Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

Revlgking wrote:

'Define what you mean by "exists"'.

Now, the one thing we can be sure of, however you wish define God as being today, we are not talking about the God of the Old Testament. We both agree with this idea because you write it 'makes about as much sense as does the Bible when it tells us that God "walked in the Garden of Eden" and that he made a talking snake (Genesis 3:1) which Eve blamed for tricking her into disobeying God'.

And yet the Old Testament is what most people in the West rely on for their definition of "God". I'm on your side if you simply wish to wean people off this definition. As far as I'm concerned you can call anything you like "God" after you've done that as long as you don't use this idea to justify unethical political decisions.

"I presume you are having fun with the rest of your nonsense comments"
Of course I was having fun. Everything that exists is god. Nonsense exists. Therefore god is nonsense.

ABOUT THE DANGER OF TAKING THE BIBLE LITERALLY, AND AS A RULE BOOK
TFF, Recently, I got an item published in the National Post--one of our two national dailies here in Canada.

It had to do with the controversial question regarding whether or not the churches should accept gay clergy and the marriage of gay couples.

In a letter to the editor, one reader, who did not indicate his/her gender, argued that the Bible, especially Paul's letter to the Romans, makes it clear in no way should the church ordain practicing homosexuals as clergy and bless gay marriages.

I pointed out:

As a matter of fact, in Romans 1: 26 to 28--The Good News Version--Paul does lists sexual "unnatural acts" as sins worthy of death. But he also includes sins like jealousy, malice and gossip, boasting, pride, failing to show pity and kindness for others, and even the failing to keep promises. Politicians, beware!

If this list is taken as definitive of who among us should be put to death, there wouldn't be very many people left alive to sit in church pews.

In addition to the above, the Bible also recommends, ethnic cleansing and slavery (Deuteronomy 20), Holy Wars (Isaiah 13) and the public stoning to death of all sex offenders and even disobedient children.

Also, read what Paul says about women in general. In 1 Timothy 1:8 to 15 he writes, "Women should learn in silence and in all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authoirty over men; they must keep quiet..."

Let me assure readers that, IMO, the Bible contains many beautiful, true and good passages worthy of praise. But much of it is dull and boring reading, often silly and sometimes downright dangerous.

The above are just a few--I could add hundreds of more verses--of the reasons why I am very careful not to assume that all the rules set forth in the Bible are to be taken literally and followed as the law of the land, or even of the church.

TFF, you write: "And yet the Old Testament is what most people in the West rely on for their definition of "God".

Thanks for pointing this out, TFF. For years I have refused to believe in the "God" as described in much of the Bible. Because of this stand, some "Christians", with judgement in their voices, over the years have called me an atheist.

When this accusation is made I simply respond: I believe in what John said about God. And it is in the Bible. He said, "God is LOVE". If you refuse to accept this, I hope we can at least agree to disagree, agreeably."

TFF, thanks, also, for the following comment: "I'm on your side if you simply wish to wean people off this definition."

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HOPE TO DO...I hope to get people to stop thinking of God in the same way that young children think of Santa Claus. I want people to grow up and think as rational grown ups.

Then you add: "As far as I'm concerned you can call anything you like "God". After you've done that, as long as you don't use this idea to justify unethical political decisions."

Please expand on your last comment. What do you mean by "this idea"?

I don't recall writing any of those things.

I apologize. It was TerryNZ, in his post #22459 - Yesterday at 04:38.
LGK

Revlgking wrote:
"Because of this stand, some "Christians", with judgement in their voices, over the years have called me an atheist."
Well I dont.
But I disagree with your implination when you wrote: "Paul does lists sexual "unnatural acts" as sins worthy of death. But he also includes sins like jealousy, malice and gossip, boasting, pride, failing to show pity and kindness for others, and even the failing to keep promises. Politicians, beware!"
Well everyone does those things, and everyone dies. Simple as that, perhaps our society is different than Paul's, or he just went too far. And do you mean the Bible promotes a holy war in the sense of Islamic jihad? Curious how Ive never noticed that.
But anyway, "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HOPE TO DO...I hope to get people to stop thinking of God in the same way that young children think of Santa Claus. I want people to grow up and think as rational grown ups." is wisdom, indeed. So many people are deceived that religion is just faith but no rationality. Well, to me it seems it is not exclusively that. God could be anything or nothing, as I have said. You dont have to beleive in Him or think you do, but surely there is something you beleive exists? Perhaps he is not Jesus of the Bible, or God of the Old Testament, but perhaps the hand of nature, or your TV, or something. Perhaps He could be different to everyone else, or perhaps not. You decide, and as Revlgking said, lets agree to disagree, because that seems the most rational agreement (techinically disagreement, oh no a paradox!).

Tim.. Please believe me... it is not necessary to believe in the divine or the existence of any other supernatural phenomena. People who need faith will, hopefully, form their faith from exploring their own beliefs and not solely the direction of others- just as you are presently doing. This form of self exploration, whilst it is encouraged in some of the teachings of Jesus, is not usually a feature of the God of the Old Testament and is often lacking in estabished church dogma as you have found.

TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"I don't recall writing any of those things".

But feel free to claim them if you wish.

Revlgking wrote:

"Please expand on your last comment. What do you mean by this idea"?

Well, first of all there's no fullstop between "God" and after in my original comment. Lets just look at most of the trouble spots in the world. Belief in a god is used to justify everything from occupation of territory to the acts of terrorism committed in response. Sure, the basic causes may be the economic advantage of certain small groups but they gather support for their cause by claining they have their own god on their side. The phenomenon is not new. States in ancient Sumeria, the Middle East and and Egypt adopted the same tactic.

Tim wrote:

"do you mean the Bible promotes a holy war in the sense of Islamic jihad"?

Fraid so. That's how most of the rest of the world sees it anyway. All you Christians, Muslims and Jews fighting over which sub-sect worships the one true G$D.

"Belief in a god is used to justify everything from occupation of territory to the acts of terrorism committed in response." comments TerryNZ

Terry, keep in mind, evil people, including evil theists and atheists, will use anything to justify their actions.

Tim: About "Holy War", check out Isaiah 13:1-5--King James version--and tell us what you think it means.

BTW, THE LIVING BIBLE--a version approved by most fundamentalists--talks about the "Lord of Hosts" (God as the field marshall of a massive righteous army) destroying the whole land of Babylon, modern Iran. Sounds like a holy war to me.

Revlgking wrote:

"evil people, including evil theists and atheists, will use anything to justify their actions."

Yes. But it's much easier to raise allies if you claim supernatural support. I can't imagine anything atheists might be able to use as a substitute.

Regarding the Bible and Holy War. Tell me again of the noble deeds Joshua and his partners in genocide justified by claiming their god commanded them to do it. Perfect alibi. Mind you there's a great deal of evidence it never actually happened anyway.

TNZ, I see you agree that evil is evil, regardless of the source. Good for you! It seems you, also, agree that atheists have no supernatural substitute for their cause. In other words, they have no invisible means of support. Sad, eh?

But seriously: As I understand it, individual atheists believe that they have no future beyond their personal deaths. I presume that you, also, believe this to be true for all atheists, collectively speaking, right?

If this IS true, what does atheism have to offer anyone about the future?

Nothing, just a dead end.

If atheism is a fact, the reward to those who live short and miserable lives is even less. It seems to me that atheism is a hopeless philosophy of life. Not much fun, if you ask me.

In addition, if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists who become criminals and who decide to look after number by taking advantage of others in order to get the most out of life for themselves, now. What have aatheists got to lose by being immoral?

On the other hand, unitheism/panentheism, and other forms of theism, may prove to be false; but if they are false, no one, not even they, will ever know, right?

However, if they are proved true, think of the fun believers are going to have with non-believers, in any future life there happens to be.

BTW, if there really is a life in the future, I hope to see many atheists there. Seriously, I promise to accept you as you are, and not make fun of your lack of optimistic faith, okay?

Yes, I read Isaiah 13:1-5
To me that doesnt seem like its promoting a holy war, although it is fine propoganda. It is merely poetry (Isaiah is a mighty fine poet, one of the best in my eyes, and in some of my poems I have adopted his style). It is a poem or revelation; "the oracle...whcih Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." (13:1)
But beleive me, it is not promoting extremists armed with bombs to attack citizens nor use any force on others.

"It seems to me that atheism is a hopeless philosophy of life." I would disagree with that statement although myself not an atheist, i can see where they come from by acceptence. There is hope for all, regardless of worldview.

"In addition, if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists who become criminals and who decide to look after number by taking advantage of others in order to get the most out of life for themselves, now. What have aatheists got to lose by being immoral?"

Well, at least you didn't make the common and stupid statement, "Atheists can't be moral." It depends on what one means by 'blame'. With no god there is no 'goodness' in the universe. That doesn't mean we can't individually and collectively define what we will consider acceptable behavior. We can make very rules that promote some agenda that we agree to or we can make rules orthogonal to any agenda, i.e. stupid rules.

As I wrote: "In addition, if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists..."

Let me put this another way by asking a question: Other than virtue--moral excellence--being its own reward, what motivates atheists to be virtuous?

I presume rational atheists and theists, have a fear of breaking the law of the land and facing punishment in this life.. But only theists have a fear of facing some kind of judgement after death.

Revlgking wrote:

"if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists who become criminals and who decide to look after number by taking advantage of others in order to get the most out of life for themselves, now'.

I suspect that in general atheists are less likely to become criminals. They don't rely on fear of future divine punishment to make them honest now. You ask, "what motivates atheists to be virtuous?" Being virtuous makes life a lot easier. You're not looking over your shoulder all the time to see if you've got away with something. Besides I have said elsewhere that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Most religions have the same idea but phrase it differently.

The problem we all have is that it's as difficult for someone who believes in God to see the world through atheist's eyes as it is for an atheist to see the world through a god-believer's eyes.

TerryNZ writes:"The problem we all have is that it's as difficult for someone who believes in God to see the world through atheist's eyes as it is for an atheist to see the world through a god-believer's eyes." Indeed true.

Terry you speak of atheists and theists seeing the world. Indeed, we not only see the world, we sense it, and experience it, with all our senses.

Atheists, like most theists keep talking about God, as if he is someone, separate and apart from us and the universe, in whom we either believe, or don't believe.

I wonder how many atheists are willing to accept that there is another option--a god-concept which, like process theology (Wikipedia), includes all of nature: Unitheists/panENtheists, not only sense the physical universe, we accept that it is the outward and visible sign, or being, of GØD as invisible being in and through all natural things. This is that which imprints upon our souls and motivates us, those of us who are willing, to be loving and virtuous beings.

Belief can lead us to knowledge, which is MORE THAN JUST A BELIEF, it is fact.

In a famous BBC TV broadcast, FACE TO FACE, IN 1959--I think I remember hearing a clip from it over the CBC--the great Carl Jung, whose father, BTW, was a minister in Switzerland, was asked: "Do you believe in God?" he replied, "I do not need to believe in God, I KNOW." He was inundated with letters asking him what he meant by "God" anyway.

The January 21, 1960 edition of the LISTENER--the BBC newsletter--he wrote a detailed letter outlining what he mean when he said that he had a 'knowledge of God'. In another post I will expand on what he said.

TerryNZ, you say that, "Being virtuous makes life a lot easier."

Perhaps this is true, for all of us, especially those of us who have a sensitive conscience. But surely you are not suggesting that being virtuous always makes life easier on this earthly plane.

I know that I feel very guilty, even when I do things, which are not necessarily against any law.

For example, as a minister, there were times when I felt guilty when I held back from visiting parishoners who I found boring. In the church-trade these are called "sins" of omission--failing to do the things we feel we ought to do. It is not against any law to avoid such people, but clergy often feel badly for not wanting to put up with them

In addition, keep in mind: There are times when "being virtuous" can present us with all kinds of problems. For example, it caused Moses, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Joan of Arc, Mohatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and numerous other great leaders, a lot of physical and mental pain. For some it even caused their deaths.

You say, "You're not looking over your shoulder (to see if God is watching you?) all the time to see if you've got away with something." You are talking about the God of theism, right?

But, keep in mind that the real world is filled with more than imagined angels, demons and gods. There are real vilains out to there, ready to take revenge on us, especially if we have the courage to expose their vilainy. With or without God, being virtuous can sometime be very costly, don't you think?

You say: "Besides, I have said elsewhere that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Most religions have the same idea but phrase it differently."

Is this latter--the law of karma--part of your atheist philosophy (religion)? BTW, tt is mentioned in Galatians 5--the writings of St. Paul, in the New Testament.

I still maintain that atheists see the world with wonder and delight, whilst living a 'good' life. They just don't see the need for 'invisible means of support'. ;-)

Good for you, Ellis? Theists and unitheists agree with you about the way you see the world.

BTW, from your last sentence, I take it you only accept that part of the light spectrum which is visible to the naked eye, eh?
What are the dimensions of wonder and delight? And the imagination? Faith? Hope? And Love? And how much do they weigh?

And here's a question: If Jesus, just before he was arrested and sentenced to death, had become convinced that there was no life beyond the grave, would he have given up his life for the sake of others? Why would anyone expect him, or anyone, to do so?

Keep in mind: I would not blame an atheist for refusing to sacrifice his one and only precious life.