Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience.
Yes but that is exactly the point.

If it is possible for you to judge God's morality based on an external standard ("ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience") and conclude that God is good, it is equally possible for someone else to do the same thing and conclude that God isn't good.

My "ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience" tells me that the genocide in the Bible has no justification, certainly not the one put forward in the Bible itself. I conclude that God if he exists is an immoral being.

The difference is that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. Being convinced by a witness is not good enough - the witness must be speaking the truth. You have believed the lie.

You inform me that I cannot do that because I am only a lowly human and incapable of judging God to my lowly moral standards. God works on a completely different higher set of standards and it is ridiculous for use to judge him based on my standards.

Then you turn around that you judge him based on your own standards, and surprisingly enough have judged him to be true and good.

No, I have not judged Him based on my own standards. I have accepted His standards because I recognise them as good and true. How do I do so? Because He has both given an internal assurance and I've seen how true Christianity works in real life.

But if someone else looks at God and concludes that he is bad and unjust and evil and unfair, you throw your hands up and proclaim that this person has no ability to judge God based on any human level standard.

Trying to have it both ways simply doesn't work. If you are able to judge God I'm able to judge God, we are all able to judge God. The idea that we are only able to judge God if we reach the conclusion that God is wonderful is nonsense.

So can you guys PLEASE stop using that arguement that we lack insight, knowledge or ethical ability to judge God when ever someone on this forum says "You know what, I think that was an immoral thing God did there" Because if we lack it, you lack it also.

You equate your information with ours - a big mistake. Yours is given by a sinful heart informed by Satan, mine by a new heart informed by God.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

Such a command was only given is the case of the Israelite nation entering and possessing the land. That administration ended with the coming of the Messiah.

I dont see it in the same way- the Gospels tell that it is wrong and back to Matthew in Romans " Vengence is mine" is very clear. AS is love your neighbour , enemies and the second coming and all that.

You would have a difficult time justifying any slaughter of women and children- seperate to casualties of a war- in that context is not allowed and I dont see how it can be envisaged.

Man does not have the authority to slaughter indiscriminately in that way -no matter what went on before the new testament.,

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difference is that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's.

Groan ... so I guess any hope for a serious discussion about this has just left the building.

I would be very interested to learn how you have determined, not using your own judgment of course, that I am being deceived by a voice other than God's, and you are not.

Imagine for a sec that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. How would you determine this was or was not true.

If you are relying on what your "heart" tells you, and you accept that there are supernatural being that exist and can influence your "heart" in various ways, then by what standard do you determine who or what is actually influencing your heart and leading you to conclude the things you do.

Imagine for a sec that what you think is God isn't actually God, say for example sake one of the Hindu gods is the real God, and what you think is God is actually just a mischiefious demon of some sort.

Given that you are using your "heart" to determine what is or is not correct, how would you determine that this isn't the case.

Or, using a non-religious example, how would you determine that what you are feeling isn't in fact some evolutionary miss firing, a feeling of security and love when certain religious icons trigger a primordial evolutionary instinct to feel protection from a father figure?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being convinced by a witness is not good enough - the witness must be speaking the truth

Wonderful. And you know the witness is speaking the truth how exactly?

By him telling you "in your heart" that he is? Well, what if he is lying. Then surely he will still tell you in your heart that he is telling the truth. And if you have already asserted that the only thing you can use to assess if he is telling the truth or not is the feeling in your heart, well then that is useless because either way, if he is true or a lie, you will have the same feeling in your heart.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I have not judged Him based on my own standards. I have accepted His standards because I recognise them as good and true.

That is judging him based on your own standards. If you do not assess based on your own standards you would not be able to recognize him either way. Recognition is a form of assessment, a form of judgment. You recognize God's standards as good because they match your already held standard of what is good.

So if you can do that then anyone else can as well, and they can recognize God as evil based on their own standards of good and evil, as I would.

Ah you say, but our standards are placed in our hearts by God.

Well then recognition becomes impossible, because no matter what God is he will place the same standards in your heart. If he is good he will do that, and he will do that if he is bad.

The lier never says they are lying, and even if they do you can't believe them because they are a lier.

We can either assess God based on our own standards that have nothing to do with God, or we cannot assess God at all either way. The idea that we can independently assess God based on the standards he gives us is nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You equate your information with ours - a big mistake. Yours is given by a sinful heart informed by Satan, mine by a new heart informed by God.

Or it could be the other way around. By your own logic you can't determine that, because you are assessing based on what is in your "heart", and if Satan gave you that heart to deceive you you would have no idea.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difference is that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. Being convinced by a witness is not good enough - the witness must be speaking the truth. You have believed the lie.
You equate your information with ours - a big mistake. Yours is given by a sinful heart informed by Satan, mine by a new heart informed by God.

You've often talked about the atheist conspiracy that seeks to force secularism and evolution upon everyone, but the only motive you can offer (coz let's face it, atheism isn't much fun) is that we are all simply defying God, either intentionally or unintentionally. I've asked you this before, but exactly how do you tell the difference between people who have been deceived by Satan versus those who are actually acting independently but doing so in a manner that you have failed to understand? It just sorta seems like you can (and do) apply this "deceived" (or wilfully defiant of God) excuse to any and all behaviours that you disagree with.

CDfm

Atomichorror & Wicknight- I dont really understand your God objections.

Is it just there is no God.

Or is there - there was something that started the universe etc kicked of evolution and then went on his own merry way.

Or is it - there might be but even if there is its an uninvolved God and this is all there is.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Atomichorror & Wicknight- I dont really understand your God objections.

Are you asking in general (why do I not believe in the Christian God?), or in relation to the discussion with Wolfsbane? (why are you arguing with Wolfsbane?)

Because in this thread my objection is with Wolfsbane more than God

CDfm wrote: »

Is it just there is no God.

Or is there - there was something that started the universe etc kicked of evolution and then went on his own merry way.

Or is it - there might be but even if there is its an uninvolved God and this is all there is.

Humans do not know if there is a god or not. Any claims to the contrary are human creations from the imagination. In fact the concept of "god" is a human creation, modeled on humans and applied to nature, to fill an instinctive need to assign agency to various aspects of the universe. It is highly unlike that there is anything in the universe that matches our concept of a god, and if there is it is purely a coicidence.

In a more specific sense I object to the manner and methods in which religion manipulates people into following particular dogma under the pretext that it comes from an almighty authority that cannot be questioned or determined to be wrong.

That is my "God objection" :pac:

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you asking in general (why do I not believe in the Christian God?), or in relation to the discussion with Wolfsbane? (why are you arguing with Wolfsbane?)

Im asking in general what you believe to understand your arguments.

I didnt realise I was arguing with Wolfbane - but there are a few key principles at an ethical and philosophical level that are fundamental to Christianity. On the genocide issue and I wasnt on that thread I thought it was right to give my 2 cents up front.

Many of the concepts and phrases cross over into mainstream philosophy and popular culture.

Its quite handy for an atheist to understand these too because when you come accross an argument on ethical issues you can understand the logic.There is nothing wrong with anyone atheist or anyone asking if an argument is consistant or if a particular position is just hypothetical.

For example, nothing I have seen posted here could justify what happened in Rwanda no matter what anyone says it is fairly clear cut without going from a moral to an ethical argument. At,another level, Christians cannot justify David Koresh- its just not there.

Christianity is not all goody goody - you still have to live but as a philosophy its up there.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

This kind of thing is one of my main concerns. Do you believe god has told George Bush to go to war? Do you believe God has told Osama Bin Laden to go to war against "the West"?

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

This kind of thing is one of my main concerns. Do you believe god has told George Bush to go to war? Do you believe God has told Osama Bin Laden to go to war against "the West"?

I will butt in if I can. At least its not hypothetical.

Me I dont believe God told Bin Laden to attack the West. If he feels he has authority from the Koran thats another issue. But I lived in the middle east and muslims I know were shocked at 9/11 and at a general level most mainstream muslims would be against indiscriminate civilian attacks.

At a different level though when the Pope gave a lecture based on the exchanges between a Muslim Sultan in the 14th Century or so and one of his predesassors he was criticised widely for being anti Islam- not for the accuracy of his quotes. This would be quite relevant to the question you are asking.At a faith debate where does Islam stand vs the west?

On George Bush - yes the situation with reference to Afghanistan and the Taleban is justifiable. "Render unto Caesar" etc.9/11 was an act of aggression similar to Pearl Harbour. Iraq Im not so sure- but you could say that Islamic countries generically are ambivalent to the actions of muslim militants. Take the Afghan opium trade via Iran.

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

and muslims I know were shocked at 9/11 and at a general level most mainstream muslims would be against indiscriminate civilian attacks.

I don't doubt that for one moment.

CDfm wrote: »

At a different level though when the Pope gave a lecture based on the exchanges between a Muslim Sultan in the 14th Century or so and one of his predesassors he was criticised widely for being anti Islam- not for the accuracy of his quotes. This would be quite relevant to the question you are asking.

That's a definite case of "pot-kettle-black". Arnaud Amaury would be worth looking up for his carry on with the Cathars about 100 years previous to that. BTW I'm not usually in the habit of dragging up anybody's history in order to make a point!

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/arnaudamaury.html

CDfm wrote: »

On George Bush - yes the situation with refernce to Afghanistan and the Taleban is justifiable. "Render unto Caesar" etc. Iraq Im not so sure- but you could say that Islamic countries generically are ambivalent to the actions of muslim militants. Take the Afghan opium trade via Iran.

According to Ahmed Rashid's book; The US in 1987 were pumping 65,000 tonnes of arms into Afghanistan each year as the Taliban were begining their struggle for power. If some of Mujahideen were surrendering to them without even a fight I'd wonder which side the most of these arms were ending up. Bin Laden at this stage was organizing training camps for Afghan refugees.

Ambivalence would hardly be suprising considering the US' policies in their dealing of the situation all across the reigion. As for the Afghan opium trade, there's not much else will make the kind of money so you can hardly blame farmers for continuing to grow opium.

If I was a religious man I wouldn't be happy if any of the above was carried out even remotely in the name of my god.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

That's a definite case of "pot-kettle-black".

Im not justifying it.

The West is the Best - my tribe.

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

Im not justifying it.

The West is the Best - my tribe.

Ah! A Galway man!

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

Ah! A Galway man!

Any more of that and Im complaining you to the Mods

Galway -I dont know-

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Im asking in general what you believe to understand your arguments.

It depends on what the context is. My discussion with Wolfsbane in this thread doesn't rely on God existing or not. In fact the discussion assumes he does. It is to do with the logic of how someone can claim to know the true nature of God.

CDfm wrote: »

I didnt realise I was arguing with Wolfbane -

No, I mean were you asking me "why are you arguing with Wolfsbane" over this issue ...

CDfm wrote: »

Christianity is not all goody goody - you still have to live but as a philosophy its up there.

Well it depends. I know a lot of better philosophies, and the failings of Christianity as an ethical framework are pretty difficult to work around.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

It depends on what the context is. My discussion with Wolfsbane in this thread doesn't rely on God existing or not. In fact the discussion assumes he does. It is to do with the logic of how someone can claim to know the true nature of God.


No, I mean were you asking me "why are you arguing with Wolfsbane" over this issue ...



Well it depends. I know a lot of better philosophies, and the failings of Christianity as an ethical framework are pretty difficult to work around.

OK thanks - it l understand it know - I thought there was something I wasnt getting

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

Such a command was only given is the case of the Israelite nation entering and possessing the land. That administration ended with the coming of the Messiah.

I didnt under stand the context -wicknight explained

wolfsbane

studiorat said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.
This kind of thing is one of my main concerns. Do you believe god has told George Bush to go to war? Do you believe God has told Osama Bin Laden to go to war against "the West"?

No to both, if you mean in the same way as He told Joshua to war against the Canaanites, etc.

I assume most leaders today are working from general principles of defence or greed rather than a directly religious motive. Some are acting on religious motive - to spread the faith - but I doubt if even they say that their god spoke to them and told them to do so.

Let me emphasise again - the genocide God prescribed for theocratic Israel was unique. It is not part of how He wants us to conduct our affairs at any other time.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan ... so I guess any hope for a serious discussion about this has just left the building.

I would be very interested to learn how you have determined, not using your own judgment of course, that I am being deceived by a voice other than God's, and you are not.

Imagine for a sec that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. How would you determine this was or was not true.

If you are relying on what your "heart" tells you, and you accept that there are supernatural being that exist and can influence your "heart" in various ways, then by what standard do you determine who or what is actually influencing your heart and leading you to conclude the things you do.

Imagine for a sec that what you think is God isn't actually God, say for example sake one of the Hindu gods is the real God, and what you think is God is actually just a mischiefious demon of some sort.

Given that you are using your "heart" to determine what is or is not correct, how would you determine that this isn't the case.

Or, using a non-religious example, how would you determine that what you are feeling isn't in fact some evolutionary miss firing, a feeling of security and love when certain religious icons trigger a primordial evolutionary instinct to feel protection from a father figure?



Wonderful. And you know the witness is speaking the truth how exactly?

By him telling you "in your heart" that he is? Well, what if he is lying. Then surely he will still tell you in your heart that he is telling the truth. And if you have already asserted that the only thing you can use to assess if he is telling the truth or not is the feeling in your heart, well then that is useless because either way, if he is true or a lie, you will have the same feeling in your heart.



That is judging him based on your own standards. If you do not assess based on your own standards you would not be able to recognize him either way. Recognition is a form of assessment, a form of judgment. You recognize God's standards as good because they match your already held standard of what is good.

So if you can do that then anyone else can as well, and they can recognize God as evil based on their own standards of good and evil, as I would.

Ah you say, but our standards are placed in our hearts by God.

Well then recognition becomes impossible, because no matter what God is he will place the same standards in your heart. If he is good he will do that, and he will do that if he is bad.

The lier never says they are lying, and even if they do you can't believe them because they are a lier.

We can either assess God based on our own standards that have nothing to do with God, or we cannot assess God at all either way. The idea that we can independently assess God based on the standards he gives us is nonsense.



Or it could be the other way around. By your own logic you can't determine that, because you are assessing based on what is in your "heart", and if Satan gave you that heart to deceive you you would have no idea.

It really comes down to matching my internal witness of God to the observation of His work in the world around me. What I see and have experienced makes sense, confirms the internal witness.

Objectively, it makes much better sense than my previous atheism/agnosticism.

Experimentally, it works.I have seen answers to prayer; I have experienced God's power in my life.

Subjectively, it is like a sighted man describing the beauty of nature to the blind. They can only take one's word for it or not.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You've often talked about the atheist conspiracy that seeks to force secularism and evolution upon everyone, but the only motive you can offer (coz let's face it, atheism isn't much fun) is that we are all simply defying God, either intentionally or unintentionally. I've asked you this before, but exactly how do you tell the difference between people who have been deceived by Satan versus those who are actually acting independently but doing so in a manner that you have failed to understand? It just sorta seems like you can (and do) apply this "deceived" (or wilfully defiant of God) excuse to any and all behaviours that you disagree with.

The Bible tells me the source of the unbeliever's blindness, and of his hostility to God.

Not that every sinful act is directly motivated by Satan: stupidity and ignorance are a general consequence of the Fall. Saint and sinner alike can behave foolishly.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Humans do not know if there is a god or not. Any claims to the contrary are human creations from the imagination. In fact the concept of "god" is a human creation, modeled on humans and applied to nature, to fill an instinctive need to assign agency to various aspects of the universe. It is highly unlike that there is anything in the universe that matches our concept of a god, and if there is it is purely a coicidence.

And you know this how? This is no more than dogma, but dogma based on absence of revelation - a truly irrational idea!

In a more specific sense I object to the manner and methods in which religion manipulates people into following particular dogma under the pretext that it comes from an almighty authority that cannot be questioned or determined to be wrong.

That presupposes that every religion is false - something you do not know.

That is my "God objection" :pac:

And a very foolish one, as I've shown. Requires more thought.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It really comes down to matching my internal witness of God to the observation of His work in the world around me. What I see and have experienced makes sense, confirms the internal witness.

Objectively, it makes much better sense than my previous atheism/agnosticism.

Experimentally, it works.I have seen answers to prayer; I have experienced God's power in my life.

Subjectively, it is like a sighted man describing the beauty of nature to the blind. They can only take one's word for it or not.

All of which is you judging God and the claims made in your religion.

The fact that it confirms your internal witness is irrelevant, because if you were being deceived it would still match your "internal witness". Your internal witness cannot be trusted because if you use your internal witness as the standard to measure all by, and your internal witness was placed there by God, it will confirm God as correct irrespective of if he is or not. Again it is like asking someone if they are lying or not.

And in fact I look at your god and see a spiteful, genocidal murder, so to me it actually makes a lot of sense that your internal witness is being deceived, though I attribute that to your desire for the things promised to be true and real rather than some supernatural cause like Satan or a demon.

But the point holds the same. Whether it is God, Satan or just your own instinct it is still you judging the religion being presented to you. And we all can and do do this.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

And you know this how? This is no more than dogma, but dogma based on absence of revelation - a truly irrational idea!

You hold "revelation" to be important? I would trust revelation even if I had received it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That presupposes that every religion is false - something you do not know.

I certainly do not know for certain that every religion is false, just like you don't know for certain that your religion is true (and lets be honest here Wolfsbane, you don't know. You believe it but as I hope we have established you have very little way to objectively assess your own internal revelations or opinions on that matter)

But that is my assessment of the matter. Basically religion doesn't add up. The natural explanation for why humans would create religion far out weighs the likely hood that one of the human cultures or tribes actually managed to stumble upon a real supernatural reality.

The argument often put forward on this forum is that just because every other religion is imaginary doesn't prove that our one is.

Which is correct. It doesn't. But it makes it highly likely. It is more likely that the same thing that is going on in the heads of all the other devout religious people who are convinced their religion makes sense and is confirmed by the world around them, even though it isn't, is what is going on in your head than that you are actually in communication with a supernatural deity.

In my humble opinion of course (hey, you asked)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument often put forward on this forum is that just because every other religion is imaginary doesn't prove that our one is.

Which is correct. It doesn't. But it makes it highly likely.

No, actually it doesn't.

If other religions are indeed 'imaginary' (or, as a more balanced person might say, 'mistaken') that does not make Christianity any more likely, or less likely, to be true or false.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You hold "revelation" to be important? I would trust revelation even if I had received it.


I certainly do not know for certain that every religion is false, just like you don't know for certain that your religion is true (and lets be honest here Wolfsbane, you don't know. You believe it but as I hope we have established you have very little way to objectively assess your own internal revelations or opinions on that matter)

But that is my assessment of the matter. Basically religion doesn't add up. The natural explanation for why humans would create religion far out weighs the likely hood that one of the human cultures or tribes actually managed to stumble upon a real supernatural reality.

The argument often put forward on this forum is that just because every other religion is imaginary doesn't prove that our one is.

Which is correct. It doesn't. But it makes it highly likely. It is more likely that the same thing that is going on in the heads of all the other devout religious people who are convinced their religion makes sense and is confirmed by the world around them, even though it isn't, is what is going on in your head than that you are actually in communication with a supernatural deity.

In my humble opinion of course (hey, you asked)

I'm glad we cleared it up - your knowledge was only your opinion.

Now as to how probable your opinion is compared to my knowledge (or my delusion as you would have it), it seems to me:
On your side is the fact that there are many religions and only one can possibly be right, and since so many are false, why not all?

On my side is the fact that such a deduction was also true of all explanations of science, until the correct one was discovered. A hundred erroneous theories has no relevance to the existence of the right one.

On your side there is the claim that natural processes best explain the universe - that all apparent design is no more than how things are, not evidence of a designer.

On my side is the fact that complexity and order do not just happen with the basic materials we have - we have to apply intelligent manipulation to them to produce cars, books, phones. To think a universe of basic atoms could naturally form into the complexity we observe seems very unlikely.

On your side we have no uncomfortable worries of a Judgement to come. Death ends it all.

On my side we have eternal meaning and purpose. We are not the mere resultant of chemical processes, no more significant than a rose or a robin. Our consciences tell us we are much more than the flora and fauna.

Seems to me atheism is a highly unlikely theory.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

I assume most leaders today are working from general principles of defence or greed rather than a directly religious motive. Some are acting on religious motive - to spread the faith - but I doubt if even they say that their god spoke to them and told them to do so.

So what was the reason for slaying the Cannanites, Amalek, the Flood, the passover, the tribes of Benjamin? And what do you mean by a religious motive? Is revenge a religious motive then?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, actually it doesn't.

If other religions are indeed 'imaginary' (or, as a more balanced person might say, 'mistaken') that does not make Christianity any more likely, or less likely, to be true or false.

Well yes actually it does, because it explains why you and other Christians could be under the impression that your god exists when he actually doesn't.

The two options in this context are that you are imagining what you claim to experience, or you actually are being influenced/touched what ever by a supernatural deity (other options exist of course, you could be being influenced by something pretending to by your god, but for this point we will assume there are two options).

If there are millions of other humans who experience basically the same thing as you do but with a different set of deities when they are not in fact being influenced/touched/whatever by supernatural deities, then it makes it highly likely that you are experiencing the same thing

As I said it doesn't prove beyond all doubt that this is the case. But from someone looking in from the outside I see no reason to believe that your particular religion is an more real than all the other ones.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm glad we cleared it up - your knowledge was only your opinion.

All knowledge is basically opinion isn't it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

On your side is the fact that there are many religions and only one can possibly be right, and since so many are false, why not all?

On my side is the fact that such a deduction was also true of all explanations of science, until the correct one was discovered. A hundred erroneous theories has no relevance to the existence of the right one.

Well aside from that not actually being an accurate representation of science, you are also missing the point some what.

The delusion that one human being experiences is certainly relevant to assessment of the claims of another human being claiming a similar thing to the first human.

If one human has an instinctive tendency to assign agency to something that is in fact simply a natural phenomena (say the rain), and then another human being comes along as claims agency in another area of nature (say the creation of life), it is reasonable to consider that the same human instinct is at play in both cases.

If one human, say Tom Cruise, claims that through the power of his religion turned his life around and we all know that such a claim is bogus, it is reasonable to consider that when a Christian claims that the power of his religion turned his life around.

If a Scientologist can believe that his religion significantly altered his life, and then claim that this is how he "knows" that scientology is real (when I think we can all agree it is nonsense), then when a Christian makes the same claim it is certainly to me far more likely that the same human mental thinking/delusion/whatever is going on in the Christians mind as the Scientologists, rather than thinking that the delusion is just in the mind of the Scientologist, and the Christian actually did have his life turned around by God.

Why introduce God as an explanation when everything in Christianity can be explained this way. Why go looking for a supernatural deity in the case of your religion and your religion alone?

wolfsbane wrote: »

On my side is the fact that complexity and order do not just happen with the basic materials we have - we have to apply intelligent manipulation to them to produce cars, books, phones.

But it does just happen (if you consider 1.2 billion years as "just).

You simply reject examples of it "just happening" (biological life for example) because you have already reached the conclusion you want to arrive at (it has to be evidence for God)

If you ignore all examples of complex order arising naturally, then claim that because there are no examples complex order cannot arise naturally, and then apply that axiom back to the examples in the first case, well yes you will arrive at the conclusion that there must have been a designer. But it is just smoke and mirrors.

Biological life certainly doesn't look designed. Complex? Certainly. But designed? No.

wolfsbane wrote: »

To think a universe of basic atoms could naturally form into the complexity we observe seems very unlikely.

It is extremely unlikely. But then if it had not happened we wouldn't be here.

It is extremely unlikely that any individual person will win the Lotto each week. But most weeks someone does. The odds that a particularly person will win are millions to one, but it happens. That person, particularly if he has superstitious/religious tendencies, may well ask "wow, why me?" The fact of the matter is it was no reason. Someone had to win, it just happened to be him.

wolfsbane wrote: »

On your side we have no uncomfortable worries of a Judgement to come. Death ends it all.

Well yes, that is another reason your religion seems rather unlikely to me. Your religion has introduced a ton of specific clauses that are designed to manipulate people into believing and following. It reminds me all a bit of FOX News. "Are your children safe! Find out after the break". "What we know about this aftershave could save your life, stay tuned"

Now it could be that God actually does exist and is holding a stick over everything as a way to get them to join this one particular religion. But when one considers that most religions have this "stick", and in fact most human interaction when one wants to get humans to do something ("stay tuned!") uses this stick, it is hard to take it that seriously. To me it is far more likely that all this stuff about judgment was simply introduced by those men who first were coming up with this religion thousands of years ago as a way to get people to follow it.

Again, we turn to the trusty example of Scientology, a religion we all agree is nonsense. And we find the same stick in Scientology that we find in other religions such as Christianity. Bad things (TM) will happen if you do not embrace Scientology. Heck even if you score really well on their "personality tests" you still need to join Scientology because eventually the badness in the world will get you.

Sound familiar?

The vast majority of religions use the stick/carrot approach. Reward/Punishment, or simply "YOU NEED US!!" Follow the religion you will be rewarded. Don't follow the religion you will be punished.

Again I'm not seeing any reason to believe your religion is actually real and just happens to be using the same tactics and manipulation techniques as every other religion.

If you want to impress me show me the religion that says "You don't need us"

wolfsbane wrote: »

On my side we have eternal meaning and purpose.

Yeah, appealing isn't it.

I once had a sales man in New York try and sell me a "satellite phone", which as the same size a normal phone (because it was), but that would make "free" phone calls anywhere in the world by connecting to a satellite and using the Internet. Sounded a bit too good to be true. And it was.

All religions promise wonderful things. They have to, that is the point of religion.

The Scientologists promise to remove the bad emotions from my mind allowing me to live up to my full potential. And amazingly, all I have to do is join Scientology.

The Christians promise "eternal meaning and purpose". Wow, that is like meaning and purpose, but like forever and ever. And what, all I have to do is become a Christian? Can I get eternal meaning and purpose without becoming a Christian? No! Ok then.

Where is the religion that just gives me everything to fix my life without me having to actually do anything? Christianity is supposed to be about the charity isn't it. Well just give me eternal meaning and purpose. But you can't, because then no one would be a Christian.

It is necessary for religion (nearly all religion) to have the carrot as well as the stick. Because you have to have an incentive to be in the religion, otherwise the religion wouldn't survive.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We are not the mere resultant of chemical processes, no more significant than a rose or a robin. Our consciences tell us we are much more than the flora and fauna.

True, they certainly do.

What you are basically saying is that humans have an instinctive need to invent religion. Have you ever considered that maybe that is why humans invented religion.

Something to think about.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

So what was the reason for slaying the Cannanites, Amalek, the Flood, the passover, the tribes of Benjamin? And what do you mean by a religious motive? Is revenge a religious motive then?

Ive forgiven you for that outrageous Galway slur.

This is the way I look at it . Christianity exists at a human level.

Take your examples- these examples are from times when people were less sophisticated and to survive needed to realise that they needed to get tough. No more Mr Nice Guy by Alice Cooper is almost a hymn

When a child is young and is learning to walk he falls over -gets picked up and so on - the parent picks him up and he goes on. If there are bigger kids taking his ball or stealing his bike the parent goes down to the green and says "whats this piss off -go back to your own neighbourhood ".

This is the same. But its just scaled up. Revenge isnt part of the creed. But if times are tough we are expected to get on with it. If a big kid comes into our playground and takes our ball or steals our bikes or breaks smaller kids crayons we are big enough now to take care of ourselves.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

It depends on what the context is. My discussion with Wolfsbane in this thread doesn't rely on God existing or not. In fact the discussion assumes he does. It is to do with the logic of how someone can claim to know the true nature of God.


No, I mean were you asking me "why are you arguing with Wolfsbane" over this issue ...



Well it depends. I know a lot of better philosophies, and the failings of Christianity as an ethical framework are pretty difficult to work around.

Wicknight - at a human level Christianity works fairly well. You have to admit that it is quite practical.

You know of other philosophies but they havent attracted you.

There are parts of Christianity as an ethical frame work you find it difficult to reconcile cause its logic goes on to deal with difficult and tough situations in a vey tough and robust way.

Life isnt always fair or nice.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes actually it does, because it explains why you and other Christians could be under the impression that your god exists when he actually doesn't.

Wicknight -What you seem to be saying ( and Dawkins as a prominent atheist seems to say aswell) is God doesnt exist but we are geneticaly or biologically predisposed to invent one to fill a God need.Sort of like foetal addiction syndrome or something else in the genes that we dont understand.

WE dont ignore food - in fact the rasher sandwich I had for breakfast was quite tasty - Ballymoloe Relish really sets it off and I use four slices of back bacon on fresh bread -delish. I need food and wouldnt describe it as a food addiction.In fact I would be quite silly not to give in to the food need.

So I know that I have a God belief thats part of me -just like I know eating food is part of me. In fact -rationally scientists should be pointing out the obvious but they dont.

You also say why not pick another religion- well its not really my choice. Wolfsbane might call it revelation -but me what Id say is that others dont explain things or just are poor copies of what Ive got. Its like saying to someone who has lovely designer clothes to go into a discount store and get a cheap inferior copy or buying womens jeans they wouldnt fit right at the crotch.All are clothes but why should I buy the cheap copy when I have the proper stuff at home.

To me these arguments fly in the face of rational thinking.

Can you see how silly that all atheism arguments sound.