"Slate" <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mrm060t32epb38oe6do1esk8vll75o1vnr@4ax.com...

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:04:29 -0500, "ChalkItUp"
<ChalkItUp37@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Slate" <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5gcr50psir43gkqnorgcn415n556rvur37@4ax.com...

On 20 Mar 2004 18:20:05 -0800,

Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<a4be50h9iue7dgflfpck3agkdp6vcugr8r@4ax.com>...

Theists are those who use the statement "god did it", to explain

away

all of the mysteries in the world. It doesn't require any rational
thought, and questions are not required. Faith is all that's needed.
Bibles used by the monotheistic religions, are all they have to make
the case for the existence of their gods.

After the conversation that we back in December, concerning evidence
for the existence of god, as well as the thinking believer, I am truly
astounded that you made the above statement. You asked for reading
suggestions before abandoning the discussion. I thought that maybe
you were reading up on the topic. By the above statement, I have to
assume that you never pursued the matter.

You suggested a site to view, and I did indeed go there to
give it a look. The writer stated that his reasons for believing in
God were based on "teleological and cosmological arguments."
We both agreed at the time, that there is no empirical evidence
for the existence of any gods.
I'm surprised that you were
"astounded" by the above statement,

Of course there is no empirical evidence. That was the basis of my
argument, as empiricism is the study of the natural, while "god" by
definition is supernatural. No need to rehash that. Are you saying that
the teleological and cosmological arguments presented (such as Kalam) are
irrational? Do these arguments strike you as requiring no rational

thought?

In reading them does it seem to you that faith was all that was needed

and

no questions were required? Unless you can "yes" to each of these
questions, then you can see why I am astounded.

Yes, they do require much thought, and they're certainly not
irrational. However, people that pursue this train of thought are the
rare exception in relation to the vast majority of theists who
constantly quote Bible verses to justify their positions. They have
unquestioning "faith" that their Bibles represent the word of God.

Just as most people have no idea of the how and why of atomic fission, nor
do they think deeply about it...they simply accept it on faith. Most people
have no idea of the components and technique used to produce a beautiful
landscape, nor do they think deeply about the abstract of "beauty"...they
simply feel that it is beautiful. Most people have no idea of the market
influences on the price of tea in China, nor do they think deeply about
macroeconomic theory...they simply pay the price. The fact of the matter is
that in any field academic inquiry, the experts in the field do the heavy
lifting. The "vast majority" of people simply accept the fallout "on
faith". Most people don't think deeply about most things in life...they
simply go about thier daily lives. If you asked them for justify the
position that Einstein's theory that the speed of light is the cosmic speed
limt, they would not be able to explain. Assuming that you didn't beleive
that Einstein was right, you still probably wouldn't act as if they were
irrational. But if you ~did~ act this way, and someone came along and
pointed you to some reading material which proved that this theory does
"require much thought" and is "certainly not irrational", then you would be
foolish to continue to maintain that a believer in this theory doesn't
"require any rational thought, and questions are not required. Faith is all
that's needed". In fact, only your own individual bias would lead you
continue to maintain this stance. Why do you continue to maintain that
"Bibles used by the monotheistic religions, are all they have to make the
case for the existence of their gods", when you obviously know better as
evidenced by your first statement above?

Valid arguments can, and have, been made which contend that it takes more
faith to have an atheistic worldview to explain the mysteries of the

world,

than a theistic one. Many disingenuous atheists on usenet claim that the
only honest answer to these mysteries is "I don't know". But trying to
explain the mysteries of the world, quite obviously, are what these
discussions ultimately are all about. It is by definition the endgoal of
all scientific and theological inquiry.

It may be the "endgoal of all scientific and theological inquiry", to
explain the mysteries of the world, but atheism is not about that.
The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means
"without theism," or without belief in a god or gods.
Atheism in it's basic form, is not a belief: it's the absence of
belief..... nothing more.
Must an atheist be "disingenuous" to state "I don't know" when the
question is asked "how did things come to be"? Actually, it is and
will be the only "honest" answer to such questions until there is
reliable evidence to the contrary.

So what you are saying then is:
a. Theist use the belief in god (ie. theological inquiry) as a possible
explanation of "how things came to be"

b. Atheists lack the belief in god.
c. therefore, atheists lack a possible explanation of "how things came to
be" and "I don't know" becomes the "only honest answer".
Obviously this is an absurdity, and in fact the honest atheist puts forth
many possible explanations for how thing came about.
The entire idea of the belief in a god (or lack thereof) revolves around
"how things came to be". Since everything that "comes to be" has a cause,
one must fundamentally believe that there is a god who caused it or that it
came into being in some other way. By claiming to be an atheist, one is
saying that he believes that "things came to be" in a godless way. There is
nothing wrong with this stance. It is certainly a viable position. But
running from this stance is where the disingenuousness begins. When pushed
on the subject of creation (etc.), this "I don't know how" answer is used
disingenuously by atheists and theists alike. It is a copout, and you know
it. Where is this "reliable evidence" to come from? Obviously, if mankind
always answered "I don't know", there would never be any progress.

By your logic, "I don't know" is the only honest answer to whether c is the cosmic
speed limit. There must be critical thinking in all areas...the scientific,
the philosophical, the theological, the mathematical, etc. Noted atheists
like Steven Hawking have put forth such theories, as have other noted
thinkers, atheist & theist alike. As I said, the "honest" atheist puts
forth theories, since this is the essence of their lack of belief in a god
or gods.

as without the Bibles,
no one would know of the monotheistic gods.
Judaism is around 3000 years old, Christianity around 2000 years old,
and Islam around 1400 years old. They all share some similarities
such as Abraham, but without "faith" in an incomprehensible god,
they would all crumble as past religions have.

Even after reading thoughtful pov's you continue to claim that bibles are
the only way that one would claim to have evidence of gods. You seem to
confuse religions with beliefs in a godhood.

Religions are merely the vehicles that deliver the message that there
is a god or gods to it's followers. I never claimed the Bible(s)
supplied any evidence of a god.

I didn't say that you claimed that the bible ~supplied evidence of a god~.
I said that you claim that bibles ~are the only way that one would claim to
have evidence of gods~. This is a rather large distinction. Now, if you
look at the first paragraph in this message, what you said was "bibles used
by the monotheistic religions, are all they have to make the case for the
existence of their gods". You obviously know better than this, as you have
admitted that there are many arguments that "require much thought" and "are
certainly not irrational". Yet you continue to make the claim. And I can't
understand any reason that you would do this, unles you are "a person
obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and
prejudices". This is the definition of a bigot.

Religions are manmade
constructs. In fact, these bibles which you say are the source of

knowledge

of god were in fact letters and histories written by men to others in the
hope of explaining and spreading their beliefs.

To my knowledge, there are no existing original books that made their
way into the bibles. They are copies of copies.

Ok...and......what

They weren't setting out to
write "the Word of God", it was the future Catholic church which took
these writings (and threw out others) and put them under one cover, declaring
them "God's Word". So, if the bible was the source of everyone's knowledge of
"gods", as you state above, then where did the many writers of the bible

get

~their~ knowledge?

Much of their knowledge of gods were taken from pegan and other
religions that were known at the time. Mithraism comes to mind:

"After the conquest of Assyria in the 7th century BC and of Babylonia
in the 6th century BC, Mithra became the god of the sun, which was
worshipped in his name.
Mithraism was similar to Christianity in many respects, for example,
in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of
communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at
Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's
birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul,
the last judgment, and the resurrection. The similarities, made
possible the easy conversion of its followers to Christian doctrine."
<end quote> - Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia

Ahhh, apparently you agree with me that religions don't crumble, they
evolve. In fact, not only was Mithraism assimilated into Christianity, so
was much of Paganism. (Saturnalia being incorporated into Christmas for
example. Or the practice of trading wedding rings....do you own one?)
These religions didn't crumble, they evolved.

Do you understand that one (or even everyone) can have a
belief in god with there being a single organized religion? You say that
religions have crumbled. There is evidence of belief in a god of some

kind

in all periods of recorded history dating back to cave art. Is it

possible

that people, and their constructs which we call "religions", have simply
evolved over time in much the same way that all human construct evolve?
Maybe it depends on ones particular bias, but it seems that where you see
"crumbling", I see evolution. It seems that if religions crumble, then

the

world would have no religion by this point in time. Yet we see the

opposite

effect. What we see is religion having spread to all corners of the

globe.

All I see is repetition for the most part. The only thing that changes
is the way it's packaged.

That evades the question. Do you understand that one can have a belief in
god without there being a single organized religion? (Btw, I noticed that I
had a typo above and left the "out" off of the word "without". But I'm sure
you know what I meant.)

In any case, if all there is is "repetition for the most part", then
logically that inherent consistency would argue ~for~ the element of truth,
and not against it.

Religions have been around for tens of thousands of years.
Are religions that came and went in the past, any less valid than the
ones mentioned above? If so, why?

Absolutely not. As I say, you seem to confuse "religions" with "evidence
for godness" (for lack of a better term). Religions, past and present,

are

all part of the same construct. They seem to be man's attempt to

understand

the nature of what they believe is god. Let's assume for a moment that

god

does in fact exist. Would it be such a stretch of the imagination to
believe that he couldn't reveal himself in different ways, to different
poeples of different cultures.

Hypothetically it wouldn't be much of a stretch, but a problem arises
in Christianity. One of the attributes attributed to God, is that he
is almighty. He can show himself to everyone in the world at anytime,
yet he does not, or can not.

C'mon Slate, that's weak and you know it. Now we're back to where we began
in December. Once again, you are looking for ~natural~ evidence for a being
who is claimed to be ~supernatural~. There are so many reasons why this
statement doesn't hold water, that I hardly know where to start. Assuming
he exists, why should he show himself? Why would he want to? Do you think
that he would be on some kind of ego trip? Maybe there are reasons that he
doesn't want to. Maybe we're incapable of seeing him. Some might say that
he does show himself. Some would say that he did show himself as a man
named Jesus. Some would say that you can't see him and live to tell about
it.............The list is endless. Sheesh.

Wouldn't it make more sense that he would
reveal himself this way...in a way that each of these different folks

would

be more predisposed to acceptance. If this were the case, then this is

also

the reason that there are many different religions. As I said, religions
are man-made.

To call atheists cowards is
laughable, as the opposite is true. Through the centuries, it took
much courage to defy the teachings of the church, and question the
validity of a god. In many cases, atheists were tortured, killed,
etc., in the name of a loving god. Someone once said:
"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence, so many more believers

than

thinkers." .......... how true.

Do you think that statements like these make you sound any less
prejudicial or bigoted than those who you would scoff at?

The above statement was not meant to be "prejudicial or bigoted" at
all. A quick look at history shows the more uneducated the populace,
the more prevalent and controlling religion was (is). Today, with only
20 to 30% of the population going to church in the U.S., is quite
different than when I was growing up in the late 40's and 50's.
People have become questioners, and the more they question
the validity of religion and it's dogmas, the less they need such
superstitions. That is not to say that intelligent people don't
believe in a god of some type, however that is the exception in my
experience.
Slate

Statistics actually show the opposite of your claims. It seems that in

the

postwar 40's, 50's and 60's church attendence hovered at roughly 45-46%.

In

the post-Vietnam 70's and early 80's attendance dipped into the low 40%
range. Since that time, attendance has gone above the post WWII figures

and

into the low 50% figures. Personally, I don't think this proves

anything.

I believe it is a function of the cultural influence of the baby boom
generation, which tended to reject everything of its predecessors. As

they

have gotten older, and begun raising their own children, they seem to

have

lost their rebelliousness and become more like their forebearers. In any
case, I think that it is more telling that you make the assertion that

these

great many people have "superstitions". Since a superston is defined as:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, or a false

conception

of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural,
nature, or God
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Please provide proof for your assertion. Please prove that these beliefs
either:
A. result from ignorance.
B. their causation is falsely conceived
C. they result from irrationality
D. they are maintained, despite evidence to the contrary.

Among the obvious of superstitions, there is the idea that one can
alter the physical Universe at the whim of supernatural activity, and
that would be prayer. Almost every religion has this component to
their ideology. Christianity, for example, has the idea of prayer,
that by whispering words to the darkness of the Universe, a wish might
be granted. It's no different than a ritual sacrifice of Voodoo, or a
Pagans spell.

Since we've already established that the argument for belief in god does not
entail superstition, as it is "certainly not irrational", then let's now
expand on that idea. Obviously a person who prays, has a belief in god.
Now, if this god who created the physical universe exists, and this ~is~ the
starting point for anyone who prays, then it is not superstitious at all to
believe that he can hear you and alter the physical universe (after all,
from this vantage point, he did create it). In fact, there has been much
medical research into the effects of intercessory prayer on patient
outcomes. These have been double-blind studies (ie. the patient doesn't
know that he is being prayed for). Some of the conclusions have been that
"prayer produced a measurable improvement in the medical outcomes of
critically ill patients in the CCU" and "'infrequent religious attendance'
or 'poverty of personal faith should be regarded as a risk factor that is
nearly equivalent to tobacco and alcohol abuse". It should be noted that
these studies are not conclusive, and "more studies are needed to validate
the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of
prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care." These studies have been
published in many professional journals including, "The British Medical
Journal", "American Family Physician", "Clinical Nursing Research",
"American Journal of Public Health", "The Journal of Parapsychology", among
others. Now my point is not that prayer actually "works". My point is that
if all of these scientists are willing to test this hypothesis, and if
reputable journals are willing to publish them (not an easy thing) then I
don't think that they can reasonably called superstitions. Especially since
the findings have led the doctors to the unexpected conclusion of prayer
having a positive effect. I think that your own prejudices against theists
are what lead you to constantly make these accusatory references such as
"irrational", "superstitious", "intolerant", etc. I can think of no other
reason.