Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Obviousness Of The Reality Of God


Brother Jeff

Recommended Posts

Why are Christians, in your view, susceptible to easy acceptance of what you call horrid ideas? Are all human beings equally susceptible to believing horrid ideas and behaving horridly as a result, or are Christians uniquely susceptible?

Believers are susceptible along with those that need to hang with a herd.

I agree with you that we are much more than "sentient turds" (very nice phraseology, really) and, I'd say, we are much more than an accidental outcome of a meaningless, purposeless, strictly materialistic mechanism (as Richard Dawkins might put it).
No, he would not put it that way. "Accident" is not a scientific view, it's a religious argument designed to promote their god belief. Meaningless, purposeless? Not to Atheists. This life is only meaningless to believers. Materialistic? Sure. Why not?
The recognition of the need of a "savior" is not a sign of weakness, but of strength.

Or a sign of believing it's something needed.

 

A few more questions, Dave:

 

Are non-believers (in "something out there") susceptible to embracing horrid ideas and doing horrific things, as believers are? Less susceptible? More susceptible? Similarly susceptible?

 

Don't we all need a herd of some kind to chum around with? Isn't this website a herd? Are Christians/theists more in need of a herd than others, in your view?

 

Dawkins has indeed written that the process responsible for us had no purpose, no meaning, no plan. It just happened. An "accident" is the opposite of a "plan." Accidents happen. Plans are executed. It is in this context that I employ the word "accident" to describe the strictly materialistic and naturalistic evolution of humankind.

 

We all face demise of the physical bodies which house our minds and memories and -- for those who believe -- our spirits. Even if we don't need a savior for anything during this lifetime, one who offers to "save" our "lives" at the demise of our bodies offers much indeed. I accept the offer. And I respect those who do not, for whatever reason.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • currentchristian

    49

  • Mythra

    26

  • Dave

    26

  • Lycorth

    11

Are non-believers (in "something out there") susceptible to embracing horrid ideas and doing horrific things, as believers are? Less susceptible? More susceptible? Similarly susceptible?

Believers are more susceptible. They are trained to believe at an early age and for some they have a personality that is prone to belief in strange things.

Don't we all need a herd of some kind to chum around with?
No.

Dawkins has indeed written that the process responsible for us had no purpose, no meaning, no plan. It just happened.

Note the highlighted word. Because the process has no "meaning" or "purpose" does not mean that life is meaningless. You have to add your own meaning.

An "accident" is the opposite of a "plan."
No, that's a bifurcation that doesn't work in this case. Study a bit on biochemistry and you'll see.
We all face demise of the physical bodies which house our minds and memories and -- for those who believe -- our spirits. Even if we don't need a savior for anything during this lifetime, one who offers to "save" our "lives" at the demise of our bodies offers much indeed. I accept the offer. And I respect those who do not, for whatever reason.

Since there is no afterlife, there is no reason to accept an offer of an afterlife. I wouldn't waste my time on it since the life we do get is short and extremely precious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are non-believers (in "something out there") susceptible to embracing horrid ideas and doing horrific things, as believers are? Less susceptible? More susceptible? Similarly susceptible?

Believers are more susceptible. They are trained to believe at an early age and for some they have a personality that is prone to belief in strange things.

Don't we all need a herd of some kind to chum around with?
No.

Dawkins has indeed written that the process responsible for us had no purpose, no meaning, no plan. It just happened.

Note the highlighted word. Because the process has no "meaning" or "purpose" does not mean that life is meaningless. You have to add your own meaning.

An "accident" is the opposite of a "plan."
No, that's a bifurcation that doesn't work in this case. Study a bit on biochemistry and you'll see.
We all face demise of the physical bodies which house our minds and memories and -- for those who believe -- our spirits. Even if we don't need a savior for anything during this lifetime, one who offers to "save" our "lives" at the demise of our bodies offers much indeed. I accept the offer. And I respect those who do not, for whatever reason.

Since there is no afterlife, there is no reason to accept an offer of an afterlife. I wouldn't waste my time on it since the life we do get is short and extremely precious.

 

I think I'll go along with you that believers in "something out there" are more susceptible to believing in "something stupid." But this would mean that those whose default setting is to dismiss "something out there" might end up taking on pass on some really exciting, non-supernatural stuff. Bottom line: We all have to guard our minds.

 

Dawkins point remains: life is meaningless, innately. You are right that we do have to add meaning to it. And there is much that we can do in that regard. Religion is one terrific way, in my view.

 

I won't be studying a bit on biochemistry. As you wrote, life is short and extremely precious and I won't be spending any of my time on that! :HaHa:

 

The absolute open-minded answer to the question of life after the death of our physical bodies is this: We just don't know. To bet either way, without leaving the possibility of being wrong, is closedmindedness. To live as though there is or is not life after death is quite acceptable and the gamble we all take to one degree or another, but the wise person will always say, "But I might be wrong." For me, all my chips are on consciouness surviving the death of the body and resurrection, a la Jesus.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll go along with you that believers in "something out there" are more susceptible to believing in "something stupid." But this would mean that those whose default setting is to dismiss "something out there" might end up taking on pass on some really exciting, non-supernatural stuff. Bottom line: We all have to guard our minds.

If you use your mind, you don't have to guard it. I did not "dismiss" anything "out there" by default. I looked at the complete and utter lack of any reason to believe that gods or their ilk exist.

Dawkins point remains: life is meaningless, innately.
That was not his point.
I won't be studying a bit on biochemistry. As you wrote, life is short and extremely precious and I won't be spending any of my time on that!

Then you cannot comment on that which you have no knowledge of. I've studied religion and other things. I've learned about things before I comment on them. Without that knowledge you are basing your beliefs on ignorance.

The absolute open-minded answer to the question of life after the death of our physical bodies is this: We just don't know.

No, it is not. Being "open minded" does not mean one has to believe in, or give credit to, every idea that comes down the road. An open mind is one that is open enough so that most of the garbage falls out. Since there is absolutely no evidence that anything except the physical body (which rots away pretty fast) is left after death. The "energy" the body makes that some talk about is used up as the body dies and stops producing more energy.

For me, all my chips are on consciouness surviving the death of the body and resurrection, a la Jesus.

A suckers bet. It seems to me that your whole religious belief is wrapped up in a fear of death. It's going to happen. You will die. Believing in gods will not change that. After you die it will be just like before you were born. Nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say, we are much more than an accidental outcome of a meaningless, purposeless, strictly materialistic mechanism (as Richard Dawkins might put it).

 

From being a little familiar with Dawkins, I can tell you that he strenuously objects whenever being accused of defining life on this planet as an accident.

 

The process of natural selection over millions of years isn't an accident. It's a process that is a product of, and verified repeatedly through, undeniable evidence.

 

And, why do you assert that we are much more than the outcome of this mechanism? And another thing, we only view any of it as the "outcome" because we are the center of our own universe.

 

We aren't the outcome of anything. We are just one more small step on a very VERY large staircase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's one of the differences between religious faith and science.

 

Faith looks for the purpose and meaning in things, and then develops beliefs that fit that mold.

 

Science examines the evidence. And uses the evidence to shape their views, hypotheses and theories. Not caring one way or the other whether some obscure sense of meaning and purpose can be gleaned from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absolute open-minded answer to the question of life after the death of our physical bodies is this: We just don't know. To bet either way, without leaving the possibility of being wrong, is closedmindedness.

 

Well, you're right. We don't know. But, where does the evidence lead?

 

Aside from highly dubious "almost dead" experiences, reports of paranormal activity, stories in ancient books, and the John Edward dog-and-pony show - there is no evidence.

 

Meanwhile, cognitive neuroscience advances steadily. Pinpointing how the brain works. What specifically goes wrong when the brain malfunctions. Defining how consciousness is derived entirely from brain function and electrical activity.

 

There isn't a shred of real evidence to support the concept of disembodied consciousness. And therefore, it certainly isn't closemindedness to deny a belief in the afterlife.

 

Belief in an afterlife and non-belief are not on the same footing at all. One requires faith. A faith that is maintained in spite of the lack of evidence.

 

Well, I guess I do believe in life after death, though. My life after your death. Or (God forbid) vice-versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mythra, there is an afterlife because Jesus said there was and He is God so whatever He says must necessarily be True. He said in John 14:1-2, "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."

 

I go to prepare a place for you! If there was not an afterlife, what sort of place would could there be?

 

And in John 11:25 He said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

 

Hallelujah! You don't need evidence when you have JESUS! Glory to God!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From being a little familiar with Dawkins, I can tell you that he strenuously objects whenever being accused of defining life on this planet as an accident.

You're quite right: ""It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work." ~ Richard Dawkins.

The process of natural selection over millions of years isn't an accident. It's a process that is verified through undeniable evidence.
Which explains the refusal of some to educate themselves on the topic. They would find out how certain elements and chemicals have an affinity for each other. They would find out that the basic molecules needed for life are found throughout the Universe. They would find out that we (I have done it myself) can create those elements ourselves. Education is toxic to the god of the gaps.
And, why do you assert that we are much more than the outcome of this mechanism? And another thing, we only view any of it as the "outcome" because we are the center of our own universe.

That's the key to this whole problem. If evolution is true, if science is true, then we are not the center of some gods attention.

We aren't the outcome of anything. We are just one more small step on a very VERY large staircase.

"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." ~ Carl Sagan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....Hallelujah! You don't need evidence when you have JESUS! Glory to God!

Well.... Goooooollllyyyyyyy.... if da bible says it's so, den it muss be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use your mind, you don't have to guard it. I did not "dismiss" anything "out there" by default. I looked at the complete and utter lack of any reason to believe that gods or their ilk exist.

 

But it seems to me that you have now set your default to be, "This is nonsense" -- when it comes to anything beside/beyond/in addition to the natural.

 

Dawkins point remains: life is meaningless, innately.
That was not his point.

That was not his point, but it is the outcome of his point. He admits as much.

 

I won't be studying a bit on biochemistry. As you wrote, life is short and extremely precious and I won't be spending any of my time on that!
Then you cannot comment on that which you have no knowledge of. I've studied religion and other things. I've learned about things before I comment on them. Without that knowledge you are basing your beliefs on ignorance.

 

At what point do you allow one to comment on a matter? How much formal or informal education on a particular matter must one have? You may notice that I did not make any points about biochemistry, nor have I ever on this forum because I know so little and have very little interest in learning much more--certainly not interested in a formal study thereof.

 

The absolute open-minded answer to the question of life after the death of our physical bodies is this: We just don't know.

No, it is not. Being "open minded" does not mean one has to believe in, or give credit to, every idea that comes down the road. An open mind is one that is open enough so that most of the garbage falls out. Since there is absolutely no evidence that anything except the physical body (which rots away pretty fast) is left after death. The "energy" the body makes that some talk about is used up as the body dies and stops producing more energy.

 

I must disagree with you. An open mind has its views, expresses them, even vigorously so, but always allows room for a "but who knows what tomorrow may bring." The closed mind of the theist will not consider that there may not be a God; the closed mind of an atheist will not consider that there might be. (Even if the "doubt" for or against a god is just .00000001%, it's good to have that infinitesimal doubt of one's views.)

 

For me, all my chips are on consciouness surviving the death of the body and resurrection, a la Jesus.
A suckers bet. It seems to me that your whole religious belief is wrapped up in a fear of death. It's going to happen. You will die. Believing in gods will not change that. After you die it will be just like before you were born. Nothing.

 

One man's sucker's bet is another man's sure thing. I neither fear death, nor welcome it. It is inevitable, as you write. So my will is written, my grave marker designed, my burial clothes sitting in a Wal-Mart bag in my closet, and my obituary is ready for publication. I look death in the face and I am not afraid. But it will not visit me for many years, I trust.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not his point, but it is the outcome of his point. He admits as much.

 

Don't you get it, though, cc? Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution in order to disprove God. He examined the evidence. And then, in spite of the implications, he presented it. Darwin was tremendously conflicted because of that.

 

edit: I see you were referring to Dawkins. But the point remains valid.

 

Contrast that to the "scientists" who have been proponents of "present the controversy" in schools i.e. intelligent design. They formed their opinions, based on faith first. Then, they went in search of anything (however strained - or even outright inaccurate) that might support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say, we are much more than an accidental outcome of a meaningless, purposeless, strictly materialistic mechanism (as Richard Dawkins might put it).

 

From being a little familiar with Dawkins, I can tell you that he strenuously objects whenever being accused of defining life on this planet as an accident.

 

The process of natural selection over millions of years isn't an accident. It's a process that is a product of, and verified repeatedly through, undeniable evidence.

 

And, why do you assert that we are much more than the outcome of this mechanism? And another thing, we only view any of it as the "outcome" because we are the center of our own universe.

 

We aren't the outcome of anything. We are just one more small step on a very VERY large staircase.

 

I saw the "Root of all Evil?" video in which Dawkins did object to the use of the word "accident" when used by Ted Haggard. I know what you mean. But I remain convinced that life on this planet is an accidental outcome or a planned one. (Theistic evolution leaves room for an accidental outcome as well as a planned one, by the way.) Quoting m-w.com here on the definition of "accident": "1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>"

 

Dawkins view, from my understanding, is that human life on this planet was neither foreseen nor planned; it just happened to come to be. That's an accident, as I see it. (He may be right; that's not the issue I'm discussing.)

 

You are right, Mythra, that we are "just one more small step on a very VERY large staircase." We have no idea what might be out there in other solar systems and galaxies. No idea! What I meant by stating that we are more than the outcome of a meaningless, purposeless, blind watchmaker, selfish gene mechanism is that, as a theist, I see the hand of God behind all that is.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's one of the differences between religious faith and science.

 

Faith looks for the purpose and meaning in things, and then develops beliefs that fit that mold.

 

Science examines the evidence. And uses the evidence to shape their views, hypotheses and theories. Not caring one way or the other whether some obscure sense of meaning and purpose can be gleaned from them.

 

I agree that in the ideal science examines the evidence and draws conclusions. However, science is the domain of scientists and scientists are human beings. Therefore, as hard as they might try they absolutely cannot rid themselves of all their bias, all their hopes and expectations, all their lust for a Nobel Prize or a disease in their name, etc. We've seen plenty of crooked science and crooked scientists. Just as we have seen plenty of crooked religion and crooked religionists.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absolute open-minded answer to the question of life after the death of our physical bodies is this: We just don't know. To bet either way, without leaving the possibility of being wrong, is closedmindedness.

 

Well, you're right. We don't know. But, where does the evidence lead?

 

Aside from highly dubious "almost dead" experiences, reports of paranormal activity, stories in ancient books, and the John Edward dog-and-pony show - there is no evidence.

 

Meanwhile, cognitive neuroscience advances steadily. Pinpointing how the brain works. What specifically goes wrong when the brain malfunctions. Defining how consciousness is derived entirely from brain function and electrical activity.

 

There isn't a shred of real evidence to support the concept of disembodied consciousness. And therefore, it certainly isn't closemindedness to deny a belief in the afterlife.

 

Belief in an afterlife and non-belief are not on the same footing at all. One requires faith. A faith that is maintained in spite of the lack of evidence.

 

Well, I guess I do believe in life after death, though. My life after your death. Or (God forbid) vice-versa.

 

If there were evidence, then death would be meaningless. Let me explain. To be dead is to be removed from this plane of existence. That is what death is. If one were able to come back and speak to one's loved ones, or call them up by phone, or appear to them in the mirror, they would not be dead. It is because they cannot bring back evidence of their current state that they are, really and truly, dead.

 

And life after death does not necessarilly mean the continuity of consciousness after the demise of the physical body. It can mean lack of consciousness until a future resurrection -- a true sleep or rest -- just to throw in that other type of belief in resurrection that does not call for the survival of consciousness at the death of the body.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins view, from my understanding, is that human life on this planet was neither foreseen nor planned; it just happened to come to be. That's an accident, as I see it. (He may be right; that's not the issue I'm discussing.)

 

Well, Dawkins view, from my understanding, is that there is nothing particularly special about human life. We are simply one of a very large number of animals that exist on this planet. The only thing that gives us special status, is the fact that we have more gray matter in our skulls.

 

Going back to the accident vs. planned -

 

I have a very limited experience working in the herbicide field. Attempting to eradicate or control invasive weeds. When an herbicide is used, immediately the target weed begins to develop defences against it. Eventually, the herbicide is no longer effective - due to the plant developing a bioresistance to it. Would you consider this an accident, a natural process inherent in the plant world, or part of God's master plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are Christians, in your view, susceptible to easy acceptance of what you call horrid ideas? Are all human beings equally susceptible to believing horrid ideas and behaving horridly as a result, or are Christians uniquely susceptible?

 

Human beings are susceptible to accepting horrid ideas without regards to any factor. The only real protection is an inquisitive mind which challenges and tests all things and a desire to do good and be better. At least as I see it.

 

What makes Xians in particular susceptible is how Xians are taught to accept many things by "faith" and especially when they seem inexplicable but all other explanations would be contrary to the established points of their religion. Accepting things on "faith" (ie, without any other evidence or testing save someone's claims) is a dangerous thing, and has paved the way for the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and - well, need I go on?

 

In those situations, people accepted the teachings of their cult leaders with a good amount of "faith" - they simply had to believe their leaders were right. The citizens of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, for example, also strongly promoted such blind loyalty to the words of their leaders and certainly did not accept challenges and questions to their authority or ideas.

 

Now, when people begin to believe this is right, that they should just accept certain things just because they are instructed to do so by some authority they believe is correct, that paves the way for people to accept anything said authority wants to tell them. Instead of weighing all things with their good sense and accumulated wisdom of the world, they believe what they are told, and in time come to believe that, for example, a god who is said to have drowned a whole planet because the people thereon displeased him is really a loving god - all because someone says that he is.

 

For Xians, this ends up generally with the faithful accepting all sorts of sick things, lke the teaching about Hell or about the various atrocities in the Babble that God is said to have done, because a teacher or preacher says that it's ok that God did them, because God is God and anything he does is therefore right. Xians can (and have) taken this a step further, and in turn have committed atrocities in the name of their religion for centuries, from mere societal repression and oppression to various acts of violence in the name of God (such as the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials). Most Xians are susceptible to this, because most Xians are raised with at least a fairly strict and literalist interpretation of the Babble, but anyone who is encouraged to have "faith" instead of to question and challenge is vulnerable.

 

The moment people believe it's morally permissable and logically sound to accept certain ideas on "faith" (ie, because someone said so), it opens one ugly Pandora's Box, wouldn't you agree?

 

I agree with you that we are much more than "sentient turds" (very nice phraseology, really) and, I'd say, we are much more than an accidental outcome of a meaningless, purposeless, strictly materialistic mechanism (as Richard Dawkins might put it). We are so much more than both debasing viewpoints.

 

However, I do think that, basically, the origins of humanity do lie in (what appears to be) the chance reaction of chemicals in the primordial ooze of the ancient earth. But to me, this does not diminish my view of humanity - rather, it improves it.

 

To me, for us to have evolved out of the slime of the dim past and developed into complex beings who in turn have developed complex cultures and technologies (and show the potential to do a thousandfold better in time), having survived the ultimate crucible that is Nature Herself to become what we are now, is nothing short of amazing. That does more to tell me about the true worth and potential of humanity than anything any god has been said to be able to give to or tell us regarding our worth. We are a species of beings, unique from our own mammalian kin, which has survived and adapted to many hostile environments, slowly dragged ourselves up from animalistic savagery to the heights of civilization, pondered the secrets of morality and truth, and even left our world of origin to touch the stars, many times over.

 

No, we don't get it right all the time, but we will drastically improve ourselves. It's in our nature. We can touch the stars, and we can do ever better. It's what it means to have been born from the ancient ooze, that even by accident, we are strong and vital enough to forge a great legacy for ourselves - and perhaps a great future.

 

And we didn't need any god to help us or do it for us - we must be something special, indeed, eh? :)

 

And you can call that my "savior" if it helps you understand. The only "savior" we need is the realization that we are capable of doing virtually anything, so long as we set our minds and desires to the undying pursuit of all that which is ennobling and strengthening and uplifting - and undeniably true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, as hard as they might try they absolutely cannot rid themselves of all their bias, all their hopes and expectations, all their lust for a Nobel Prize or a disease in their name, etc. We've seen plenty of crooked science and crooked scientists. Just as we have seen plenty of crooked religion and crooked religionists.

 

One difference, though. Science has a built in mechanism to check itself. It's called peer review.

 

If a similar thing existed in religion, you would never have heard of Benny Hinn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not his point, but it is the outcome of his point. He admits as much.

 

Don't you get it, though, cc? Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution in order to disprove God. He examined the evidence. And then, in spite of the implications, he presented it. Darwin was tremendously conflicted because of that.

 

edit: I see you were referring to Dawkins. But the point remains valid.

 

Contrast that to the "scientists" who have been proponents of "present the controversy" in schools i.e. intelligent design. They formed their opinions, based on faith first. Then, they went in search of anything (however strained - or even outright inaccurate) that might support them.

 

I do think it is important to teach the controversy, as it is important to teach the controversy about abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, presidential elections, war, etc. No harm in bringing the world into the classroom.

 

I think both sides have been radicalized, frankly -- the fundamentalist creationists and the fundamentalist Darwinists. I'd like everyone to lay down their guns. In my view, as far as this life is concerned, it matters little (if any) whether we are here by design or "accident." It has little bearing on the human condition.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins view, from my understanding, is that human life on this planet was neither foreseen nor planned; it just happened to come to be. That's an accident, as I see it. (He may be right; that's not the issue I'm discussing.)

 

Well, Dawkins view, from my understanding, is that there is nothing particularly special about human life. We are simply one of a very large number of animals that exist on this planet. The only thing that gives us special status, is the fact that we have more gray matter in our skulls.

 

Going back to the accident vs. planned -

 

I have a very limited experience working in the herbicide field. Attempting to eradicate or control invasive weeds. When an herbicide is used, immediately the target weed begins to develop defences against it. Eventually, the herbicide is no longer effective - due to the plant developing a bioresistance to it. Would you consider this an accident, a natural process inherent in the plant world, or part of God's master plan?

 

That would be a natural process inherent in the plant world, mirrored in all life forms. The struggle to survive is a shared struggle.

 

What's the trick?? :HaHa:

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are Christians, in your view, susceptible to easy acceptance of what you call horrid ideas? Are all human beings equally susceptible to believing horrid ideas and behaving horridly as a result, or are Christians uniquely susceptible?

 

Human beings are susceptible to accepting horrid ideas without regards to any factor. The only real protection is an inquisitive mind which challenges and tests all things and a desire to do good and be better. At least as I see it.

 

What makes Xians in particular susceptible is how Xians are taught to accept many things by "faith" and especially when they seem inexplicable but all other explanations would be contrary to the established points of their religion. Accepting things on "faith" (ie, without any other evidence or testing save someone's claims) is a dangerous thing, and has paved the way for the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and - well, need I go on?

 

In those situations, people accepted the teachings of their cult leaders with a good amount of "faith" - they simply had to believe their leaders were right. The citizens of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, for example, also strongly promoted such blind loyalty to the words of their leaders and certainly did not accept challenges and questions to their authority or ideas.

 

Now, when people begin to believe this is right, that they should just accept certain things just because they are instructed to do so by some authority they believe is correct, that paves the way for people to accept anything said authority wants to tell them. Instead of weighing all things with their good sense and accumulated wisdom of the world, they believe what they are told, and in time come to believe that, for example, a god who is said to have drowned a whole planet because the people thereon displeased him is really a loving god - all because someone says that he is.

 

For Xians, this ends up generally with the faithful accepting all sorts of sick things, lke the teaching about Hell or about the various atrocities in the Babble that God is said to have done, because a teacher or preacher says that it's ok that God did them, because God is God and anything he does is therefore right. Xians can (and have) taken this a step further, and in turn have committed atrocities in the name of their religion for centuries, from mere societal repression and oppression to various acts of violence in the name of God (such as the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials). Most Xians are susceptible to this, because most Xians are raised with at least a fairly strict and literalist interpretation of the Babble, but anyone who is encouraged to have "faith" instead of to question and challenge is vulnerable.

 

The moment people believe it's morally permissable and logically sound to accept certain ideas on "faith" (ie, because someone said so), it opens one ugly Pandora's Box, wouldn't you agree?

 

I agree with you that we are much more than "sentient turds" (very nice phraseology, really) and, I'd say, we are much more than an accidental outcome of a meaningless, purposeless, strictly materialistic mechanism (as Richard Dawkins might put it). We are so much more than both debasing viewpoints.

 

However, I do think that, basically, the origins of humanity do lie in (what appears to be) the chance reaction of chemicals in the primordial ooze of the ancient earth. But to me, this does not diminish my view of humanity - rather, it improves it.

 

To me, for us to have evolved out of the slime of the dim past and developed into complex beings who in turn have developed complex cultures and technologies (and show the potential to do a thousandfold better in time), having survived the ultimate crucible that is Nature Herself to become what we are now, is nothing short of amazing. That does more to tell me about the true worth and potential of humanity than anything any god has been said to be able to give to or tell us regarding our worth. We are a species of beings, unique from our own mammalian kin, which has survived and adapted to many hostile environments, slowly dragged ourselves up from animalistic savagery to the heights of civilization, pondered the secrets of morality and truth, and even left our world of origin to touch the stars, many times over.

 

No, we don't get it right all the time, but we will drastically improve ourselves. It's in our nature. We can touch the stars, and we can do ever better. It's what it means to have been born from the ancient ooze, that even by accident, we are strong and vital enough to forge a great legacy for ourselves - and perhaps a great future.

 

And we didn't need any god to help us or do it for us - we must be something special, indeed, eh? :)

 

And you can call that my "savior" if it helps you understand. The only "savior" we need is the realization that we are capable of doing virtually anything, so long as we set our minds and desires to the undying pursuit of all that which is ennobling and strengthening and uplifting - and undeniably true.

 

This is a very fine read, thought-provoking, and from my perspective largely quite reasonable.

 

I do, of course, allow room for a Being in the ascent of man so I don't go along with all your details, but still it was a very good read!

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we didn't need any god to help us or do it for us - we must be something special, indeed, eh? :)

And you can call that my "savior" if it helps you understand. The only "savior" we need is the realization that we are capable of doing virtually anything, so long as we set our minds and desires to the undying pursuit of all that which is ennobling and strengthening and uplifting - and undeniably true.

 

That was really good, varokhar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, as hard as they might try they absolutely cannot rid themselves of all their bias, all their hopes and expectations, all their lust for a Nobel Prize or a disease in their name, etc. We've seen plenty of crooked science and crooked scientists. Just as we have seen plenty of crooked religion and crooked religionists.

 

One difference, though. Science has a built in mechanism to check itself. It's called peer review.

 

If a similar thing existed in religion, you would never have heard of Benny Hinn.

 

Peer review is a safeguard that is very helpful. No doubt. But it too has failed more than once, we must remember.

 

I know it's sometimes ugly and always very confusing, but there is no way to codify a means of approving religious views. We have to allow for free religion. I suppose the peer review process is the ability to turn the channel when the Benny Hinn program airs.

 

Some throw their lives and their money away on cigarettes and whiskey, some on religious chicanery. Nothing can be done about either.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we didn't need any god to help us or do it for us - we must be something special, indeed, eh? :)

And you can call that my "savior" if it helps you understand. The only "savior" we need is the realization that we are capable of doing virtually anything, so long as we set our minds and desires to the undying pursuit of all that which is ennobling and strengthening and uplifting - and undeniably true.

 

That was really good, varokhar.

 

Why is it that we seek to be uplifted, ennobled and strengthened? Why do we seek that which is true and higher and better. Could it be that these are the very attributes of the Source whose image we reflect?

 

For me, of course, a hearty yes. (I respect that for others there is no connection whatsoever.)

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it is important to teach the controversy, as it is important to teach the controversy about abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, presidential elections, war, etc. No harm in bringing the world into the classroom.

 

Well, what is wrong about it is that the "teach the controversy" is false. It is dishonest. ID isn't forthcoming with the fact that it is faith-based. It presents itself as an alternative, legitimate scientific theory. It is, however, based on a disproved hypothesis called "irreducible complexity", among other things.

 

ID has found overwhelming criticism amongst the scientific community.

 

It is the height of immorality to try and convince young minds that something is a fact, when it's not. All it does is perpetuate ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.