Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

I'm not a theolgian or a bible scholar but I'm still learning and if I could say one thing here,it is a bit difficult to gauge exactly where people are at and where they're coming from.
I think it's easy to say, "okay, I'm an atheist and don't believe in God so prove to me he exists".

Yeah, it is pretty easy to say.

It almost always seems to be about Atheism vs Christianity. So what is your opinion on other religeons such as satanism, New Age, The Occult,etc..

I don't really know anything about Satanism, but things like New Age are clearly B.S. to most skeptics (although it should be noted that atheists and agnostics are not necessarily skeptics, but the two usually go hand in hand). I've probably had more debate among people that believed in New Age rather than Christianity, to be honest.

What about good vs evil or is there just one medium? What about people like Hitler, Saddam and others, or even mass murderers and serial killers. Do you think that when they die or kill themselves that that is the end of them. I really don't because that would be to easy and I do believe they get justice somewhere someplace.

This is pathos, which isn't at all relevant to whether there's a hell or not. However, I don't think even Hitler deserves to be condemned to eternity in hell or whatever else. If I were God, I'd give him some chance to redeem himself in some way.

[Azure]

I can agree with giving Hitler a chance to redeem himself, but according to your post you would give him that chance in the afterlife?

Almost everyone would redeem themselves in the afterlife if they were given a chance.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

What about people like Hitler, Saddam and others, or even mass murderers and serial killers. Do you think that when they die or kill themselves that that is the end of them. I really don't because that would be to easy and I do believe they get justice somewhere someplace.

But that's a logical fallacy, deciding what is true not based on anything other than the desire for it to be true, or not liking the consequences of it not being true.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by photon

But that's a logical fallacy, deciding what is true not based on anything other than the desire for it to be true, or not liking the consequences of it not being true.

Wouldn't it also be a logical fallacy to assume the other side of that (being false) as well though? Isn't that what they call an argument from ignorance?

[DionPlett]

Originally Posted by photon

But that's a logical fallacy, deciding what is true not based on anything other than the desire for it to be true, or not liking the consequences of it not being true.

May be a little off topic here to try and make a point but there have been many excavations of civilizations from biblical times by archeologists and there are still some on going as far as I know.

There used to be a a good series on A&E a few years ago about this, Mysteries of the Bible I believe it was called.

So there is physical evidence as it's been written in the bible and some of the history of those people. If there is proof of that, is it such a big leap to think that the bible isn't actually the written word of God, personally I don't believe so.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Wouldn't it also be a logical fallacy to assume the other side of that (being false) as well though? Isn't that what they call an argument from ignorance?

An argument from ignorance is assuming a premise is one thing because the opposite hasn't been proven true, saying that the lack of proof is evidence of the opposite claim. Or sometimes it's an argument from personal ignorance, saying "I don't understand A therefore B".

So yes saying that a place of justice for evil doers absolutely does not exist simply because there's no evidence for it is a logical fallacy.

However an argument can be logically consistent and still be flawed. Because it's generally difficult to prove a negative the default provisional position should be that something does not exist unless there's positive evidence for it.

EDIT: In this case the fallacy was an appeal to consequences... the premise being that there's a place of justice and the fallacy being that the claim is true because if it was false the consequences aren't desirable (that they're getting off too easy).

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

May be a little off topic here to try and make a point but there have been many excavations of civilizations from biblical times by archeologists and there are still some on going as far as I know.

There used to be a a good series on A&E a few years ago about this, Mysteries of the Bible I believe it was called.

So there is physical evidence as it's been written in the bible and some of the history of those people. If there is proof of that, is it such a big leap to think that the bible isn't actually the written word of God, personally I don't believe so.

Some of the books of the bible are very old, so it can be expected that civilizations described in the bible can be excavated many years later. But since some of the things in the bible exist, it doesn't mean the whole thing is true. That's analogous to saying that "Lost" is a true story and that there is a magic island moving through space and time because some of the story takes place in Los Angeles and Sydney, which we know to exist.

[DionPlett]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Some of the books of the bible are very old, so it can be expected that civilizations described in the bible can be excavated many years later. But since some of the things in the bible exist, it doesn't mean the whole thing is true. That's analogous to saying that "Lost" is a true story and that there is a magic island moving through space and time because some of the story takes place in Los Angeles and Sydney, which we know to exist.

And that's the thing, no one knows for sure and to an extent that is what makes up the differences in all the different religeons and denominations.

To myself though it seems like more than a co-incidence that the above mentioned writings would be bound in with the same book that talks about God the creater and his son Jesus whom he sent to die for us. I choose to believe it and that works for me, what more can I say.
I tried being an atheist before as well and found it unsatisfactory and unfullfilling, I just believe there is more and I'm happy to be on this journey and hope to find bigger and better things.

Peace

[photon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

May be a little off topic here to try and make a point but there have been many excavations of civilizations from biblical times by archeologists and there are still some on going as far as I know.

There used to be a a good series on A&E a few years ago about this, Mysteries of the Bible I believe it was called.

Sure, people have been digging to try to substantiate the Bible with archeology since there was a Bible.

A lot of those series on A&E and Discovery Channel and such aren't really that accurate though, or have an obvious bias. The ones I've watched jump to many conclusions that aren't warranted and were all over the place. Interesting to watch, but I wouldn't base my opinion in any direction on them.

Good books by actual scholars that have a demonstrated good track record in their field are better. The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman is an excellent book to start out with. My sister borrowed mine so I haven't even finished it yet.

Originally Posted by DionPlett

So there is physical evidence as it's been written in the bible and some of the history of those people.

Well sure, the authors of the books in the bible were writing about their people and their struggles, so it makes sense that some of the history would be correct. But that doesn't really mean much, even I can write a book that gets some of the facts of my time correct without being a good writer.

Moby Dick is filled with real place names and accurate descriptions of historical whaling practices, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's all true.

I don't subscribe to the mythical Jesus idea that Jesus didn't actually exist, but I also don't think the point of most of the Bible is to be historically accurate, the point of the writings aren't contingent on historical accuracy.

Originally Posted by DionPlett

If there is proof of that, is it such a big leap to think that the bible isn't actually the written word of God, personally I don't believe so.

If there's proof that what's in the Iliad refers to real people and places does that make it the written word of god? Of course not. Historical accuracy isn't a very good test.

And as Bownesian eludes to, if having some level of historical accuracy about some events qualifies a writing as the word of god, then the Hindu and Norse and Mormon writings all qualify as well.

The Bible does get some historical things right, but there are some pretty huge misses as well... the creation account is incorrect, there was no global flood wiping out 99.999% of all life, there's no evidence for a mass Exodus, Jericho was destroyed long before when the battle of Jericho was supposed to have occurred, Jesus' birth accounts are at odds in the gospels and don't reconcile with history, etc..

But as I've said before, I don't think historical accuracy is a necessary position to take unless one is trying to advocate Biblical inerrancy (which is discounted by internal evidence alone).

For example the discrepancies in the birth narrative of Jesus... both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy in Micah. But Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem, everyone knew he was from Nazareth. So Matthew and Luke have to get Jesus born in Bethlehem and then get him to Nazareth, but they do so through totally different and sometimes contradictory plot devices.

One uses a census (of which there is no historical record or precedent) to get them to Bethlehem, the other has them living in Bethlehem already (in Matthew the wise men visit their house in Bethlehem, not a manger). One has a flight to Egypt to avoid the command to kill all the children (again no historical record of), the other has a return to Nazareth just a month after Jesus' birth.

The point of the birth narratives aren't to historically document something, the point of them was to convince people that Jesus was the messiah, and getting Jesus born in Bethlehem was something both Matthew and Luke thought necessary to get into their narratives.. what they didn't know was that eventually someone would read both their accounts side by side and see that the accounts are nothing alike.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

To myself though it seems like more than a co-incidence that the above mentioned writings would be bound in with the same book that talks about God the creater and his son Jesus whom he sent to die for us.

But why choose one book with historical references that talks about god over another book like the Qur'an?

Originally Posted by DionPlett

I choose to believe it and that works for me, what more can I say.

And that's fine, what someone chooses to believe is their own business. Just be honest with yourself as to why you believe, don't try to support it with inaccurate claims about history or the Bible. I chose to believe as well, but it was when I asked myself "why do I believe what I believe" that I found out that many churches are sorely lacking in education of their members beyond a devotional approach to scripture.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

May be a little off topic here to try and make a point but there have been many excavations of civilizations from biblical times by archeologists and there are still some on going as far as I know.

There used to be a a good series on A&E a few years ago about this, Mysteries of the Bible I believe it was called.

So there is physical evidence as it's been written in the bible and some of the history of those people. If there is proof of that, is it such a big leap to think that the bible isn't actually the written word of God, personally I don't believe so.

Are you kidding? That is a gigantic leap!!

So there is a book that has some historical accuaracy and some people that were alive at the time are mentioned in it=possible work of a God

Have you ever read (insert period fiction piece here)? There are historical places in it and some people from history and a whole lot of made up fiction too=?

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

And that's the thing, no one knows for sure and to an extent that is what makes up the differences in all the different religeons and denominations.

To myself though it seems like more than a co-incidence that the above mentioned writings would be bound in with the same book that talks about God the creater and his son Jesus whom he sent to die for us. I choose to believe it and that works for me, what more can I say.
I tried being an atheist before as well and found it unsatisfactory and unfullfilling, I just believe there is more and I'm happy to be on this journey and hope to find bigger and better things.

Peace

Good for you, ultimately we all have to decide what we want for ourselves, for some it is an easy choice and for others it is a lifetime of back and forth decisions.

As per Photon, strive to learn your reasoning in something, to not do that would be an injustice to yourself. It applies to whether you choose to be spiritual/religious or not.

[Vulcan]

One thing that religion or other spiritual ways can offer is an experience which can't be explained by science or previous worldly experiences. From my observations, if the experience is profound enough or long lasting enough, even intelligent people sometimes throw all their other logic out the window and begin to accept the Bible, Koran, Gita etc. and or their teacher as infallible and you can get people saying and believing the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old and other rubbish.

For myself the experience can be very real, the rest of it is mostly delusion.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

One thing that religion or other spiritual ways can offer is an experience which can't be explained by science or previous worldly experiences. From my observations, if the experience is profound enough or long lasting enough, even intelligent people sometimes throw all their other logic out the window and begin to accept the Bible, Koran, Gita etc. and or their teacher as infallible and you can get people saying and believing the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old and other rubbish.

For myself the experience can be very real, the rest of it is mostly delusion.

I think you speak of the Transcendant experience, something Sam Harris believes is an experience we can grow to understand more through science but that it has been experienced by believers and non believers alike.

But again, because an experience is real to you; and its probably real anyhow, doesn't prove anything other than you are capable of such experiences.

The neat thing is Sam Harris works at UC Berkley researching neuroscience and is trying to get at the heart of spiritualism without religion, meditation and these experiences that humans have all around the world.

I think religion hijacked this and claimed it as its own and in the next 100yrs as we begin to understand our brains better we'll discover that its an experience that can be reached through various means such as meditation.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

One thing that religion or other spiritual ways can offer is an experience which can't be explained by science or previous worldly experiences. From my observations, if the experience is profound enough or long lasting enough, even intelligent people sometimes throw all their other logic out the window and begin to accept the Bible, Koran, Gita etc. and or their teacher as infallible and you can get people saying and believing the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old and other rubbish.

For myself the experience can be very real, the rest of it is mostly delusion.

I am curious if you have an example of such. It would seem that at this point that while science may not be able to always identify what triggers this type of experience in every particular event, science has been able to replicate, though chemical or physical means, equivalent states of mind (from near-death to alien abduction).

*********

Ultimately religion is failing because it offers no benefit to its consumers. Or rather, more accurately, it offers no benefit that cannot be gained more efficiently through other means.

I would wager that over 80% of posters on this board benefit from the use of anti-depressant type medications (either through personal use or by the usage of meds by a loved one). Even otherwise 'religious' people have no problem providing this tacit acknowledgment of a chemical basis for personality (or soul). Praying harder or reading the bible didn't suffice, but a small pill did.

When we are sick or wounded we no longer go to a 'spiritual' healer, but rather to a doctor.

If your mother in law starts seeing fairies dancing on peoples shoulders I would guess that an exorcist is not the first call we make.

Secular societies (exemplified by the Scandinavian countries) do not suffer from increased levels of personal or social malaise. The standards of living and measures of personal happiness exceed those of fundamentalist nations such as the United States or Pakistan.

Unfortunately I don't think religion (or other irrational beliefs) will disappear completely, but our children will be less religious than we are, and our grandchildren less religious than their parents.

~bug

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think you speak of the Transcendant experience, something Sam Harris believes is an experience we can grow to understand more through science but that it has been experienced by believers and non believers alike.

But again, because an experience is real to you; and its probably real anyhow, doesn't prove anything other than you are capable of such experiences.

The neat thing is Sam Harris works at UC Berkley researching neuroscience and is trying to get at the heart of spiritualism without religion, meditation and these experiences that humans have all around the world.

I think religion hijacked this and claimed it as its own and in the next 100yrs as we begin to understand our brains better we'll discover that its an experience that can be reached through various means such as meditation.

Yeah, from what I know it doesn't matter if you believe or not, or if you are a so called sinner or not although I have to approach it with a quiet mind.
This is not always so simple to do.

I can't prove any of it as it's a personal experience, but I do relate to others who have this experience.

As you say religion has tried to high jack it for their own benefit but as they use it for selfish purposes, they drift away from the experience.

[Vulcan]

I am curious if you have an example of such. It would seem that at this point that while science may not be able to always identify what triggers this type of experience in every particular event, science has been able to replicate, though chemical or physical means, equivalent states of mind (from near-death to alien abduction).

I'm not going to get into what I experience, unless I was a poet it would probably seem pretty boring.

I read this somewhere though, "before I was enlightened, I chopped wood and carried water, after I was enlightened I chopped wood and carried water."

I'm sure that when I practice what I do, my body and brain chemistry probably alters but I don't have any near death or other outlandish experiences. Maybe I can say I feel at peace and very aware, well more than that. I long ago did do some drugs but they interfere with what I do now.

[DionPlett]

Originally Posted by photon

But why choose one book with historical references that talks about god over another book like the Qur'an?

I like and choose Christianity because it makes sense to me. And from what I understand there are fundemental differences between Islam and Christianity, mainly Muslims don't believe in Jesus.


And that's fine, what someone chooses to believe is their own business. Just be honest with yourself as to why you believe, don't try to support it with inaccurate claims about history or the Bible. I chose to believe as well, but it was when I asked myself "why do I believe what I believe" that I found out that many churches are sorely lacking in education of their members beyond a devotional approach to scripture.

In the big picture, are the inaccuracies you speak of all that important? Logic will tell you that if you have 4 different people document an event there could be some discrepancies. It's all in how you look at it I suppose. What's obvious to me when I read those gospels is the common theme and that is faith.

There was a lot of controversy back then as well and not everyone believed either. This debate you may say has been going on pretty much since then.

Just look at more recent history such as 9/11 and the JFK assissination. Those were both well documented and also recorded events but yet there is no shortage of controversy or conspiracy theories surrounding them either. Human nature it appears is constant and hasn't changed much over the last 2000 years.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by firebug

I am curious if you have an example of such. It would seem that at this point that while science may not be able to always identify what triggers this type of experience in every particular event, science has been able to replicate, though chemical or physical means, equivalent states of mind (from near-death to alien abduction).

*********

Ultimately religion is failing because it offers no benefit to its consumers. Or rather, more accurately, it offers no benefit that cannot be gained more efficiently through other means.

I would wager that over 80% of posters on this board benefit from the use of anti-depressant type medications (either through personal use or by the usage of meds by a loved one). Even otherwise 'religious' people have no problem providing this tacit acknowledgment of a chemical basis for personality (or soul). Praying harder or reading the bible didn't suffice, but a small pill did.

When we are sick or wounded we no longer go to a 'spiritual' healer, but rather to a doctor.

If your mother in law starts seeing fairies dancing on peoples shoulders I would guess that an exorcist is not the first call we make.

Secular societies (exemplified by the Scandinavian countries) do not suffer from increased levels of personal or social malaise. The standards of living and measures of personal happiness exceed those of fundamentalist nations such as the United States or Pakistan.

Unfortunately I don't think religion (or other irrational beliefs) will disappear completely, but our children will be less religious than we are, and our grandchildren less religious than their parents.

~bug

That's not really why religion is failing. Is religion failing in the United States? Not at all and it's not just the uneducated and poor that are religious in the States. It's the middle class. It might be failing in Canada but not to the extent that it has in Europe. Why has it failed in Europe? Well, the two World Wards completely discredited the church and made it difficult to maintain faith in face of complete depravity and tragedy. Technological and scientific advances helped along Europe's lack of faith, but it wasn't the catalyst.

I think it's a major assumption to think our children will be less religious that we are. Another collapse of the world economy and people will start turning to religion and other idols very quickly. Rational thinking is much easier during the good times rather than the bad. We are only 65 years removed from WWII, so it is not like the first world has been at peace or rational with each other for very long.

There is also still the major exploitation of the third world in order to prop up ours. Exploiting the impoverished countries doesn't seem like too solid of a basis for the age of rationality. If rationality says one must treat others how he wishes to be treated, then none of us are too rational. Of course, it is not practical to fight the system to that level, I am just pointing out that a society cannot claim to be rational and exploit the third world for its livelihood. We have a long, long way to go.

I also think something must be said for 'irrational thinking'. When a person values something or someone else, it is often irrational but not necessarily a bad thing. There is no tangible reason one loves their dog. It's a dog, you pick it and love it no matter it's personality. That's irrational and not bad. The same thing can be said to a lesser extent for your SO. Sure there are reasons you picked that person, but there is also an intrinsic value you have for that person that is also not rational.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

In the big picture, are the inaccuracies you speak of all that important? Logic will tell you that if you have 4 different people document an event there could be some discrepancies. It's all in how you look at it I suppose. What's obvious to me when I read those gospels is the common theme and that is faith.

There was a lot of controversy back then as well and not everyone believed either. This debate you may say has been going on pretty much since then.

Just look at more recent history such as 9/11 and the JFK assissination. Those were both well documented and also recorded events but yet there is no shortage of controversy or conspiracy theories surrounding them either. Human nature it appears is constant and hasn't changed much over the last 2000 years.

The question is why

What is constant is people trying to make money or even get power with their various controversies,conspiracies and factual innacracies of history. That hasn't changed much in 2000 years.

Perhaps that is the part of human nature that is constant and shows me that the Bible was written under the same motives.