstuffs.com/physcon/science.html

Lest you accuse him of latching on to any single God/god, don’t: He’s pantheistic.

To listen to theoretical physicists working on String Theory, Superstring and M-theory discuss not only the wonders of the universe, but expanded consciousness and mysticism is amazing. To simply write off the universe as a cold dark hole is to diminish your own intellect and sense of wonder.[/quote]

It might be amazing. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the supernatural or with god (unless you define god as the natural forces within the universe). Mysticism doesn’t necessarily (and doesn’t in this case) mean supernatural.

I think that to grab at any explanation that might explain your existence in a way that satisfies you, rather than looking at the evidence, diminishes your intellect. And my sense of wonder is all filled up by this life, and doesn’t really need god nor a universe that cares.

[zk]

[quote=flyer]
To my amazement, the masses–all over the world–regardless of religious beliefs, or lack therof–seem to buy into those scenarios hook, line and sinker.[/quote]

Coming from someone who, hook, line, and sinker, buys into god (a vastly more ridiculous scenario than any movie scenarios you’ve mentioned), that sounds kind of silly.

[zk]

dup

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
Personally I liked the ocular oracular jocular connection.[/quote]

That was very clever. But the sudden contrast from the seriousness of the philosophy to the absurdity of some of the precepts (and the claim that the reasons behind the precepts were obvious) darn near made me spit out my soda.

Of course, if I could have seen you looking around expectantly, it wouldn’t have been nearly as funny.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

Obviously this means no cheeseburgers.[/quote]

That’s a brilliant joke, scaredy. Beautifully done.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I suppose believing can be viewed as an insurance policy… Just in case.

[/quote]

For that to work for a non-believer, wouldn’t pretending to believe have to count? I mean, one can’t just say, “I don’t really believe, but I want the option of heaven, so I’m going to choose to believe.” Well, they can say that, but they wouldn’t really believe. Or they can follow the rules of a particular religion, but they wouldn’t really believe.

On the inside, no matter what you say or what you do, you either you believe it or you don’t (or you’re not sure or you’re confused).

Obviously, wanting to believe something enough will make most people believe it. Otherwise, why would there be so many people with faith despite there being no real evidence? To me, faith is only denial. The universe is a cold, dark place that cares not for anybody or anything. Most people can’t handle that, and so they believe what they can’t persevere without believing. The human mind is wired not to accept things that would cause so much emotional trauma that being a productive member of society would cease to be possible. Some people say, “wired for faith.” I say, “wired for denial.” It’s the same with alcoholics, gay religious people, terminally ill people (upon initial diagnosis), and others. We deny what we can’t accept.

In any case, choosing to believe doesn’t really make sense. In fact, whenever I hear somebody say, “I choose to believe,” whether it’s regarding religion or something else, I really don’t understand what they’re talking about. Either you believe it on the inside or you don’t, and saying “I choose to believe” makes no sense to me.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Inverting pascal wager …I am so confident in my position that I am willing to wager an eternity in heaven. Is any believers faith stronger than that?[/quote]

Wow. How about we call you “notscaredy.”

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar]
He wants to start his own religion and use it to make people do what he wants them to do and get rich.[/quote]

He’s not the first one.

[zk]

[quote=svelte]Happy Easter to all my Christian friends out there. :-)[/quote]

Indeed.

And Chag Kasher V’Sameach to our Jewish friends.

And happy Rama Navami to my Hindu friends.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
zk: No. This has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. You’re missing my point pretty completely, and my mention of the First Council was an attempt to explain how slavish adherence to scripture can be dangerous and self-defeating because it’s based on a flawed and contradictory manuscript. I was also trying to explain that my beliefs are not based on the Bible, but rather the teachings of the Church, and therefore the mention of centuries of internal consistency.
[/quote]

I understand that you don’t interpret the bible literally. My question is, if you’re following the teachings of the church and not the bible, where does the church get its divine authority from? How are the teachings of the church the word of god? Who decided what the word of god is and how did they decide that? Surely the teachings of the church are based, to some degree, on the bible. Not the literal text of the bible, but rather the interpreted text of the bible.

Either somebody is interpreting something, or somebody in the church has heard the word of god directly. Or do you have another explanation for how the teachings of the church are the word of god?

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This would give lie to the idea that these teachings would fall out of favor at some point in the future. Is it possible? Absolutely. But these same teachings have also evolved over time as well. Now before you jump to that “A-ha!” moment and point out the discursive nature of that comment, I would point out that it illustrates the robust nature (empirically speaking) of the doctrine, not the weakness.
[/quote]

Well, now you’ve lost me completely. That makes so little sense that, given your reasonable and intelligent nature, I have to assume I’m not understanding what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re saying that, because the teachings of the church have changed over time, that is empirical evidence that the teachings of the church are “robust.” Whatever “robust” means, exactly. I’ll assume it means strong, vigorous, able to withstand attack or other outside forces. But I have to assume, correct me if I’m wrong, that the word of god would be unchanging. So, if you have to change your theology – even incrementally or over long periods of time – then it can’t really be the correct word of god. Somebody must have interpreted it incorrectly at some point. And if it’s possible for your leaders to interpret the word of god incorrectly, then how can you really trust anything they say?

Here is the crux of my point. If you interpret the bible literally, then you’re following a religion who’s god can’t go more than a page or two without contradicting himself or saying something brutal or disgusting. And if you don’t follow the bible literally, then you’re not really following the word of god, but rather the word of the men (the church) – who, as far as I can tell, have not been deemed directly in touch with god – whom you’ve charged with leading you. Men who are flawed, as all men are. Men who can’t possibly know the real word of god.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

As to indulging in a “fantasy”, sure, why not? After all, you and I aren’t arguing the same thing at all. You can deny God’s existence in your soul to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just as I can argue the contrary and it doesn’t make it so, either. Again, this comes down to religion versus spirituality and you cannot deny the existence of spirituality, regardless of its type.
[/quote]

I don’t deny the existence of spirituality. Nor of religiosity. Nor of schizophrenia. I merely disagree with the conclusions drawn about reality by anyone possessing any of those things.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

I have faith. And, if, say, my other choice would be to embrace the clinical nihilism of a “bio-ethicist” like Peter Singer or the racist eugenics of a Margaret Sanger, uh, no thanks.

[/quote]

As you know, that’s not your other choice. And, as you know, the above statement really is beneath you.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m not trying to put forth a strawman here, just so we’re clear, just proffering the thought that Science with a capital “S” hasn’t done such a great job, either, in explaining the how or why of things that seem just beyond our understanding.

[/quote]

That’s ridiculous. Science has explained almost everything about our world that we didn’t understand before we came up with science. Sure, there are things we still can’t explain with science. But there’s no reason to think that, at some point we will be able to explain all things that are understandable to the human brain through science. And if we can’t explain them, that doesn’t mean that there’s some divine explanation for them. Just that we haven’t figured it out yet. Just like we hadn’t figured out that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the earth is (more or less) spherical, or that infections come from bacteria.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Faith and Reason can co-exist quite effectively, and there are centuries upon centuries of great examples. Why would someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity deny themselves any path, regardless of where it leads?
[/quote]

I don’t know why someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity would deny themselves any path, either. I have explored and rejected quite a few explanations that go beyond the laws of physics (including many religions) due to lack of evidence. I believe that if either of us is denying themselves a path, Allan, it’s you. I seriously doubt that you (or 5 billion other people) are able to look at this question without your deeply –held beliefs getting in the way of your rationality.

[Author]

Posts