I know this is swimming upstream on this site, but the "God is insecure and needs the ego boost" argument is such a flawed perception of what it's about that it's laughable. It says more about the Atheist Missionary's willing lack of understanding.

Of course Rick Warren makes the assumption that his readers share his belief about the nature of God; it's a devotional. It's printed by a Christian publishing house. That'd be like me slamming the author of a french cookbook for assuming all his readers like cream sauces and fluffy pastries. If I did that you'd have some serious questions - rightly so - about my depth of understanding and comprehension abilities.

Without getting into the "is God real" issue, you DO have to look at what Christians (generally) believe about God to understand why there is so much worship going on.

One: In Christianity God is a father figure for all of humanity. Do you not express love for and to your parents who help you, disciplined you to raise you up right, and provided everything you needed?

Two: Christians believe that God created the entire Universe. The universe is a freaking amazing thing. If God did create it, doesn't he deserve some props for that? When you finish your book do you want your friends and family to acknowledge what a cool thing it is you just created?

Three: A lot of worship is for those who are singing the praises. Reiterating and reminding themselves of God's promises that they can rely on.

Four: Human psychology says that humans only value what they have to pay something for. (And the Bible is pretty savvy about human nature). Bowing, praying, tithing, sacrificing, worship are all ways humans put in a little payment to keep God valuable to THEIR points of view. That's why worship was mandated. God doesn't need it, people need to do it.

Five: Christians believe humans are created in God's image. That what makes us human instead of animal are bits of a God like nature. Since all people like to be thanked, complimented, and praised; it's not a huge leap to assume that God enjoys these things as well.

This is such a stupid argument that only proves an unwillingness to reach an understanding of why it's really happening. And you have higher critical thinking standards than that Amy.

"In the unlikely event that God exists..."

If you believe that God exists and therefore created the universe and us, how can you possibly believe that man is in any position to judge what is the "proper" way to glorify and worship God?

Believe or don't believe in God but that above point is just silly. It is based upon the assumption that someone who is human and cannot create the universe is capable of "judging" the motive and purpose of God who can create a universe. It also implies that if Christians would simply adjust their God to match what others wish He would be, well that would be a God they could support! They wouldn't have to mock and redicule Christians! Sorry, no can do. As I stated above believe or don't believe as you wish. But as a Christian, I do not accept changing God's rules of worship in order to gain your acceptance. Mock away.

I wonder why Amy keeps coming back to this topic? It's like the abortion "debate." There are irreconcilable beliefs on both sides.

Better philosophers have made stronger arguments. Nothing will change.

Elle says: "The universe is a freaking amazing thing. If God did create it, doesn't he deserve some props for that?"

All of us create ideas about god based on our own psychological makeup. As for me, I can't work up any faith that such a being exists. If one did, though, it seems to me it would be at least as pleased by the scientists who eagerly try to understand how "this freaking amazing thing" operates as by the ones who personify its hypothetical creator and refrain from eating pigs and shrimp to avoid offending it or symbolically drink its blood and eat its flesh to demonstrate their devotion to it.

You're right, of course. If such a being exists, mere human beings cannot judge it. However, we are more than competent to judge one another's hypotheses about it, and find them silly.

"I wonder why Amy keeps coming back to this topic?"

Perhaps she is trying to convince people to stop believing in something that doesn't exist.

"Nothing will change."

Actually, the number of atheists/agnostics has increased dramatically in recent years. Whenever I hear an interview with atheist authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, they are always asked, "Aren't you just preaching to the choir?" If that's true, then just where are all these new atheists comming from?

However, I'll make you, and Christians everywhere, a deal. If you shut up about god, us atheists will shut up about not believing in god.

Captain James T. Kirk said it best:

What does God need with a starship?

"Well, Ak, it's because God is powerful, but also insecure, like Barbara Streisand before James Brolin."
Homer Simpson

Hey, God Itself admits It's seriously insecure. From the text of the first Commandment: "for I the Lord your God am a jealous God,. . ."

Why does He feel the need to have humanity glorify and worship Him?

'He' doesn't, certain churches do. If you don't understand that distinction, then you've got no business commenting on Christianity.

I'm not a religious person, but neither am I impressed by these sorts of petulant arguments against God.

"However, I'll make you, and Christians everywhere, a deal. If you shut up about god, us atheists will shut up about not believing in god."

It's a free country, baby, you believe what you wish and so shall I. You don't get to tell me I can't.

That, I think is the biggest issue I have is, why does anyone care?

Hmm. "Why does anyone care?"

You must not have any family members who died in gas chambers for being the "wrong" religion.

You must not know about anyone beheaded or killed with stones for having been a rape victim - today - because of religion.

You must not know about anyone who died of a treatable disease, here in the USA, minutes away from a doctor, because of their religion.

If we were sitting in a roadside café in Frankfurt in 1935, and I told you that in ten years our Jewish waiter would have been gutted in a medical experiment, and millions of other Jews would be systematically killed for being the "wrong" religion, you'd have me forcibly medicated, convinced I was insane. Yet worse happened.

And history repeats itself. Some of it is apparently going on today without your notice.

So take a look around. You can also see this site. While you're at it, compare cross and crystal for efficacy.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but the idea of mowing down an acre of My creatures for a building you can go to and show others how pious you are was not mine.

Neither is the concept that I only count when you're there on Sunday morning.

Now: you know that this is not Me. Why? Because you really do have limits to what you will believe, and you only invest in things that will make you feel good about yourself.

"It's a free country, baby, you believe what you wish and so shall I. You don't get to tell me I can't.

That, I think is the biggest issue I have is, why does anyone care?"

That's my whole point. Atheists are fine with people believing in god as long as they leave us the hell alone. The problem is, they won't.

Hi, God,

Since you are reading this message board I thought this would be a good time to ask for a favor.

I just saw a preview for "Land of the Lost." Will you please kill Will Ferrel before he makes another movie?

Thanks

"Actually, that's not true. I've gotten e-mail from people who I've moved to think rationally and to stop believing, sans evidence, that there's a god"

And you think this is a good thing? If you're wrong, you've damned them. Do you feel a need to make sure you're not alone in hell, if you are wrong? If you're not wrong, what harm did their belief do? I doubt you've converted the sorts who kill others for lack of belief, so you aren't helping anyone, and you are quite possibly hurting them badly. Not something I'd brag on.

The rest of the quote above is just stupid. As was pointed out, it's by a christian, for christians. Don't believe? Don't read it!

Whether or not god wants us to worship, I can't say, as the bible did not arrive from heaven via fax. That there is a god, I have no doubt. That he's worthy of worship, I have no doubt.

> If you're not wrong, what harm
> did their belief do?

How much time you got?

> There are irreconcilable
> beliefs on both sides.

Someone's right, someone's wrong.

"I doubt you've converted the sorts who kill others for lack of belief"

This is actually an excellent point. So what is the point in converting someone to atheism who isn't a threat and trying to cram their religion down the rest of the world's throat?

The reason religious extremists are killing people is not just that their god tells them to kill but that too damn many so called moderates won't lift a finger to stop them or even criticise them. If enough people stop believing in this insanity, and start fighting back, then maybe we can stop them. Right now the only advantage god has on his or her side is the sheer number of people who believe. I say the more folks come over to our side, the better.

"So what is the point in converting someone to atheism who isn't a threat and trying to cram their religion down the rest of the world's throat?"

Because when that happens, there is one less wrong person in the world and one more right one. One less fantasy-driven, delusional person in the world and one more reason-based, correct one.

Pirate Jo is right. This particular girl came to the idea that she should stop believing, sans evidence, in god, in the course of my urging her to use reason to solve her relationship and personal problems.

> One less fantasy-driven, delusional
> person in the world and one more
> reason-based, correct one.

That's a bit optimistic. There's much more foolishness in the human heart than you'll find in the churches. And rationality is just one of the pleasures of being human... I'm not even sure it's my favorite.

But I agree with the larger point.

Hitchens quotes Einstein: "The miracle is that there are no miracles." The laws of physics are never suspended to accomodate our petty fears, tragic desires or commercial interests. If you watch closely you can figure out how this planet works, and no force in Earth or in Heaven is going to change the rules on you. (Or for you.)

Was that clear enough? Again-

An important reason to dislike religion is its a appeal to the kindergartners' presumption that the game is fixed... All you need to do is get on board with the right people/forces, and then things go easy, as if the Universe was just like Chicago politics.

I'm with the Chink (read Tom Robbins' Even Cowgirls Get the Blues on this:

"I believe in everything; nothing is sacred."

"I believe in nothing; everything is sacred."

o.O

Post box scene from Bedazzled

Peter Cook (Lucifer) shows Dudley Moore how he became tired of adoring God all the time, and fell out of favor. From the 1967 film "Bedazzled".

I'm agnostic with some churchin during 2 combat deployments, but I can't help but comment on the obnoxiousness of atheists. They just can't help themselves or something. Why does amy post something like this that alienates people? Can a female be called a douchebag?

> They just can't help themselves
> or something

Trust me on this: We'd rather not be bothered with these issues.

> Why does amy post something like
> this that alienates people?

How friendly, receptive and adoring do you need the world to be?

Einstein did not like or want anyone one using him to further an atheist agenda. Here are his own words on that topic:

"There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

While Einstein did not understand or believe in a "personal" God who cared about specific people he appeared to feel there was a higher power who put order in the universe.

Read about his views on God (he was not an athiest and he is sympathetic toward religious beliefs):

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Einstein_believe_in_God

For those who won't go on to the above mentioned article here is one more quote from Einstien on his view of atheism:

On whether he considered himself an atheist: "I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

Amy ~

I don't mind the question at all Amy. In fact it is a very good question. What I do not like is the total disregard, disrespect and haughty arrogance in the way you state your belief.

God doesn't "need" anything from us. It is us who need to learn humility, humbleness, and how to be grateful for all the Lord has given us.

If you have ever seen an ungrateful child you will understand why a parent teaches a child to be thankful and appreciative for the efforts of those around the child to make their life more pleasant. To thank those who provide the child with food, shelter, clothing. To thank and appreciate teachers who educate the child.

We worship to teach us to be humble and appreaciativeand grateful. Of course, the arrogant think they earned everything all by themselves without thought for the many strokes of luck they had to help them along the way. Just being born in this free country is great place to start being thankful.

> Einstein did not like or want
> anyone one using him to further
> an atheist agenda

He doesn't get to choose, does he? As long as he's quoted in context, he's fair game.

> What I do not like is the total
> disregard, disrespect and haughty
> arrogance in the way you state
> your belief.

I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong about this, but Amy doesn't regard your beliefs as a personal failing which will consign your soul to an eternity of torment. She rightly avers that you're likely to be a pain in our asses for some time to come, though.

> We worship to teach us
> to be humble

Your humility consists of a baseless certainty that an omnipotent supernatural being takes a personal interest in the conduct of your life and will reward you with eternal fulfillment while (again) punishing others with damnation.

> Just being born in this free
> country is great place to
> start being thankful

Chief amongst its blessing is the right not to be bothered by cosmologies such as yours, nor to be compelled to give them deference.

momof4: "That there is a god, I have no doubt. That he's worthy of worship, I have no doubt."

Good for you. Now, all you have to do is distance yourself in some fashion from those who use their religion to excuse their actions, especially those who actually cause harm.

Then, there is another difficulty - that of distinguishing your faith, with its claims of reward, from another, claiming similar rewards.

It might be a wake-up call to actually do serious research, because one of the things you will discover immediately is that certainty is a definition, not something found in nature.

Brett: how interesting that you use the word, "luck" as you beg the question of an attentive deity's existence. Do you also assume that only a religious program can cause you to be thankful and appreciative? If so, you are mistaken. If you presume to use the word, "arrogant", prepare to explain how claiming that your faith is "right" is not equally so. There are others ready to impugn you for your poor choice in that matter.

If you need to be schooled in humility I think 2nd Law of Thermodynamics should do just fine. And it's so ecumenical!

Crid ~

Your perception of my "humility" is not based on any such thing as you describe. I'd explain to you but you already have your mind made up.

Yes, you are correct that we are free to choose what we will believe. I'm not sure what your point was in making that obvious statement. Exept maybe you wanted to make it clear you have the right to disagree with me.

I certainly agree with you there. Without choice it would not be clear on which side you stood.

I always think that if you choose to deny the existence of God you had better be right when you die! If I'm wrong, so what! My beliefs have not hindered my life one bit and I lose nothing by being wrong. In fact I love the freedom that my religious beliefs have brought me. If however, you are wrong,then you've got some explaining to do in the next life!

By the way, I don't believe that hell or damnation is burning up in an endless fire as you describe.

> if you choose to deny the existence
> of God you had better be right when
> you die!

Right. It's all about fear. You're allowing your perceptions of the world –and certainly your description of it– to be warped by terror. And you share that terror with the scolding of a schoolmarm: You had better be right, young man...!

> I lose nothing by being wrong

Costs are borne by the rest of us. We have to deal with a guy who uses fear as his first measure of the world; who allows fantasies of safety to warp his descriptions of the world around him; and who loves nothing about his religion more than how it allows him to make distance from, and look down upon, his fellows ("you've got some explaining to do", etc.).

> I don't believe that hell or
> damnation is burning up in an
> endless fire as you describe

I don't care about your beliefs enough to enquire as to how this resolves with your continuing admonishments, but I'm pretty sure the elders of your sect don't want you being so Loose-y Goose-y with their fundamental precepts.

You're typical of the sort of person who complains about atheism. You want the larger society to continue a historically popular pretense by which you're seen as a very nice man.

But actually, you're a harsh, condemnatory sonofabitch, and you're looking for a fight.

And you've found one. So this is working out well for everyone!

Radwaste~

I did wonder if someone would bring up the point that I used "luck". Weather it is luck, good fortune, or some grand plan I do not know. That is not inconsistent with what I said. I did not say that God directs every aspect of our lives. Some things just happen. How we react to what happens with our lives is what we can control.

I do not pretend to have all the answers. I am only defending a belief and faith I have which was attacked. The God I revere was purposely spoken of in a callous, irreverent, and blasphemous manner. I have every right to defend an attack on the God I believe in.

There is a difference between arrogance and confidence. You can see the difference in some athletes. When one belittles another beliefs that is arrogance. If someone does not agree with me or accept my faith I still not not mock them. That would be arrogance.

> If someone does not agree with me
> or accept my faith I still not not
> mock them. That would be arrogance.

Clucking that people "had better be right when they die" is very advanced, very aggressive mockery. Could anything be more arrogant?

C'mon! Don't kid a kidder.

Crid,I am sorry you misunderstand me. We can't have a discussion with out you exploding into anger and insulting so I'll bow out. I am not afraid of a fight but I don't want to ruin this terrific day with hard feelings. Its not worth it.

Happy Fathers Day everyone!

oh, by the way. My point about being right about your stance on God at the end of your life was written in a light hearted manner with a smile on my face. It was kind of a joke.

It was not meant as a fear mongering but your tirade shows you took it that way. But I wonder if you have no fear then why exlode into anger like it you did.

Take it as a joke. Lighten up, you'll be happier.

Riiiiiiiiigghhhtt. It's important, when condemning others to the hellfire, to maintain the posture of a gentle, loving soul. Merry Christmas! Drive safely! Don't let the bedbugs bite!

It reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Spy magazine, a list of tips for airline flight attendants: "Oven mitts do much to convey the illusion of heat."

> Take it as a joke.

Oh, I do. I do.

Here's another story of the matchless benefits of religion!

"It is us who need to learn humility, humbleness, and how to be grateful for all the Lord has given us."

This reminds me of another quote I read recently. If anyone knows its source I would be grateful.

"Humility is not the renunciation of pride, but the substitution of one pride for another."

> "Humility is not the renunciation
> of pride, but the substitution of
> one pride for another."

That was me!

Not really, but I wish....

What's with this need to be worshipped all the time?

This is a fascinating theological question, so forgive me for taking it at face value.

Worship is a person acknowledging God. To not worship is to deny God. God, being incapable of self-deception, won't say "you're OK" if you deny him, because if he's real and you deny him you're factually incorrect.

The standard by which God judges sentient decision-makers is by comparing them to himself, i.e., perfection. Do you measure up? If you're perfect, then yes. (Obviously nobody does.)

Gee. Google. Whodathunk? It was Eric Hoffer:

http://www.drmardy.com/oxymoronica/masters/hoffer.shtml

Heh. If ignorance is bliss, than the vast majority of people are orgasmic.

Flynne wins this thread o.O

Let me play, err, "angels advocate" here.

Given that many people are indeed merely walking biohazards, the community, regardless of the identity of their faith, does influence individuals by inclusion. You cannot deal with any part of a society without obeying its customs.

Here, it would be appropriate to say that the USA is what it is, not only because of geography, but because it was settled and its future determined by English Protestants. We are not Spanish Catholics, and so we are not Mexico; not Portuguese Catholics, therefore not Brazil; not French anything and therefore not Quebec.

And you can make an equally trivial case that the lesson of sacrifice for another is the principal reason American democracy has survived this long.

It is natural for people who long for "the good old days" - that is, only the good parts they choose to remember - to select American mid-'50s history as the Golden Age they desire. That's when the gas station could put quarts of oil out by the gas pump and people wouldn't steal them.

Unfortunately, that's a simple solution that's just plain inadequate.

The Founders set up a country that could vote itself into fascism if it wanted. I see that happening as people vote themselves money and other advantages. That they do so is not correlated to their faith, but to their ignorance of how the country works.

My experience with the pointedly devout has been uniformly negative, while the quiet ones deliver what they promise.

Two things.

First, assuming god exists, no one has ever presented evidence as to why their god, or their version of jesus(of over 3,000 recognized demonination of jesus) is the correct one.

There are thosands of gods, and thousands of distinct versions of jesus - so whixh one is the right one as 99% of them claim worshipng the worng one gets you an eternity of torment

2nd thing, in the old tesetemnt god directed one of his prophets sons to tear down an alter to Baal and build one to him, when the worshipers of Ball wanted to kill him his father chanllaged Baal to appear and defend himself - if he were a true god he would have power afterall.

So why is it heretical to expect god to answer his own challange?

If he were a true god he could appear and defned himself, it is a challange he thru his prophets delivered to the followers of 'false' gods, so why cant the jackass do it himself?

"Heh. If ignorance is bliss, than the vast majority of people are orgasmic."

We agree there, though not for the same reasons.

momof4 why is your jesus better than the jesus created by serial killer King Henry the 8th?

Why is your jesus more correct than the mormons version?

Why is you jesus better than the one worshiped by the quakers or the catholics, or the greek orthodox??

And why is Jesus better than Marduk, Shiva, or Ishtar?

> no one has ever presented evidence
> as to why their god, or their
> version of jesus(of over 3,000
> recognized demonination of jesus)
> is the correct one.

Loojy, writing that way makes you sound like beginner, like a little kid who's never had this argument before and assumes nobody else has, either. But ALL of them have presented evidence. This has been going on for thousands of years. You might not have read those supporting arguments, and might not believe them if you did. But saying they've never been presented makes it seem naive rather than punctilious.

> in the old tesetemnt god directed
> one of his prophets sons to tear
> down an alter

If you're so into this, and so eager to tell people what the consequences of their rhetoric are, why don't you go find someone to do that with? In person I mean. A debate club, a coffee house near a seminary where you live, someplace like that.

If this really means as much you to as it seems to, you deserve to give yourself more detailed answers than anyone's every going to type into a blog comment.

Just wanted to point out, Radwaste, I was talking about the US, now... not anyplace else. Yes I have various ancestors that were chased out of various places because of their religion. WE ALL HAVE, because until quite recently the idea of irreligeon really didn't exist. The average person believed in something, to deal with what they couldn't explain themselves.

As for gas chambers, you might imagine that Dachau and Buchenwald would have an effect on an 18 year old, especially since Buchenwald was in the DDR at the time, so there was a certian doubling effect. I have been there and seen them and spent as much precious time as possible with two grumpy old guys with crude numbers tatooed on their forearms.

But. At the risk of confronting goodwin's, Hitler killed because of race, NOT religion. I don't think Pol Pot or Stalin, or Mao cared much about that either. What they cared about is power. What they murdered for was power.

Does it seem like that is what is going on in this country, by Buddist, Jews, or Rastafarians? It Seems like the only religion right now that is bent on killing is Islam. But as with Pol Pot, they don't need religion for that. The Somalis aren't killing each other over religion.

The Whatstheharm site kinda proves my point, that it's all about different things that humans think. After all, Eisntein had a REAL problem with quantum theory... and the idea of Dark Matter was a place holder till they figured out where they were wrong. Now it looks like it is really out there. And? Multiverse theory, would seem to act like a lot of unexplainable phenomena, whan viewed from our limited perspective of 4 dimensions.

It's all well and good to be evidence based about everything, until you do not look beyond what is evident. Men cannot fly, then they cannot fly greater than the speed of sound, they cannot go to space, etc. etc. etc. Just because everything is possibly explainable in the universe, doesn't mean you will be capable of understanding it all. In fact it's pretty easy to demonstrate where people don't understand stuff.

The demand that there be no religion is simply another religion, as zealous and wrong headed as any. Trying to explain why things work the way they do, is the hallmark of any civilization. But what would it look like to us if a person who lived in 8 dimensions reached through ours for some reason? What evidence would we have for that? [other than all of them being called John]

You want to point at me and say "ya dumb Lutheran, beleiving in what you can't see..." Go for it, my faith doesn't depend on YOUR belief. But, pragmatically, I'm pretty much like anyone else. Laws in this country, and indeed most countries, bear a striking similarity to the laws in my religion. I take a breath the same way, wish to be loved the same way... so, right now, in this place, what will the difference be to me OR to you OR to anyone else if I start believeing that there is no god, gods, God or Dog? Will anyone be able to tell the difference but me?

It's important, when condemning others to the hellfire, to maintain the posture of a gentle, loving soul.

Christians (at least those I'm acquainted with) don't condemn anyone to hellfire. They believe that God will so condemn anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus. A loving Christian will try to convert you to his belief because he doesn't want you to suffer that fate.

Brett's statement "I always think that if you choose to deny the existence of God you had better be right when you die" is not mockery nor arrogance. It's the equivalent of "If I'm right that a train is coming, you'd better get off those railroad tracks."

Crid I started studying religion when I was 10.

Growing up mormon you are supposed to be baptized at 8, and I figured if god whould appear to Joseph Smith in person the least he could do is give me some sort of sign other than the 24hr a day bullshit guilt storm coming from my father and local church leaders.

I finally got baptised just to shut them up, and it worked, seems once I was dunked under the magic water they no longer cared about any of my concerns.

By the time I was 18 I had studied everything I could get my hands on, I debated the only catholic priest for 50 miles in any direction to the point where he refused to talk to me because I became a threat to his faith.

As to why I talk about it here? Beuase there is a thread on it, but I'll talk about it with anyone anywhere once they bring it up.

The problem is there are vey few people who know even the basic tenents of their particulay brand of christianity let alone its foundations in thru catholocism back into juedism. And even fewer who know anything about other belief systems aside from a shallow knowledge of greek mythology (usually learned theu half assed movies and television shows)

In my admittedly biased opinion, my old hometown Prague is the most beautiful city on earth. There is some truly wonderful bit of architecture there for every day of every year of it's more than a thousand years of existence as a Christian city. But there is not a single building, monument or any structure of any sort built during it's 40 years as a communist city that isn't hideously, indescribably ugly, and that doesn't deserve to be demolished, if it hasn't been already. The Christians I know have an explanation for this. All of those beautiful buildings and other works of art were created by Christians as an act of worship, and as an expression of the beauty & truth that they believed was the essence of Christianity. Communism, on the other hand, was a false god. It's essence was envy, lust for power, and evil, so it's no surprise that nothing but death & ugliness ever came from it. Just as vaccination protects your physical health from disease, worship protects your spiritual health from false gods like communism, and helps to keep you focused on the beauty & truth that those early Christians put into their art.

That sounds simplistic to me, but no matter how ridiculous or irrational the things I hear from Christians are, I can't work myself up into an angry lather over them, because I just don't see them as a threat. Socialism & Islam really are mortal threats to liberty in the civilized world in the 21st century. Christianity isn't.

True, but let's not pretend that this is how religions just naturally play themselves out. A whole lot of improbable and accidental things, as well has a lot of deliberate and hard-earned things, had to happen before Christianity would cease to be a rudely oppressive force.

It's like intelligence in biology. Because it happens to be here now and we find it agreeable, we think it was naturally in the cards.

Nope....

In the unlikely event that God exists

Either G-d exists or he does not. Though if G-d (or the godhead or ultimate ground of existence of what-have-you) doesn't exist, then reality is awfully left lookin awfully boring.

But in any event, someone who talks about the "likelihood" of G-d existing is totally clueless.

> awfully left lookin awfully boring.

Says you! The Godless summer of '77 was one of the best of my life! Excitement everywhere! Girls, school, work, concerts....

> someone who talks about the
> "likelihood" of G-d existing is
> totally clueless.

Why? I'm presuming but not certain that you think God exists. But why do you think it's inappropriate to be uncertain?

I say it's completely reasonable to be uncertain because of the obvious fallabilities we have - and because of the undeniable presence of uncertainties in the most advanced methods of measurement.

You cannot pick up a pencil the same way every time. You do not know where you came from, how you got here or where you're going. Yet you define certainty at every step of your life, unaware that your definition merely allows you to get on with your life as you see it.

"But ALL of them have presented evidence."

Not unless a fallacy, sometimes many, are embraced. "That word does not mean what you think it means." Not when used in religious argument. Check SwissArmyD's inclusion of Two Wrongs, for instance.

More — I think the guy earlier tonight was way wrong... It was fun to tease him for being scared of death, but that didn't seem to be his main motivation. Religion seemed like a way for him to maintain a lot of social and emotional distance from other people while still pretending to be a basically nice guy. That's what he was in it for...

(I hate when people do that. Part of my own Christian heritage is to think clearly about humility, and too many believers don't.)

But I don't really understand what people mean by "what you choose to believe." How much choice do we have? A lot of human beliefs have shoddy substantiation, but on the other hand, our biology is about pattern-seeking through observation.

The word "feelings" works this way, too. People confuse feelings and reactions. Vision is a feeling. If you wear a blue shirt and I have a clear view, I can't claim that by my feelings, you're wearing orange. Not everything in our outlook is up for grabs. Our perceptions are boundaries for our beliefs, they're not raw material that can be converted to whatever we want.

How amused is God supposed to be if we claim allegiance without sincerity? And wouldn't He know? When someone tells you you'd better believe or else, how exactly is the "faith" that they're instilling in your heart supposed to go down in the Big Guy's office?

Meanwhile, there are a whole lot of people who are taking the opinions of others too seriously, or not seriously enough, or are doing their own study about the existence of God. They're right or wrong, but however whichever side you come down on, I don't see much good that comes from mocking the undecided as "totally clueless".

But why do you think it's inappropriate to be uncertain?

Because if there is G-d (or "ultimate reality"), then you and your amateurish attempts to make sense of things have no more significance than a lab rat that keeps pushing a lever after the experimenter has removed the food. And the notion that you can subject G-d's existence to your notion of "probability" is particularly arrogant. At most you can say, that "my world works fine without God".

Philosophers like Wittgenstein argued that human reason is limited to explaining our own experience, and that our sense of the "beyond" remains impervious to scientific analysis. This obviously leads to a kind of agnosticism.

> Not unless a fallacy, sometimes
> many, are embraced.

I just do not, do not, believe that your survey of the arguments for the existence of God has been all that exhaustive or all that conclusive. There are as many reasons for believing in God as there are people who believe in God.

I think they're wrong too, but have some respect for what you're up against.

> Because if there is G-d (or
> "ultimate reality"

1. Why are you being a pussy about spelling out God? I've never understood that.

2. Who are you quoting? The phrase "ultimate reality" had appeared nowhere in this thread. What's ultimate about it?

> then you and your amateurish
> attempts to make sense of things

Well, geez, I can't strike back having just made that same point to Raddy, except to say that the existence of God is hardly the sort of matter that could be entrusted to a professional class. This is not a lab problem, it's a human nature problem.

> have no more significance than a
> lab rat that keeps pushing a lever
> after the experimenter has removed
> the food.

It's kinda weird the way you've got the whole scenario for mockery laid out like that, even though it doesn't tie into anything real at all. Just sayin'.

> your notion of "probability" is
> particularly arrogant.

The other guy said that too: we're "arrogant." Well, this is the theme of Amy's post, how religious people are always trying to get these very interpersonal emotional manipulations into play; 'the Lord is a Jealous God,' and all that. But those of us who don't believe in him risk offending no one— certainly no one with human sensitivities.

> This obviously leads to a
> kind of agnosticism.

Except when it doesn't.

"momof4 why is your jesus better than the jesus created by serial killer King Henry the 8th?

Why is your jesus more correct than the mormons version?

Why is you jesus better than the one worshiped by the quakers or the catholics, or the greek orthodox??

And why is Jesus better than Marduk, Shiva, or Ishtar?"

He may not be. I don't believe other religions are going to hell necessarily. I know there's a god, and think there's a lot of leeway on what one calls him. I'm sure jews are going to heaven, the bible's clear on that, and they don't believe in Jesus at all, so there you go. I don't think that people who kill others in the name of religion are doing what god wants, no matter what they call him. I'm not even sure what's going to happen to nonbelievers. I've taken more people to religion by taking them to church than Amy's unconverted, so she's got a long ways to go to cancel out me alone, much less the rest of us.

I don't think that people who kill others in the name of religion are doing what god wants, no matter what they call him. -momof4

What about in the bible where god commands the jews to kill everyone they run across in the 'promised' land?

I'm sure jews are going to heaven, the bible's clear on that, and they don't believe in Jesus at all

What I've always heard from fundy Christians is that no one goes to heaven unless (s)he either a) has lived a life completely without sin of any kind, or b) has, at time of death, accepted Jesus Christ as his/her Savior. I never heard of an exception for Jews. Could you point to where in the Bible it says this?

I'm sure jews are going to heaven, the bible's clear on that, and they don't believe in Jesus at all

What I've always heard from fundy Christians is that no one goes to heaven unless (s)he either a) has lived a life completely without sin of any kind, or b) has, at time of death, accepted Jesus Christ as his/her Savior. I never heard of an exception for Jews. Could you point to where in the Bible it says this?

Note: I apologize if this comment appears twice. I submitted it once and it didn't show up the way they always have before. Don't know if it got lost in the ether or is stuck in a queue somewhere.

"Socialism & Islam really are mortal threats to liberty in the civilized world in the 21st century."

You were not reading newspapers lately. We are in the world wide recession right now and it has nothing to do with socialism and Islam.

If you lived in this "civilized world", you are mostly likely two months behind your credit card payments and three months behind child support payments. Probably, you have not seen your children at least for four months and five months for your divorced mother or father. You have not visited your grand parents in nursing home for at least six months. Most likely you hate or dislike all of them. Also, you are overweight, suffer depression and use illegal drugs or have a drinking problem. Some people might disagree that this is the civilization we want to leave for the next generation.

Get off your high horse.

> We are in the world wide recession
> right now and it has nothing to do
> with socialism and Islam.

Of course it does! Of course it does. If all the nations who were having their productivity pissed away in socialism and their aspiration choked in Islam were able to participate fully in the modern life and modern commerce, there's no telling how good life could be on this planet.

A glass of Chardonnay at dinner, and the next thing you know, I'm turning tricks in an alley, trying to score meth.

That happened to me just last night. I'm sticking to Merlot from now on.

My mother the biblical scholar told me that in Judaism there's no concept of heaven or hell (as places you go).

That agrees with what I know of Judaism (which is very little for someone of Jewish ancestry). But it's still possible for someone who does believe in Hell to also believe that Jews are somehow exempt from going there. Momof4 said that the Bible is "clear on that"; I'm curious as to where in the Bible she found it.

"If all the nations who were having their productivity pissed away in socialism and their aspiration choked in Islam were able to participate fully in the modern life and modern commerce, there's no telling how good life could be on this planet"

For that to happen, we have to make a dangerous assumption that all of the players in the free market are "decent". Also, we have to assume that we all want the same thing, money earned not stolen.

If you reviewed the life of the Serengeti one fine day, you will find that neither of the two assumptions are true and will never be true.

You heard about the shot gun marriage between Merrill Lynch and BOA in 2008. During that marriage proposal, they mainly talked about how much they will be compensated while the Rome was burning down. Do you really think the rest of the world should follow the "naked capitalism"?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612736445024231.html

If you sold a million dollar mansion to an Amish, the first thing they do is to cut off electricity and build an out house. Our founding fathers nailed it. It is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", whatever hell that is. That may not result with "productivity" or "aspiration".

However, they have a right to hurt themselves if they wanted to.

"For that to happen, we have to make a dangerous assumption that all of the players in the free market are "decent"."

Because EVERYONE knows, under capitalism fraud and theft are legal, since, like, the law ceases to exist and stuff.

Chang america's been going socalist since before the fall of the iron curtin. We havent had anything resembling naked capitalism for as far back as I can remember

> For that to happen, we have to make
> a dangerous assumption that all of
> the players in the free market are
> "decent"

No we don't. You're making shit up. Free-market capitalism is the most desirable system because it encourages the best and challenges the worst. Of course it's more decent.

And why did you put that word in quotes? Who are you quoting?

> If you reviewed the life of
> the Serengeti

Social studies class, right? You saw a film... A travelogue! The Fascinating Customs of Distant Peoples or something. I can't wait for you to graduate high school, kiss a girl, and get a job... Maybe travel, accrue some responsibilities, get a learner's permit, meet some people, that kind of thing. You'll look back at these comments with a shame that scorches.

> the shot gun marriage between
> Merrill Lynch and BOA

It's senseless to complain about "shot gun marriages" and "naked capitalism" in the same breath. The present crisis is more the product of regulatory incompetence and overreach than of anything inherent to market exchange.

> It is "life, liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness", whatever
> hell that is.

Don't you know? You're such a snot. Seriously, you're an immigrant, right? Is this your way of trying to assimilate, assuming the worst social characteristics of your native teenage friends?

> That may not result with
> "productivity" or "aspiration".

So you're saying people have no right to productivity and aspiration? Will you be telling them this personally? How do you expect they will respond to you?

> they have a right to hurt
> themselves if they wanted to.

No. They do not have the right to hurt themselves. First of all, because "themselves" almost always means an enriched, powerful elite shitting on an impoverished, unarmed underclass. Second, because the hurt is never contained withing local borders. It almost always leaks out, which is why Hawaiians are teaching their kids to look out for falling misiles this year.

For that to happen, we have to make a dangerous assumption that all of the players in the free market are "decent". Also, we have to assume that we all want the same thing, money earned not stolen.

If you reviewed the life of the Serengeti one fine day, you will find that neither of the two assumptions are true and will never be true.

Your fallacy is that you're letting the loser of the contest define the morality of it. Of course the slow gazelle thinks the lion is evil! And, naturally, the starving lion harbors ill thoughts about the fast gazelle who refuses to become his supper.

But it's a level playing field every day. Both the lion and the gazelle know what the rules are and what it takes to survive.

Chang's not a very compassionate guy...

My mother the biblical scholar told me that in Judaism there's no concept of heaven or hell (as places you go).

I thought the Jews were in afterlife limbo due to the closing of the gates of Heaven (original sin). That's what the whole "waiting for the Messiah" thing is about.

"Of course it's more decent.

And why did you put that word in quotes? Who are you quoting?"

You. And you walked right into the trap I set up.

"But you can't apply that mentality to other people, for two reasons:

• It doesn't work: You're not that smart.

• It's immoral: You're not that decent.

Posted by: Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 14, 2009 12:18 PM"

"So you're saying people have no right to productivity and aspiration? Will you be telling them this personally? How do you expect they will respond to you?"

I did not say that. They have a right to productivity or aspiration to become (fill in the blank).

They have a right to become the most efficient cocaine producer if the local law allows it. Did you know that the locals chew cocaine leaves to kill the hunger pain? Just because it conflicts with our national best interests, you cannot tell them not to grow it. You cannot do that for two reasons.

"• It doesn't work: You're not that smart.

• It's immoral: You're not that decent."

"Your fallacy is that you're letting the loser of the contest define the morality of it. Of course the slow gazelle thinks the lion is evil! And, naturally, the starving lion harbors ill thoughts about the fast gazelle who refuses to become his supper."

That is not what I meant. I was more thinking about the gazelle, which was just killed by the fast moving cheetah. But the just killed gazelle is most likely going to be eaten by the slow but stronger hyena though.

Do you think this is "decent" free market? If we are going to let the cheetah go extinct, fine, it is decent free market.

Otherwise, we need park management to ensure the survival of the cheetahs. The socialism is inevitable.

So the cheetah's role is to ensure the survival of the hyena by chasing down the gazelle?

That would make it in the hyena's best interest to leave enough just-killed gazelle for the cheetah to eat.

And in the cheetah's best interest to learn to eat fast.

No park management necessary.

Did you know that the locals chew cocaine leaves to kill the hunger pain?

The locals chew the leaves of the coca plant. Big difference.

There's a fairly involved extraction and conversion process to turn those leaves into cocaine.

Just because it conflicts with our national best interests, you cannot tell them not to grow it.

No, but I can use my superior military to obliterate their crops...thereby making doing what is in my best interests in their best interests as well.

Is it "decent?" No. But as long as everyone know the risks, it's fair.

"And the notion that you can subject G-d's existence to your notion of "probability" is particularly arrogant."

I had to quote this because it exposes a major segment of reality, of which the typical zealot (yes, I've been doing this a long time) is blissfully unaware.

Hey: it's not anyone's "notion".

Probability is a concept of actual utility, used to map the functioning of the processor on your desk, determine the likelhood of your death on the highway, find sunken ships and aircraft and enumerate the confidence one should have in measurement.

It's not fiction, and at least all but one religion is. Hope you picked the right one!

> you walked right into the trap

Chang, the market isn't something people do to each other from positions of authority. It's the place where what's decent and what's worthwhile get priced. Markets test the brains and decency of all parties in every transaction... It keeps things from getting out of hand.

Seriously, what year were you born in? Are you in 7th grade? And have you met Pseudy, from this thread? He has daydreams of telling people how to live their lives, just like you do. You guys could hang....

I mean it.

Probability is a concept of actual utility, used to map the functioning of the processor on your desk,

Probability doesn't enter into it. Take it from someone who built a 4-bit CPU for Senior Project.

Processors are purely deterministic. There are experiments going on with quantum computers, and those are certainly probabilistic, but that Intel Core 2 Duo (or 80286, for that matter) is strictly deterministic.

See: State Machine

As a Christian, I believe there is a God and there is evidence. The Bible has been proven correct over and over time and again. For example the book of Daniel spoke of 4 earthly Kingdoms Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome with 3 of the 4 kingdoms not in existance at the time the Book of Daniel was written. Even though it does not give the names of these kingdoms, it gives enough information to know who they are.

As for God sending people to Hell, he doesnt, you send yourself there by your own free will. The Bible is very clear when a person dies, they return to the dust of the earth and sleep in death until one of the two resurrections- the first of life and the second resurrection which leads to annihilation or Hell fire, which burns up the wicked leaving no trace of them ever again. Hell fire does not exist today, nor does last forever and ever as many believe.

Jesus Christ was a real, live person that is a fact and the Bible has been proven true.

Amy, were you ever a believer in Judaism?

So dragon, in mentioning these four great societies with out acctually mentioning them, or any details about their locations, governments, philosofies, notable citizens, time frames.

How exactly did he describe them in great detail(without any acctual details) that you know what he was refering to?

brian: branch prediction. MTBF for the processor. Production stats for the construction of the same processor.

A processor operates by the laws of nature. A complete measurement of those laws includes uncertainties. That's all there is to it.

"...the Bible has been proven true."

That locations mentioned in the Bible are real is not at issue.

However: no "Flood" occurred - and there isn't a way to test assertions that anybody came back to life after really being dead. No test = no proof. You're not predisposed to think about these things because there is no reward for you to do so.

Rad - I think the term you wanted wasn't "probability", but "statistical analysis".

And branch prediction in some architectures isn't really predicting anything, it's actually executing both possible code paths in parallel until one or the other blocks waiting for the result of a previous instruction.

Hmm. It's not irony - what is it when somebody denies the idea of probability with a sentence including the word, "possible"?

"Christians believe that God created the entire Universe. The universe is a freaking amazing thing. If God did create it, doesn't he deserve some props for that? When you finish your book do you want your friends and family to acknowledge what a cool thing it is you just created?"

Question for Elle:

Can you point to something that has been "created"?

I'll wait.

No - chances are, you're pointing to something that was converted from something else.

Even if you point at a newborn, no violation of the laws of nature occurred. Matter and energy were converted, not created or destroyed.

"Creation" is a human invention. We say it without thinking too hard about what is said. We engage in doublethink when we try to claim "God did it" without asking where God came from.

Not knowing does not mean that a superpower did anything.

Not knowing does not mean that a superpower did anything.

Posted by: Radwaste

It does to the mentally deficeint