301. The truth in religion

Comment #84220 by walk on November 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it

302. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84168 by walk on November 1, 2007 at 10:56 am

Ah, yes, epeeist, I forgot to mention the "reward" thing. I didn't originally think through the "greed" part of your earlier statement (I believe this is what you were getting at). This part of the believer's "reasons to act morally" should always be included.

303. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #84163 by walk on November 1, 2007 at 10:31 am

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to warm to the term New Atheist. I'm sure most of us are tired of the Stalin, Mao argument. Hitch makes a great, rational defense, but it's long and requires in depth historical knowledge, almost impossible to put forth effectively in normal discussion. My suggestion (feel free to jump all over this), seeing as how they are going to label us anyway, would be something like "New Atheist - We don't condone ANY immoral acts past or present, for any reason."

This would distance us from the false "nasty atheist dictator" syndrome, bring the term up-to-date, and perhaps gain some empathy from Christians who are trying to distance themselves from the Crusades, Inquisition stigma. Kind of the "new slate" approach, showing us as moral, caring, non-believers, and removing once-and-for-all the theist's most annoying anti-atheist rallying call.

There have been a number of good suggestions on this thread. I'm just thowing this out as a thought, please advise me if you think this is NOT a good idea, and perhaps offer something better.

304. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84149 by walk on November 1, 2007 at 9:43 am

DG 602

Correct, these are all good reasons that partly explain peoples' moral behavior, but they are all intuitive/emotional reasons. My point is that as far as moral behavior is affected by thinking atheism offers no logical path towards moral behavior (and even fails to offer a logical path away from immoral behavior).

If there is nothing after death then in the real world it often pays not to do the right thing (...) in many cases immoral behavior is to one's advantage in this life, short-term and long-term

305. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83611 by walk on October 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Dr. Benway,

I echo the best wishes expressed by all your friends here for a speedy recovery. On another thread a few months ago (after you used a Boston colloquialism), I identified myself as a former Bostonian and gave some personal info. Your response indicated a relutance to offer any of your personal details (not my intention). Now, knowing that you are female, I understand your response a bit better, and I apologize if I appeared to be prying.

I always look forward to your brilliant, pointed, and entertaining posts.

306. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83576 by walk on October 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm

DG 576

If there is nothing after death then in the real world it often pays not to do the right thing

in many cases immoral behavior is to one's advantage in this life, short-term and long-term

My question is what logical reason would motivate an atheist to do the right thing when doing so would not be to their advantage

reality is such that it always pays to do good and it never pays to do evil.

I do believe that all our actions always have consequences

307. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81145 by walk on October 24, 2007 at 8:54 am

DG 409 - Sure, whatever, but why don't you answer my question?

308. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80886 by walk on October 23, 2007 at 10:45 am

This is off topic (I'm sorry, I can't even understand DG's posts anymore), but I wonder if the theists ever ask themsleves this question:

If god is omnipotent, having more power than anything in the universe, how is it that our ultra-sensitve sensing equipment which can measure the most minute forces, somehow can't detect the greatest force that exists?

The answer, "Well, God exists OUTSIDE the universe" would be an acceptable answer for a deist god, but the theist god supposedly routinely reaches into the real world to manipulate things, and yet, unbelievably, no trace of this immense energy and these real-world interactions has ever been detected.

I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm really curious if our theist friends could offer an explanation for this.

309. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80592 by walk on October 22, 2007 at 9:27 am

Bluejway 300

I totally respect atheism as a belief system.

system: (2) an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole

310. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80352 by walk on October 21, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Bluejway 300., Thanks for the reply.

As others have pointed out, calling atheism a "belief system" is a bit off (although having a christian belief system might lead one to describe non-belief as a system). The ONLY thing atheists seem to agree on is disbelief in anything that cannot be verified by evidence. Call that a "system" if you like, but I don't really see it.

As to your first point, I wouldn't call the possible health benefits of faith (again, "which" faith?) a "very solid, tangible point". I'll agree that a sick person who stongly believes he'll receive healing help from the supernatural may actually derive some psychosomatic benefit, although the huge prayer-efficacy studies seem to disprove this.

As to your second point concerning faith as being moral or immoral, when you say

I tend to agree, but believe me (I) see plenty of immoral Christians. (...) I claim Christian faith has a good moral logic, that can lead to good behavior. This is also not a proof for theism. But it weakens the extreme statements of Hitch and Harris who deride Christian faith as immoral. That's rude and false.

311. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80008 by walk on October 19, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I'm with Newskin - - - Sinbad 286.

That is not my claim

312. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79984 by walk on October 19, 2007 at 1:04 pm

BTW, someone mentioned the upcoming debate between CH and Dinesh D'Souza author of "What's So Great About Christianity", on Monday 10/22 in New York. This is gonna be good! Here's an article by D'Souza that should whet your appetitie:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/10/16/my_debate_with_atheist_christopher_hitchens

313. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79979 by walk on October 19, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Bluejway 221.

the very solid and tangible points he made in his first 20 minutes

314. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79742 by walk on October 18, 2007 at 11:57 am

Shucks, I'm kinda sorry to see Brother John go. I was really hoping he would address my question (that I asked twice, a third time with different wording)

I'm sitting alone in the wilderness minding my own business. You walk up and say "The God Of Abraham Exists!"

I say, "Never heard of him. But hey, if you can prove what you say with verifiable evidence, I'll believe you."

And you say "- - - - - - - - ?

315. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79165 by walk on October 16, 2007 at 11:11 am

This is getting a bit bizarre. At first I think we were fascinated by the gentle back and forth between revcort and Brother John. I respect both men as being sincere, trying to live moral lives and trying to help others. But (as RD et. al would predict) the disagreement has turned into a bit of a blood feud between brothers.

The most revealing aspect is that they both state with absolute certainty that they KNOW what god wants! How can anyone claim to KNOW FOR A FACT the mind of an imaginary entity who has never (other than claimed but unprovable subjective hearsay) communicated with mankind? Truly fascinating.

If members of the same faith can show such vitriolic disagreemnet with each other, it's easy to project (as Sam Harris so eloquently does) how members of opposing faiths are driven to kill each other. It's really a shame that man invented this extraordinarily divisive concept in the first place.

316. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78392 by walk on October 12, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Revcort,

Thank you for your honesty and openness.

I don't know whether God foreordained that it would be through my teaching, evangelism, or prayer that His will would be accomplished in their lives.

317. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78319 by walk on October 12, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Sorry, Rev, but I'm starting to see why some here have disengaged with you. Your answers are starting to sound like gibberish. You say:

Are all things already set? Yes, they are

No, you definitely must think and reason- and you will think and reason in ways that are according to your nature. That is the freedom God has given you.

God always has a reason for everything, and His reason is always perfect, holy, just, and good.

But I do pray God will awaken all of you

318. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78038 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 2:59 pm

revcort:

God ordains both the ends and the means.

319. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78033 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Ya know, DG, with all the hundreds of tortured explanations you've had to make defending your beliefs in these blogs, in the name of intellectual honesty, have you ever once, even for a second, asked yourself if your single, unprovable, basic premise could be wrong?

320. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78029 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Epeeist, Shuggy, Goldy, thanks for the help. Rev:

He has already ordained it to happen perfectly

321. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78009 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 1:10 pm

DG (554),

Similarly then many people "assume" that life is meaningful

there is a transcendental meaning in our life

So if both a religious and a non-religious model of reality are reasonable only a masochist would prefer the non-religious model

And these assumptions are reasonable because they are justified (...) by the kind of thought and life they lead one to

322. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78001 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Rev,

I'm not sure if you've addressed this before (it's certainly been mentioned on RDnet), but you do realize it's impossible to be omniscient AND omnipotent. If one already knows everything that's going to happen, they'd be powerless to change it. If they use their all-powerfullness to change something, then they didn't know everything that was going to happen.

Oops! I forgot - - - with god all things are possible! I suppose even 1+1=3. (Silly me.)

323. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77993 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Phasmagigas, here's a thought. Seeing as how each believer thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong, heaven must be a VERY lonely place!

324. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77983 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Agreed. There's something else that bothers me about Bro J.'s lengthy post 1219. All of this - - - -

God's will for you, total commitment to the Father, follow the law of God, under God's guidance, THE REVELATION GOD HAS LEFT US, spirit of discipleship, revere the Scriptures as God's word, the teaching that the Father planned to give us, his Son who is his perfect image, put ourselves under God's guidance, teaching that the Father planned, our Saviour's return to his Father, the need for the Holy Spirit to lead us, faithful living of discipleship, adherence to God's self-revelation, God's gift to us, commands of our Saviour, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, traditions of the Church, Be holy as I am holy, submit themselves to the commands of Jesus, one who desires to obey that Holiness command, go the 101% with the carpenter from Nazareth, go that distance with the Saviour,

325. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77972 by walk on October 11, 2007 at 11:16 am

Brother John,

You did a curious thing here in your post 1219 to revcort. You said:

It is not good enough for you to assume that I am wrong.That would be judging me. We are told not to do that.

You ask me:"after reading the verses quoted can you come away with any other understanding than what I've said here?" The answer is Yes

326. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77775 by walk on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Dianelos, you said:

Now all major religions, including Buddhism, teach that there is a transcendental meaning in our life here, a meaning that affects our afterlife and indeed affects the whole of reality. So we are by nature curious to know where that meaning came from (...)

327. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77548 by walk on October 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Sorry for going totally off-topic, but I just saw an advert for the movie "The Golden Compass", starring Nicole Kidman, that is being described as promoting atheism to children. The movie (called specifically "anti-catholic") is based on one book of a trilogy called "His Dark Materials" by Philip Pullman. I haven't seen a mention here yet, but I'm sure RDnet will post something shortly. The plot supposedly leads to the killing off the "Authority" aka god.

Here's some info: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082004.html

The wacky catholic spokesman Bill Donahue actually said (Fox chose him {?} to comment on the upcoming movie) "Have you ever met a happy atheist child?" - - - Whaaat?!! - - - Oh no, Bill, much better to teach a child there's a scary, all powerful guy in the sky who listens to your thoughts 24/7, and unless you follow his crazy rules he's going to burn you in hell forever! Now, THAT'S how to create a happy child!

There's gonna be a huge outcry over this movie, so - - let the games begin!

328. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77501 by walk on October 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Philip,

Ya, I'm with this Eros/Cupid dude as well. His mom Aphrodite was pretty cool too!

329. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77490 by walk on October 9, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Ha! - - Thanks Phasmagigas.

Brother John,

Well said.

One small point:

(...) Dawkins wants to win others to his faith

330. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77478 by walk on October 9, 2007 at 11:59 am

Phasmagigas,

Okay, how about this one (roughly taken from a piece I wrote entitled "The Walkeronian Theory Of Evolution"{!}) for a high school speech class 45 years ago).

God (having always existed) gets bored. Decides to create a race of poor saps that he can torture and ridicule for His Divine Pleasure. He creates the cosmos and finally the earth. At the appropriate stage of cooling he creates bacteria and the process of evolution by natural selection. He then sits back for a lo-o-ong time, occasionally tweaking things if they start to lead away from his FINAL GOAL. (For instance at the dino stage He says "whoops can't use that!" - - - cues huge meteor crash - - - "there that's better".)

Things finally progress to the upright ape with the big brain . He chooses the one ape that most resembles Him, and Zap! installs an eternal soul, names him Adam, installs another one in a particularly comely female, names her Eve - - - and off we go! (The rest is - - - fairly well documented.)

Quite pleased with Himself he decides to write a book which is so convoluted that no one can agree as to what it means (adding delightfully to the wacky fun), is dedicated to His Glory, and (the only clear part) instructs his unwitting creation to Worship Him Or Else! For Eternity!

There, case closed, we can all go home.

331. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77439 by walk on October 9, 2007 at 10:00 am

Revcort,

My curiosity (and maybe others here) concerning your trip to the museum was based around the expectation that many of the "facts" put forth there would presumably contradict current scientific concensus. Would you be so kind as to describe for us some of the areas of disagreement you found? (The more detail the better.) I realize that you would tend to support the museum's position over scientific fact, and of course we would do the opposite, but I think we could all benefit from the information.
For instance do they literally picture god creating Adam in an instant, with no evolution involved? Did they address the fact that DNA proves conclusively that man is decended from lower life forms and directly related to all life forms on earth?

Thanks

332. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76358 by walk on October 5, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Revcort,

Yes, it's rather interesting that there are dragon myths (drawings, descriptions, etc.) that appear independently in many ancient cultures. Although I don't believe anyone seriously believes they actually existed, it is rather curious. If anyone here has a theory about this I'd be interested.

I guess the question here for you as you plan your trip to the creation museum is this: Dinosaurs have been shown (by many branches of science) to have existed from about 65 million to 245 million years ago. Homo sapiens have been shown to have existed from approx. 150,000 years ago to present. Are you ready to state that (because of the bible) you believe that dinos and man existed at the same time?

(why is everything suddenly in bold letters?)

333. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76324 by walk on October 5, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Bonzai 1097 - Oh NOWW I see!

Rev, thanks for clarifying that you don't buy into that.

I admittedly didn't have corroboration for the dog domestication question on hand when I made the post (just remember reading it) but a quick search shows that most articles agree with the approx. 13,000 B.C. date (actually making it 15,000 years ago). Here are a couple:

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/dogs.htm

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html

Also, the reason I mentioned the man/dinosaur coexistence thing, is that I believe I read (not sure) that this is one of the erroneous facts put forth at creation museums.

334. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76289 by walk on October 5, 2007 at 11:12 am

Rev, while you're at the creation museum, keep in mind that homo sapiens domesticated the dog about 13,000 years ago, man and dino didn't exist at the same time, and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) recent DNA matching proves that we are DIRECTLY related to all life on earth, plant and animal.

I was talking face to face with a "6,000 year earth" Mormon elder the other day, and he actually said that god placed all the fossils at exactly the right strata to FOOL US INTO BELIEVING that the earth is 4.5 billion years old! - - WHEW! - - (He was such a nice guy, I just couldn't bring myself to ask - - WHY?!) (I really should have.)

335. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76277 by walk on October 5, 2007 at 10:22 am

It's pretty amazing how well educated a christian must be to make any sense what-so-ever out of their god's book! Poor rev, CHeard, John, etc., must have to stay up all night to make any sense of it all. With all these tortured, minutely detailed interpretations they offer (and can't seem to agree on anything), just imagine the problem an uneducated field worker would have negotiating the convoluted maze!

My guess is that only heavily credentialed theologians stand a chance of going on to their heavenly reward!

336. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76041 by walk on October 4, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Brother John, you said:

This morning, by chance came across what looks like an excellent run-through of the EVIDENCE (...) LeeStrobel, The Case for Christ

I'm sitting alone in the wilderness minding my own business. You walk up and say "The God Of Abraham Exists!"

I say, "Never heard of him. But hey, if you can prove what you say with verifiable evidence, I'll believe you."

And you say "- - - - - - - - ?

337. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75860 by walk on October 3, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Revcort - 1047

So, for a person to claim to be saved, yet their continual desire is to continue sinning (while hoping for salvation anyway), that person is showing evidence that they really don't know the Lord at all. (and their sins will not be forgiven)

I would ask if that makes sense (...)

338. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75770 by walk on October 3, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Okay, just so I have this straight. If your wife cheats on you she has committed a sin punishable by death. But because Jesus died for our sins, and if she has taken him as her personal saviour, then she's forgiven. No consequences. So then she can go out and do it again and she will be forgiven again. This is starting to sound pretty cool. Do I understand correctly?

339. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75744 by walk on October 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Thanks. So in the (excuse the close-to-home example) hypothetical I gave, is it you who would forgive her or Jesus? And if she is not forgiven do you believe she should be put to death? If it's god or Jesus, how do you KNOW if she's forgiven?

340. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75735 by walk on October 3, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Revcort,

Just curious. When you say

By the way, the death penalty is still the punishment for this sin. (adultery)

341. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75637 by walk on October 3, 2007 at 7:23 am

CHeard, #1010 - -

Anybody who wants to examine the scant evidence for Jesus's existence should certainly do so, as thoroughly as possible. But I don't think you should put together a list of scholars you plan to invite to your party and advertise it as if the project is already firmly underway.

342. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75448 by walk on October 2, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Just a quick observation to one and all - - - It's amazing how fast a thread will run out with none of our wonderfully wacky christians on board (Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin). So thanks you guys for giving us blasphemers something against which to blaspheme!

343. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75439 by walk on October 2, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Nice singin' steveroot!

CHeard,

Wow, man, you're really fallin' over backward trying to discredit (before it even starts) what appears to be an honest, scholarly attempt to study your hero. It's gonna be a long 5 years for you, but perhaps you could get some fellow believers together and picket the twice yearly open meetings.

You could also start now writing your critique of why whatever they come up with is wrong.

BTW, I finally had a physics-defying experience. While reading your Jesus Project post I leaned toward the computer screen and believe-it-or-not smelled fear!

344. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75416 by walk on October 2, 2007 at 3:04 pm

I'm sure most here are aware of this, but the topic of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is about to be studied in depth by The Jesus Project. Info can be viewed here: http://www.jesus-project.com/intro.htm

The biblical scholars and theologians that are participating will meet twice a year for the next five years with the goal of trying to reach a "probable" conclusion. Should be interesting.

345. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75317 by walk on October 2, 2007 at 10:10 am

Holy Crap, Brother John (968) you dodged my direct question again.

Let's try it this way:

I'm sitting alone in the wilderness minding my own business. You walk up and say "The God Of Abraham Exists!"

I say, "Never heard of him. But hey, if you can prove what you say with verifiable evidence, I'll believe you."

And you say "- - - - - - - - ?

346. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74774 by walk on September 30, 2007 at 11:32 am

Brother John, our dear webkin, you argue like a defense lawyer! (Humor, not attack). n0rr1s and I are asking the same question, which you are artfully trying to dodge.

WE are not claiming ANYTHING. YOU are claiming a carpenter who may or may not have existed, performed unverifiable miracles, rose from the dead, can promise us life after death (a scientific impossibility to us) and is the son of an (to us imaginary) all powerful creator god who monitors our very thoughts 24/7 for life, and if we don't buy into all of this we may well burn in a place called hell for eternity!

These are EXTREMELY extraordinary, unbelievable claims. If you want us to give you ANY creedence what-so-ever all we ask is some PROOF that these claims are true. (The existence of a 2,000 year old collection of writings containing obvious scientific falsehoods proves nothing). Trying to back out of this by saying the burden is on US to disprove your claims is just intellectually dishonest. YOU are trying to sell US a bill of goods, not the other way around.

347. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74552 by walk on September 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Brother John,

Thank you for the amazing amount of time and effort that have gone into your posts.

With all due respect, everything you say is based on three initial assumptions you have accepted with no real evidence:

1) Jesus actually existed.

2) He is God.

3) The Bible is an accurate account of what he said.

You proceed from there and state with CERTAINTY that these are the words of Jesus, and live your life accordingly.

Most here would argue that there is no RELIABLE extra-biblical proof of his historical existence. No proof he is God. And no proof that the Bible contains an accurate account of his sayings beyond the fact that it CLAIMS to.

Can you see how what you state with absolute certainty appears a bit shaky to those of us who base their world view on verifiable evidence?

348. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #74409 by walk on September 28, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Busted! I was wondering when someone was going to call me on that!

Seriously, though, I believe I misunderstood her initially, although you bring up a good point - - I did notice that I was actually more open to apologizing after realizing she was female. It's in the wiring, I guess.

349. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74408 by walk on September 28, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Brother John,

Since your original post (733, I believe), you have been asked many great questions by the gang. Would you mind responding to some of them? Mine was 813.

Thanks

P.S. You said "I want clear distinction between opinion and what Christ said." How do you KNOW FOR A FACT what Christ said, other than the bible says so.

350. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74127 by walk on September 27, 2007 at 10:37 am

Beautifully said, Northern Bright, as always.


I may be a bit daft, but I didn't really get Brother John's post (733).

He seemed to be saying to christians, "I'm a catholic priest (with all the dogma and baggage that comes with that) and you may all be of different denominations and different interpretations therein, but god doesn't care about all that. It's how you've acted that matters.

When Christ left to return to his Father he told us (COMMANDED - not an option) to get on with spreading HIS message - not OUR MANY VERSIONS OF IT.