Lost my faith, might find it again...but might not

[Moai]

Please clarify where God is cruel in the Bible?

 

The Flood was cruel. In order to destroy all the wickedness on Earth, God floods everything and kills all the animals and people except for Noah and his family and the animals that were on the ark. Since God can do anything, why not just kill all the people somehow, but leave the animals alone--animals that are innocent, by the way. Nope, drown them all. That is cruel.

 

Also ask yourself if the plan worked.

 

God kills the firstborn son of everyone in Egypt. Not only does this include infants, it includes the children of even those Egyptians who did not have a slave, and may have been kind to the Hebrews living amongst them.

 

God commands that people be stoned to death. That is a cruel way to execute someone.

 

In Numbers 31:1-54, God commands that all the Midianites be killed--except for the virgin girls.

 

Again we all know if a father spoil his child, what kind of adult this child would grow up to.....no exuses

 

Why do we have child abuse laws, then? There is a difference between discipline and cruelty.

[Moai]

Sabbath was made for people; people were not made for Sabbath. The heart which love God dearly is the important thing

 

Nope. Keeping the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments. Are you saying that God wasn't serious about the Commandments? And how can we tell which ones are more of a guideline then a rule?

[Island Girl]

By the way, according to ReligiousTolerance.org, divorce rates for conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and for atheists and agnostics.

 

In fact, atheists/agnostics had the lowest divorce rate of any group, at 21%.

 

The article also quotes a study that shows 90% of divorces among born-again couples happen AFTER the couples have been saved.

 

Wow Moai

 

The figures sure speak for themselves.

[Storyrider]

I am not aware of any paradox that results from my not accepting the idea of a god or god's. Can you give me an example?

 

I thought I just had. I'm asking you how you (and all of us) can justify our intrinsic value, as humans, if you see us as a happy accident of nature? And why should we strive to save humans from things like diseases and war if we aren't any more chosen or unique than any other creature? If we have a habitat conflict with a moth, for example, why should we choose our own well being first? Simply because we have bigger brains?

[Moai]

I thought I just had. I'm asking you how you (and all of us) can justify our intrinsic value, as humans, if you see us as a happy accident of nature? And why should we strive to save humans from things like diseases and war if we aren't any more chosen or unique than any other creature? If we have a habitat conflict with a moth, for example, why should we choose our own well being first? Simply because we have bigger brains?

 

What you propose is not a paradox, but a false dichotomy. Just because there is no invisible super-being watching over us it does not follow that human life has no meaning. Meaning is determined by the individual--even for believers.

 

If in fact we have a habitat conflict with a moth (which has happened where I live), it would depend on the importance of the conflict. There is some kind of moth that it was thought only lived in one are. A highway was going through its habitat. If the moth could not be found to live elsewhere, the highway would have to be redirected. It turns out the moth was found else where, so construction went ahead. Imagine the millions of tax dollars that would have been spent to save that moth!

 

Now, if it was a more life and death situation, the moth must die. Like all species, we consider ourselves first.

[Storyrider]

What you propose is not a paradox, but a false dichotomy. Just because there is no invisible super-being watching over us it does not follow that human life has no meaning.

 

My question isn't so much about who is watching over us, but about who has endowed us with the right to consider ourselves unique. And, further, about what system, if any, gives our existence purpose and meaning.

 

Meaning is determined by the individual--even for believers.

 

Only in the sense that we all interpret our own experience. But that doesn't preclude a real, external meaning.

 

In your belief system, why do you attribute intrinsic value to finding the cure for cancer or being a Mozart? Because these things help others? Why does helping others bring value? Why do we have a sense of justice to rail at God when we find Him lacking? Where did this sense of justice come from? Why do we feel pain when we hear about the tsunami victims? Why do we have empathy or feel shock at those who lack it?

 

I know why in my system of belief, but I'm not sure about how it makes sense in yours.

 

I think it is easy for secularists to coast on the jet stream of the great religious traditions. The byproduct of Judaeo Christianity is still in the air we breathe, and so the logical consequences of a completely secular society are yet to be seen.

 

I don't see your John Lennon Utopian "Imagine" scenario panning out. I think something quite different will happen.

 

 

Now, if it was a more life and death situation, the moth must die. Like all species, we consider ourselves first.

 

If you don't value human existence over moth existence, this is just a matter of selfishness and might makes right. That is why this secular Utopia will never exist. If morals are completely relative, everything boils down to the strong beating out the weak.

[pricillia]

We are trying to wake people's conscience up, not cover it up....when you cover your eyes, you can go easily astray or fall into pits

 

 

It is not your job to do that, as I said before, faith is a personal relationship between that person and whatever religion that they choose.

 

My eyes are wide open... and even so reguardless you still can go astray, life is a journey that you grow and evolve from.

[Mark B]

If you don't value human existence over moth existence, this is just a matter of selfishness and might makes right. That is why this secular Utopia will never exist. If morals are completely relative, everything boils down to the strong beating out the weak.

I don't think Moai argued that secularism will bring Utopia.

 

The idea of the strong beating the weak did seem to be the order of the day, however, in most Ancient societies in Europe and Asia. The big exception being Judah.

 

Here is something from Rabbi Stepeh Wyler's book Jews in the Time of Jesus:

 

For example, the "lex talio"-an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This verse is found in the Torah. Not many people know today that in Jesus' time Jewish Law prohibited mutilation as a judicial punishment. Jews interpreted the "lex talio" to mean the payment of fines for healing, pain and suffering, and lost time. The idiom "eye for an eye" was understood to mean "equality before the law"-that the fine for injuring a peasant was the same as that for injuring an aristocrat. All people equal before the law.

 

Contrast that to an episode in Tacitus Annals of Imperial Rome where the Senate debates whether four hundred slaves should be killed because the master of the household was found murdered. They realized that most of the slaves were innocent, but decided that they would all have to be crucified to punish the one or two guilty parties.

[Storyrider]

I don't think Moai argued that secularism will bring Utopia.

 

I was thinking of his post #413, in which he argues that war would be greatly reduced if we got rid of religion. In actuality, hardly any of the wars and mass genocides of the twentieth century were spurred by religion except for the Islamic and mid-east stuff. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. etc. All secular.

 

 

The idea of the strong beating the weak did seem to be the order of the day, however, in most Ancient societies in Europe and Asia. The big exception being Judah.

 

Here is something from Rabbi Stepeh Wyler's book Jews in the Time of Jesus:

 

For example, the "lex talio"-an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This verse is found in the Torah. Not many people know today that in Jesus' time Jewish Law prohibited mutilation as a judicial punishment. Jews interpreted the "lex talio" to mean the payment of fines for healing, pain and suffering, and lost time. The idiom "eye for an eye" was understood to mean "equality before the law"-that the fine for injuring a peasant was the same as that for injuring an aristocrat. All people equal before the law.

 

Contrast that to an episode in Tacitus Annals of Imperial Rome where the Senate debates whether four hundred slaves should be killed because the master of the household was found murdered. They realized that most of the slaves were innocent, but decided that they would all have to be crucified to punish the one or two guilty parties.

 

Yes, that is very interesting. And I think as moderns (or post moderns?) we take these concepts for granted as common sense but ignore the origins.

[lonelybird]

It is not your job to do that, as I said before, faith is a personal relationship between that person and whatever religion that they choose.

 

My eyes are wide open... and even so reguardless you still can go astray, life is a journey that you grow and evolve from.

Do you think I should listen to you or listen to my Lord Jesus Christ? I still have much to say whenever the Holy Spirit feel want to. You go astray because you don't get the beacon...

 

One plant the seeds, another water the seeds. Yet it was God who brought forth the fruit for His honor and glory.

 

Your post shows you didn't get to the right road yet, sorry to be blunt.

[Moai]

My question isn't so much about who is watching over us, but about who has endowed us with the right to consider ourselves unique. And, further, about what system, if any, gives our existence purpose and meaning.

 

I cannot give a good answer to this question, as I postulate no "who." Why not consider ourselves unique? We are. Are we "special", is the whole plant set up just so we can be here? No, not at all. And no evidence suggests otherwise.

 

As I have written before, meaning is determined by the individual.

 

Only in the sense that we all interpret our own experience. But that doesn't preclude a real, external meaning.

 

A real. external meaning is irrelevant unless it is available to everyone. It is nonsensical to think that some people, just by the way they think/act that they have a monopoly on truth. They don't.

 

In your belief system, why do you attribute intrinsic value to finding the cure for cancer or being a Mozart? Because these things help others? Why does helping others bring value? Why do we have a sense of justice to rail at God when we find Him lacking? Where did this sense of justice come from? Why do we feel pain when we hear about the tsunami victims? Why do we have empathy or feel shock at those who lack it?

 

You are all over the place. First, I do not put any "intrinsic" value on anything. I love my old Cadillac, but to someone else it may be worthless. When you use terms like "Intrinsic value" you assume a commonality of experience that does not exist. But I would say, again, that the small pox vaccine worked on everyone to whom it was given.

 

I don't know where this sense of justice comes from. But I have it. You have it. And as time goes on, we get better at it.

 

You suggest that any explanation is better than no explanation. And that is false. There are things that science cannot yet explain. There always will be.

 

A plausible explanation is not necessarily a true one.

 

I know why in my system of belief, but I'm not sure about how it makes sense in yours.

 

I think it is easy for secularists to coast on the jet stream of the great religious traditions. The byproduct of Judaeo Christianity is still in the air we breathe, and so the logical consequences of a completely secular societare yet to be seen.

 

Really? Name one thing that religion has given me that cannot be paralleled secularly. One.

 

The logical consequences are irrelevant, as humans aren't logical. However, it would behoove us to eliminate superstition when we see it. God is a superstition. You can use go to explain a good many things, but that doesn't mean he or she or it exists.

 

I don't see your John Lennon Utopian "Imagine" scenario panning out. I think something quite different will happen.

 

Good try. I don't care if you like that song or not--I don't--or if you think that dirty hippies like it (which I think you do), but the fact is John Lennon, and the song "Imagine" does not encompass the atheistic mindest. I know that when you came up with that you gave yourself a little pat on the back, and more power to you! Did that feel good?

 

I am more than willing to keep this discussion going, but you really will have to do better than this.

 

If you don't value human existence over moth existence, this is just a matter of selfishness and might makes right. That is why this secular Utopia will never exist. If morals are completely relative, everything boils down to the strong beating out the weak.

 

Who is postulating a Utopia? I would just rather everyone everywhere was more rational. Compared to what we have now it may be a Utopia...

 

All species are selfish. And that is not a bad thing. And I value human existence above all. I am not sure where you get the idea that I don't. That said, I don't think that you are actually interacting with me, but are sponging things you have heard somewhere that sounded good to you.

 

Given what you have written I don't think that you have read my posts, or have any genuine idea as to what an atheist really believes. But, that is what these forums are for.

 

I await your next post.

[Moai]

I was thinking of his post #413, in which he argues that war would be greatly reduced if we got rid of religion. In actuality, hardly any of the wars and mass genocides of the twentieth century were spurred by religion except for the Islamic and mid-east stuff. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. etc. All secular.

 

Sorry, but almost every war you have ever heard of had a religious basis.

 

The genocide against the Jews was not only based on religion, it was based on the most illusionary of fictions. "The Jews Have all the money."

 

Hitler was a Christian, and said he was often. Mao, Stalin, etc may have rejected religion, but they were not rational. Your argument here is a red herring. Atheism does not equal "Communisim" by any stretch.

 

All I propose is rational thought. If you can demonstrate where any government you mention above was rational, I am all ears.

 

Mao and I may agree that the sky is blue, but it does not follow that I agree with Mao on politics, or even how to treat his own people.

 

Yes, that is very interesting. And I think as moderns (or post moderns?) we take these concepts for granted as common sense but ignore the origins.

 

This much seems true.

[Moai]

At that time Jesus was filled with joy by the Holy Spirit(n)

 

What? Jesus is god, right? And the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three, but they are one--is that not true?

 

How can Jesus be filled with himself? If The Father, Son, and Holy spirit are all aspects of the same thing, by definition Jesus is always filled with the Holy Spirit. Right?

[pricillia]

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I just read this passage, it is so encouraging

 

1(*)The message you heard from the very beginning is this: we must love one another.

3:12 (*)We must not be like Cain; he belonged to the Evil One and murdered his own brother Abel. Why did Cain murder him? Because the things he himself did were wrong, and the things his brother did were right.

3:13 So do not be surprised, my friends, if the people of the world hate you.

3:14 (*)We know that we have left death and come over into life; we know it because we love others. Those who do not love are still under the power of death.

3:15 Those who hate others are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life in them.

3:16 This is how we know what love is: Christ gave his life for us. We too, then, ought to give our lives for others!

 

Dear friends, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Whoever loves is a child of God and knows God.

4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.

4:9 And God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him.

4:10 This is what love is: it is not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means by which our sins are forgiven.

4:11 Dear friends, if this is how God loved us, then we should love one another.

4:12 (*)No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in union with us, and his love is made perfect in us.

 

Love you :bunny:

 

 

It is not all about you LB, Nobody hates you and as you say God is love which also means accepting of other people even if they are not Christians.

 

Which brings me to say why are you struggling with someone not believing as you believe, there are people globally that think differently, born in different places with different upbringings and backrounds, why do they have to believe exactly what you believe exactly the time that you believe it?

[Storyrider]

As I have written before, meaning is determined by the individual.

 

I simply don't agree. Interpretations must be, by nature, individual, ultimately truth is not. The scientific community knows that better than anyone.

 

A real. external meaning is irrelevant unless it is available to everyone.

 

It can never be available for everyone. I agree with you. But I don't agree that means it isn't there. We may never know what is beyond our universe. But that doesn't mean whatever it is doesn't exist.

 

It is nonsensical to think that some people, just by the way they think/act that they have a monopoly on truth. They don't.

 

I agree that no person or group of people has a monopoly on truth. But some are closer than others. That is the best we can do with our limitations.

 

I don't know where this sense of justice comes from. But I have it. You have it. And as time goes on, we get better at it.

 

 

Really? Name one thing that religion has given me that cannot be paralleled secularly. One.

 

I think burning gave a very good example that would answer your question. And it also shows how justice and mercy has more to do with Judeo Christianity than you will admit. I'm not saying science hasn't contributed as well, but science alone does not make it happen. If it weren't for Judeo Christianity, we would still be worshipping the celestial bodies instead of studying them.

 

As to the idea that we are making natural progress toward a more civilized mankind, I don't believe that. There are many different scenarios for how we could end up, and science will not necessarily take us in a good direction. Have you read Brave New World?

 

God is a superstition.

 

I would make a distinction between superstition and faith. A faith that is based on a long, rich tradition and provides many positives is not synonymous with a superstition. I don't believe in Buddhism, but I wouldn't be so derogatory as to call it a superstition.

 

 

Good try. I don't care if you like that song or not--I don't--or if you think that dirty hippies like it (which I think you do), but the fact is John Lennon, and the song "Imagine" does not encompass the atheistic mindest. I know that when you came up with that you gave yourself a little pat on the back, and more power to you! Did that feel good?

 

:lmao: I like hippies, and I haven't met very many dirty ones. (Lots that smelled like patchouli, which is an OK smell if not over-applied.) I like John Lennon, but I don't think "Imagine" is his best work.

 

Did I give myself a pat on the back? I don't know. Maybe for managing to work music into the discussion because I like music. Sorry if I offended you.

 

Who is postulating a Utopia? I would just rather everyone everywhere was more rational. Compared to what we have now it may be a Utopia...

 

But it is Utopian to assume that we are making natural progress toward a greater good because of science and that this will eventually reduce or eliminate war. There will always be forms of dogmatism that people are willing to die for.

 

You said above that humans are not logical. That was my point. If we don't have God based religion, we will have some other ideology driving bad things. Humans do bad things sometimes in the name of ideology. Getting rid of God will not stop that.

 

All species are selfish. And that is not a bad thing. And I value human existence above all. I am not sure where you get the idea that I don't. That said, I don't think that you are actually interacting with me, but are sponging things you have heard somewhere that sounded good to you.

 

I am interacting with you with the best stuff I have. Some of it I have learned from other people. What is wrong with that? Maybe you're right that I am out of my league and you should stop interacting with me. I am just an English major and mom who is bored with too much time on my hands.

 

Given what you have written I don't think that you have read my posts,

 

Your posts are long, and while I have read all of the ones you wrote to me, I have skimmed some of the earlier ones in the debate with others. Sorry if I missed something relevant.

 

Sorry, but almost every war you have ever heard of had a religious basis.

 

The genocide against the Jews was not only based on religion, it was based on the most illusionary of fictions. "The Jews Have all the money."

Hitler was a Christian, and said he was often.

 

To say Hitler's war was a Christian war is misleading. It was much more based in a warped nationalism and, as you've said, antisemitism. He was nominally Christian.

 

Mao, Stalin, etc may have rejected religion, but they were not rational. Your argument here is a red herring. Atheism does not equal "Communisim" by any stretch.

 

Exactly. I'm agreeing with you. Nonreligious ideologies can spawn wars. And I absolutely agree with you that they are irrational. What I'm saying is that Atheism does not guarantee rationality, and getting rid of God will not be a panacea, but will, in my opinion, make things worse.

 

Mao and I may agree that the sky is blue, but it does not follow that I agree with Mao on politics, or even how to treat his own people.

 

Of course not. I was not equating you with Mao. I just don't think Atheism equals progress or will produce more rationality. I think it is a faith of its own sort or will produce people with faith in new, different gods, like power, money, science, etc. Science can never provide what religion provides because it can't teach us right from wrong. But people can look to it as if it is a religion by having too much faith in it.

 

I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm just a Reform Jew who believes God is basically a good thing most of the time.

 

I didn't mean to offend you in anything I've said. I just disagree with you that Atheism is the best thing for people.

[Moai]

I simply don't agree. Interpretations must be, by nature, individual, ultimately truth is not. The scientific community knows that better than anyone.

 

There is a difference between meaning and truth. What gives one person meaning is not what gives another person meaning.

 

What gives someone's life meaning has nothing do do with "truth", ultimate or otherwise. And, science has nothing to do with it--unless practicing science gives your life meaning.

 

It can never be available for everyone. I agree with you. But I don't agree that means it isn't there. We may never know what is beyond our universe. But that doesn't mean whatever it is doesn't exist.

 

That's true. But it would be silly to make up rules for what is beyond our universe and somehow claim that what you think is beyond the universe is the right claim, as nobody knows if there is anything there to being with. And, since there is no evidence that there is anything, there probably isn't. So I behave as if there isn't. When and if there ever is any evidence, then I will change my mind. Of course.

 

I agree that no person or group of people has a monopoly on truth. But some are closer than others. That is the best we can do with our limitations.

 

True. But so far the religious approach has been sadly lacking. And while it may give some people meaning in their lives, it isn't getting us any closer to truth, simply because it is based on an unprovable assumption.

 

 

I think burning gave a very good example that would answer your question. And it also shows how justice and mercy has more to do with Judeo Christianity than you will admit. I'm not saying science hasn't contributed as well, but science alone does not make it happen. If it weren't for Judeo Christianity, we would still be worshipping the celestial bodies instead of studying them.

 

Really. What about the Judeo-Christian belief system has anything to do with science? The Greeks and Romans were achieving great things before Christianity was invented.

 

Look at the history of cosmology and you will see that the Church fought every discovery every step of the way, threatening the men who made the discoveries with death and imprisonment.

 

Even today, religion is holding the US back in the area of stem-cell research. And it is even trying to teach our children basic biology. We have come a long way, and in spite of the God of Abraham and his son, not because of it.

 

But I am open to learning about exactly what it is about Judeo-Christianity that helps science.

 

As to the idea that we are making natural progress toward a more civilized mankind, I don't believe that. There are many different scenarios for how we could end up, and science will not necessarily take us in a good direction. Have you read Brave New World?

 

Yep. Have you heard of the Dark Ages? That is when Christianity reigned supreme in Europe.

 

Science cannot take us in any particular direction. Science is a tool that we use to understand the world around us. Being rational is always better than being irrational. As fallible humans, it is certain that we will make mistakes, but if we are rational we will learn from them. And things will improve.

 

I would make a distinction between superstition and faith. A faith that is based on a long, rich tradition and provides many positives is not synonymous with a superstition. I don't believe in Buddhism, but I wouldn't be so derogatory as to call it a superstition.

 

Well, superstitions is what they are. The number of people who believe something is not indicative of that belief's truth. There is a long, rich tradition of people believing that breaking a mirror will give you 9 years of bad luck. That doesn't make it suddenly "faith" instead of "superstition". By the way, there is just as much evidence that breaking a mirror imparting bad luck as there is for God. You guess it: zero.

 

Here is a helpful definition: "A superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship."

 

And a delusion that may give the deluded something positive doesn't mean it isn't a delusion.

 

 

:lmao: I like hippies, and I haven't met very many dirty ones. (Lots that smelled like patchouli, which is an OK smell if not over-applied.) I like John Lennon, but I don't think "Imagine" is his best work.

 

Did I give myself a pat on the back? I don't know. Maybe for managing to work music into the discussion because I like music. Sorry if I offended you.

 

Sorry, I wasn't offended, I was just trying to be coy. I am really into music, too. I am a big Beatles fan, but don't really like much of their solo stuff--except for Ringo.

 

But it is Utopian to assume that we are making natural progress toward a greater good because of science and that this will eventually reduce or eliminate war. There will always be forms of dogmatism that people are willing to die for.

 

I never claimed that science would eliminate war. I never claimed that being rational would eliminate war. I think it would reduce its likelihood a great deal, though.

 

Science helps everyone. But one can be rational and not practice science. I'm sure there are plenty of rational poets, novelists, and musicians. Those things help people, too. Science is just a tool, like I said.

 

You said above that humans are not logical. That was my point. If we don't have God based religion, we will have some other ideology driving bad things. Humans do bad things sometimes in the name of ideology. Getting rid of God will not stop that.

 

Maybe, but it is an essential first step. And we can teach people to be logical. One of the reasons they are NOT logical is because the hold onto erroneous belief systems without rational challenge. Religion is the only area of human endeavor that for whatever reason gets a free pass. I don't think that it should.

 

I am interacting with you with the best stuff I have. Some of it I have learned from other people. What is wrong with that? Maybe you're right that I am out of my league and you should stop interacting with me. I am just an English major and mom who is bored with too much time on my hands.

 

Let me apologize again if I came off as snippy. If I did, it was wrong and I apologize. And, there is nothing wrong with using other sources, either.

 

It's just that I never postulated a Utopia, nor did I suggest that rational thinking would end war, or anything. But it would help a great, great deal, I think.

 

Your posts are long, and while I have read all of the ones you wrote to me, I have skimmed some of the earlier ones in the debate with others. Sorry if I missed something relevant.

 

Yes, my posts are long. It is the bane of my existence.

 

To say Hitler's war was a Christian war is misleading. It was much more based in a warped nationalism and, as you've said, antisemitism. He was nominally Christian.

 

If you read his speeches he claimed that his Christian faith was responsible for many of his beliefs and actions. And if he says he is a Christian, than he is. Otherwise, one invokes the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

Exactly. I'm agreeing with you. Nonreligious ideologies can spawn wars. And I absolutely agree with you that they are irrational. What I'm saying is that Atheism does not guarantee rationality, and getting rid of God will not be a panacea, but will, in my opinion, make things worse.

 

No, but rationality almost guarantees atheism.

 

Of course not. I was not equating you with Mao. I just don't think Atheism equals progress or will produce more rationality. I think it is a faith of its own sort or will produce people with faith in new, different gods, like power, money, science, etc. Science can never provide what religion provides because it can't teach us right from wrong. But people can look to it as if it is a religion by having too much faith in it.

 

Well, I don't have "faith" in atheism. And when I look around here, it would seem that everyone is already worshipping money, power, etc. And they probably always will.

 

I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm just a Reform Jew who believes God is basically a good thing most of the time.

 

I didn't mean to offend you in anything I've said. I just disagree with you that Atheism is the best thing for people.

 

And you are free to disagree with me, that is the point. You are ahead of the game by being a member of one of the more rational faiths that I am aware of.

 

I was offended, and I again apologize to you if I was snide or something. I didn't mean anything by it. I am enjoying the conversation, and hope you continue to add your thoughts.

[Storyrider]

Really. What about the Judeo-Christian belief system has anything to do with science? The Greeks and Romans were achieving great things before Christianity was invented...

 

...But I am open to learning about exactly what it is about Judeo-Christianity that helps science.

 

It was only when people stopped worshipping nature that it became possible for them to study it objectively. Monotheism disallowed the worship of nature, allowing for more accurate science. This is not to say that the Greeks weren't already making headway in science. I don't know if the Greeks were Pantheists so much as Polytheists, right? But certainly other pagan groups who worshipped the stars never thought to study them scientifically.

 

Science cannot take us in any particular direction. Science is a tool that we use to understand the world around us. Being rational is always better than being irrational. As fallible humans, it is certain that we will make mistakes, but if we are rational we will learn from them. And things will improve.

 

But pure rationality cannot always answer our questions about morality. Or it will answer them wrongly. I'm absolutely sure you disagree with me here, and maybe we don't need to get into it. We can just go on record as disagreeing if you want.

 

Well, superstitions is what they are. The number of people who believe something is not indicative of that belief's truth. There is a long, rich tradition of people believing that breaking a mirror will give you 9 years of bad luck. That doesn't make it suddenly "faith" instead of "superstition". By the way, there is just as much evidence that breaking a mirror imparting bad luck as there is for God. You guess it: zero.

 

But we can disprove the mirror thing through science. One can't disprove the existence of God through science. And I still think one can make a valid and useful distinction between a superstition or cult, and one of the great world religions.

 

Sorry, I wasn't offended, I was just trying to be coy. I am really into music, too. I am a big Beatles fan, but don't really like much of their solo stuff--except for Ringo.

 

I have been a huge Beatles fan. I burned out on them for a long time and am finally able to enjoy them again. Do you prefer early or late Beatles? Maybe I will start a thread.

 

I never claimed that science would eliminate war. I never claimed that being rational would eliminate war. I think it would reduce its likelihood a great deal, though.

 

Science helps everyone. But one can be rational and not practice science. I'm sure there are plenty of rational poets, novelists, and musicians. Those things help people, too. Science is just a tool, like I said.

 

To me, faith is also a kind of tool, or a different kind of knowing that need not compete with rationality (I understand that some people's faith does make them irrational. For instance, I would never say that Satan planted that anthro specimen, as someone argued in the other thread. )

 

But I do believe that God is somehow behind the forces of nature that cause evolution and natural selection. I think one can know the science of how a baby is formed in the womb and simultaneously view that baby as a miraculous gift from God. I admit that it is not provable and not rational because it is a matter of faith for me. I have no desire to convince you of it.

 

Maybe, but it is an essential first step. And we can teach people to be logical. One of the reasons they are NOT logical is because the hold onto erroneous belief systems without rational challenge. Religion is the only area of human endeavor that for whatever reason gets a free pass. I don't think that it should.

 

I would like to teach my children to be logical and to have faith, and to try to use both of these ways of thinking where appropriate. I'm the opposite of you in that I grew up without any faith at all, my parents insisted I jump through all the hoops of Judaism but were agnostic/atheist and didn't tell me anything about God. I think faith is a tool that would have benefited me greatly growing up.

 

It's just that I never postulated a Utopia, nor did I suggest that rational thinking would end war, or anything. But it would help a great, great deal, I think.

 

I would suggest that the biggest "bad boys" who start wars, the guys we mentioned in the last exchange, weren't driven primarily by irrationality but something much more sinister. But maybe some of their followers were merely irrational.

 

I agree that teaching rationality is good. I still don't think eliminating religion logically follows as the answer. Look at all the nuns who nursed soldiers in WWI and II. Look at Mother Theresa. They didn't help people out of rationality. Of course I realize many nonreligious people help others too. But would there be a secular Mother Theresa? I think it is an open question.

 

If you read his speeches he claimed that his Christian faith was responsible for many of his beliefs and actions. And if he says he is a Christian, than he is. Otherwise, one invokes the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

Does that mean if I say I'm a virgin I really am one?

 

I would still describe Hitler's Third Reich as based in a sort of Nordic paganism, and an ubermensch, Wagnerian mentality. (He did invoke God as on his side, but that doesn't make him a Christian.)

 

If you're reading, what do you think about Hitler, B4R? Was his movement Christian?

[burning 4 revenge]

Hey Storyrider, my friend, I just got in from work. Christ, I'm exhausted.

 

As far as Hitler goes he was an atheist. The closest thing to religion he came to was a perverted belief in Nietzcheism. And a twisted interpretation of Darwinism. Both atheists.

 

Yes, he invoked Christian imagery sometimes, but it was essentially meaningless. It was useful to him, because he could take advantage of the old anti-semitism that came from the medieval view of Jew as Christkiller, but that's about as far as it went.

 

And what proves it is the fact that a Jew could convert to Christianity, but they would still go to the chamber. I mean, for Christsakes, Jesus himself would have been put in the oven. It was all based on genetics. Hitler was obsessed with genetics and bloodlines. This is very different than say the Spanish Inquisition. There a Jew could convert to Chrisitianity and save himself, because it was a religious persecution. Not so with the Third Reich.

 

What makes it particularly ironic in the context of this argument is that I think Nazism shows what can happen with atheism taken to an extreme. People have no objective value and so one applies a subjective value to them. In Hitler's case he wsnted to" purify" the human race and make it Aryan...so Jews had no value. It was no different than a botanist breeding plants. It was all very scientific and clinical. And conspicuous for the lack of any recognition of humanity.

[alphamale]

In Hitler's case he wsnted to" purify" the human race and make it Aryan...so Jews had no value.

Actually thats incorrect B4R.....he wanted to get rid of the Jews because they were starting to run Germany. The Jews were getting too much money and power and he did not like that and neither did the German people. Those are some facts you wont' read in your history text.

 

Funny thing about Jews...they are so smart and educated that where ever they go they take over the place.

[Storyrider]

Hey Storyrider, my friend, I just got in from work. Christ, I'm exhausted.

 

As far as Hitler goes he was an atheist. The closest thing to religion he came to was a perverted belief in Nietzcheism. And a twisted interpretation of Darwinism. Both atheists.

 

Yes, he invoked Christian imagery sometimes, but it was essentially meaningless. It was useful to him, because he could take advantage of the old anti-semitism that came from the medieval view of Jew as Christkiller, but that's about as far as it went.

 

And what proves it is the fact that a Jew could convert to Christianity, but they would still go to the chamber. I mean, for Christsakes, Jesus himself would have been put in the oven. It was all based on genetics. Hitler was obsessed with genetics and bloodlines. This is very different than say the Spanish Inquisition. There a Jew could convert to Chrisitianity and save himself, because it was a religious persecution. Not so with the Third Reich.

 

What makes it particularly ironic in the context of this argument is that I think Nazism shows what can happen with atheism taken to an extreme. People have no objective value and so one applies a subjective value to them. In Hitler's case he wsnted to" purify" the human race and make it Aryan...so Jews had no value. It was no different than a botanist breeding plants. It was all very scientific and clinical. And conspicuous for the lack of any recognition of humanity.

 

Thanks. That fits with my understanding.

 

Yeah, I have often thought about how my kids would be handled in Nazi Germany, despite their dual heritage, Irish last name, and the fact that they are baptized in the RCC.

[Moai]

It was only when people stopped worshipping nature that it became possible for them to study it objectively. Monotheism disallowed the worship of nature, allowing for more accurate science. This is not to say that the Greeks weren't already making headway in science. I don't know if the Greeks were Pantheists so much as Polytheists, right? But certainly other pagan groups who worshipped the stars never thought to study them scientifically.

 

I would certainly concede that as man has thought less magically our understanding of the Universe progressed.

 

But pure rationality cannot always answer our questions about morality. Or it will answer them wrongly. I'm absolutely sure you disagree with me here, and maybe we don't need to get into it. We can just go on record as disagreeing if you want.

 

Well, the Golden Rule answers most, if not all of them.

 

But we can disprove the mirror thing through science. One can't disprove the existence of God through science. And I still think one can make a valid and useful distinction between a superstition or cult, and one of the great world religions.

 

Well, since I don't believe in any of the religions I don't see any of them as "great". And it is not incumbent upon me to "disprove" god, it is up to the person making an assertion to provide evidence for said assertion. Science never "disproves" anything.

 

I can't "disprove" that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn controlling everything, either. But that doesn't make the belief in one rational or credible.

 

All "great" religions started out as a cult--and actually still are, it is just a question of numbers, it seems.

 

I have been a huge Beatles fan. I burned out on them for a long time and am finally able to enjoy them again. Do you prefer early or late Beatles? Maybe I will start a thread.

 

Good idea! I like their early stuff the best.

 

To me, faith is also a kind of tool, or a different kind of knowing that need not compete with rationality (I understand that some people's faith does make them irrational. For instance, I would never say that Satan planted that anthro specimen, as someone argued in the other thread. )

 

It is a fine tool as far as it goes, I suppose, except that all start from an unprovable premise. Namely "there is a god". There is a god. And this is what pleases him/her/it, etc. etc.

 

But I do believe that God is somehow behind the forces of nature that cause evolution and natural selection. I think one can know the science of how a baby is formed in the womb and simultaneously view that baby as a miraculous gift from God. I admit that it is not provable and not rational because it is a matter of faith for me. I have no desire to convince you of it.

 

That is a reasonable paragraph.

 

I would like to teach my children to be logical and to have faith, and to try to use both of these ways of thinking where appropriate. I'm the opposite of you in that I grew up without any faith at all, my parents insisted I jump through all the hoops of Judaism but were agnostic/atheist and didn't tell me anything about God. I think faith is a tool that would have benefited me greatly growing up.

 

You sound like you are a pretty good mom. Something to be very proud of.

 

I would suggest that the biggest "bad boys" who start wars, the guys we mentioned in the last exchange, weren't driven primarily by irrationality but something much more sinister. But maybe some of their followers were merely irrational.

 

We agree. I think that dogmatic thinking about irrational conclusions could be tossed in there somewhere.

 

I agree that teaching rationality is good. I still don't think eliminating religion logically follows as the answer. Look at all the nuns who nursed soldiers in WWI and II. Look at Mother Theresa. They didn't help people out of rationality. Of course I realize many nonreligious people help others too. But would there be a secular Mother Theresa? I think it is an open question.

 

True.

 

Does that mean if I say I'm a virgin I really am one?

 

I would still describe Hitler's Third Reich as based in a sort of Nordic paganism, and an ubermensch, Wagnerian mentality. (He did invoke God as on his side, but that doesn't make him a Christian.)

 

If you're reading, what do you think about Hitler, B4R? Was his movement Christian?

 

Well, being a virgin is rather different that being a Christian!

[burning 4 revenge]

Actually thats incorrect B4R.....he wanted to get rid of the Jews because they were starting to run Germany. The Jews were getting too much money and power and he did not like that and neither did the German people. Those are some facts you wont' read in your history text.

You do read that in history texts. That was one of his justifications for putting them in the ghetto. I assume that's where you read it.

 

But if that was so then why was he the Fuhrer. I mean if the Jews "ran Germany'. Much like they "run Hollywood".

 

Hitler took some of Nitzsche's ideas he expressed in his work "The Antichrist" where Nietzsche bemoans the fact that the Teutonic spirit of the German people were "Judaized" through Christianity and twisted them into some obscene ideology. His final solution was to purify society genetically. The Nazis wanted a return to a pure German ethos.

[Moai]

Hey Storyrider, my friend, I just got in from work. Christ, I'm exhausted.

 

As far as Hitler goes he was an atheist. The closest thing to religion he came to was a perverted belief in Nietzcheism. And a twisted interpretation of Darwinism. Both atheists.

 

Yes, he invoked Christian imagery sometimes, but it was essentially meaningless. It was useful to him, because he could take advantage of the old anti-semitism that came from the medieval view of Jew as Christkiller, but that's about as far as it went.

 

And what proves it is the fact that a Jew could convert to Christianity, but they would still go to the chamber. I mean, for Christsakes, Jesus himself would have been put in the oven. It was all based on genetics. Hitler was obsessed with genetics and bloodlines. This is very different than say the Spanish Inquisition. There a Jew could convert to Chrisitianity and save himself, because it was a religious persecution. Not so with the Third Reich.

 

What makes it particularly ironic in the context of this argument is that I think Nazism shows what can happen with atheism taken to an extreme. People have no objective value and so one applies a subjective value to them. In Hitler's case he wsnted to" purify" the human race and make it Aryan...so Jews had no value. It was no different than a botanist breeding plants. It was all very scientific and clinical. And conspicuous for the lack of any recognition of humanity.

 

Incorrect. Hitler was not an atheist. Not remotely. He was Catholic, in fact.

 

“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.

 

And:

 

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

 

And:

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

 

And:

 

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

 

And:

 

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

 

And finally:

 

“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

 

There's a lot more.

 

Himmler, on the other hand, was into the occult and paganism, and Hess was into astrology.

[alphamale]

But if that was so then why was he the Fuhrer. I mean if the Jews "ran Germany'. Much like they "run Hollywood"..

because he ran on an anti-jew platform and promised that Germany would become strong and proud again. He was elected into office, remember?????????????? No German would have voted for any Jew.

 

REmember that the Nazi movement was cloaked. It was basically Christian racism against Jews. But no one says that now because Jews live in America and they cannot say politically it was Chrisitans vs. Jew.

 

yea, and america basically is artifically keeping Israel as a going concern.

[burning 4 revenge]

"A volkic political doctrine based on racial principles"

 

That's not Chrisitianity as I know it. That sounds like atheism to me. So he called it Christian and used Chrisitan symbols. So what? It wasn't Christian in any way, but simply a hijacking of the title.