About a minute and a half into the clip, Mr. Hitchens clearly identifies (while apparently taking for granted everyone else understands) a clear deficiency in English: the language does not have a proper word to describe the inherent dichotomy of religious belief.

Deism and Theism are two different things.

The former refers to the existence, or not, of some deus ex machina.

The latter refers to a particular instantiation of that deus; ie, a religion.

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who finds the metaphysical claims of all religions baseless. In contrast, a theist is one who finds the claims of all religions but one to be baseless.

In contrast, an adeist is one who conclusively denies the possibility of some prime mover, while a deist insists upon one.

Unfortunately, English does not make the distinction. Atheism collapses the two concepts. NB: it is possible to simultaneously be an adeist and a theist -- perhaps most liberal Anglican priests belong in this category. It is not necessarily contradictory to find a particular religion's god impossible, while concluding that religious belief is essential to an orderly society.

Regarding deism / adeism, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position. Just because the question makes grammatical sense does not mean it is answerable, or that any answer is not self-contradictory.

However, with respect to theism / atheism, the terrain is far more clear: all religious metaphysical claims are bunk.

> agnosticism is the only
> intellectually honest position.

Tell us again the difference between intellectual honesty and the reg'lar, old-fashioned kind of honesty. It's never been clear to me.

So I have this fear that "intellectual honesty" is the sort of thing folks worry about when they're trying to impress people about being smart without having to follow through....

(PS- If memory serves, Hitchens himself has pulled that stunt a couple of times. Weird behavior for a guy who wrote a book about Orwell)

"Why is it, he asks, that the religious are so determined to be slaves?"

Being told what to do is always easier than figuring it out yourself, that's why. Especially if you can convince yourself that you'll never be exploited.

That's also why crimes by the clergy are considered - by some - to be excusable. That protection is too precious to surrender.

I've just had a guy on a forum tell me that truth depends on whether you accept it. This sort of mental aberration isn't rare; it seems to me to be a product of continually redefining "truth" and rejecting consistency in an ongoing suspension of disbelief in order to feel good about religion.

"Why is it, he asks, that the religious are so determined to be slaves?"
----
The pretext of this statement is wrong unless you can't make a decision in your life without consulting your religion. In other words letting it completely control you.

Christianity brought man out of the dark ages.
The morals provided by Christianity are a guide and a seemingly correct way to live ones life whether you believe or not.
People who violate certain morals have a lot more trouble in their life.
As an example if you violate The Ten Commandments you are inviting trouble into your life.
Christianity has provided a direction and guided the U.S. to be the most prominent nation on earth.

Crid writes (emphasis added):

So I have this fear that "intellectual honesty" is the sort of thing folks worry about when they're trying to impress people about being smart without having to follow through....

Crid, I don't need you to make it quite that easy for me.

Atheism is further defined as the "weak" atheist position and the "strong." The weak atheist holds no belief in God. The strong atheist maintains there is no God.

By the way, I loved his comments on North Korea. "It's a necroposy. It's a fatalocracy. It's one short of a trinity, I might add. The son is the reincarnation of the father. It is the most revolting, and utter and absolute and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved, but at least you can fucking die and leave North Korea."

I'm not sure violating the Ten Commandments necessarily invites trouble... I mean with things like adultry, sure, but keeping the Sabbath and not having idols? I'm not sure someone who works Sundays, or plays golf, or otherwise doesn't keep it holy is inviting trouble into their life.

Again with the anti-god? Someone lift the needle, please! The record's stuck.

Time brought man out of the dark ages.

The morals provided by Philosophy are a guide and a seemingly correct way to live ones life.

People who violate certain morals have a lot more Fun in their life.

As an example if you violate Another you are inviting trouble into your life.

Capitalism has provided a direction and guided the U.S. to be the most prominent nation on earth.

> I don't need you to make it quite
> that easy for me.

Huh?

Thank you, MeganNJ! Why the hell do religious people abondon common sense when it comes to defending what they were raised to believe in?

"if you violate The Ten Commandments you are inviting trouble into your life"

OK, I'll refrain from worshiping your false god. Or any other.

a child beat/raped/molested by a parent is inviting trouble by disregarding them instead of honoring them when they grow up and leave home?

and someone on welfare, religious or not, should turn down the position if they have to work Sundays (or Saturdays depending on their personal interpretation of Sabbath) as doing so would invite trouble?

Atheism is further defined as the "weak" atheist position and the "strong." The weak atheist holds no belief in God. The strong atheist maintains there is no God.

I think you missed my point -- and the one Mr. Hitchens keeps making, both in his appearances and in the book.

Put it another way: what do you call someone who believes some sort of god exists, but all religions are a bunch of frequently evil malarky?

God and religion are not the same, yet the word we have available to us treats them as if they are.

> agnosticism is the only
> intellectually honest position.

Tell us again the difference between intellectual honesty and the reg'lar, old-fashioned kind of honesty. It's never been clear to me.

So I have this fear that "intellectual honesty" is the sort of thing folks worry about when they're trying to impress people about being smart without having to follow through....

Oh, sorry, thought the meaning was obvious.

Just because you can frame a question grammatically does not mean it is answerable:

Is 50-cent better than The Decemberists?

Emotionally, you might well prefer one to the other. Intellectually, however, there is no way to demonstrate the objective superiority of one over the other.

So, despite some preference for the answer, intellectual honesty demands you are agnostic with respect to the superiority of one over the other, because the question is unanswerable.

Does god exist?

Despite your emotional preference, or even deeply considered estimate, the question allows no resolution because either option leaves the fundamental problem untouched: agnosticism is the only honest position to take with respect to an unanswerable question.

Fortunately, we don't need to spend any time at all pondering the existence of god to discuss the manifold absurdities of religion in all its blood spattered glory.

It's been stuck for a long time as you know, momof3.

I keep wondering what the precipitating event was for Amy's continuous God/religion bashing. I can see not believing, but constantly referring to those that do as idiots and brainless indicates a deeper issue.

Must be that 'intellectual' honesty stuff. Whatever that is.

Amy:

Not quite right. Believing in god -- being a deist (Jefferson, Locke and Spinoza come to mind) -- never hurt anyone.

However, believing in God, an anthropomorphic being with knowable goals, jealousies, and very selective affections -- has led to all sorts of annoying and awful stuff on the rest of us.

So, let's leave god out of this, and talk about religion.

Let's start with something simple. Allah says believers must kill apostates. Discuss.

Crid, what I meant by my earlier comment is basically "too easy." It would have been very easy to springboard into a very cutting remark.

> Oh, sorry, thought the meaning was obvious.

Nope. Care to put it into words?

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no
God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1782

So why do so many people think that this country was founded strictly on Christianity?

Seriously, I really want to know.

Nope. Care to put it into words?

Apparently not. I just cannot think of any small enough for you.

> I just cannot think of any small enough

Or you were caught bullshitting. I love that!

Put it another way: what do you call someone who believes some sort of god exists, but all religions are a bunch of frequently evil malarky?

Cynical?

American? (Polls show overwhelming belief in "some kind of higher power" and underwhelming church attendance.)

As an anal retentive rules lawyer, it bothers me that Hitchens says "no reason" when he means "insufficient reason" and that Amy says "no evidence" when she means "insufficient evidence". It's obvious that there are some reasons and some evidence to believe in God, just as it's equally obvious that there isn't enough to convince these two people. Perhaps, by being imprecise, they reveal that their target audience is not smart people. Intellectual rigor requires careful wording.

We've had the evidence discussion before. Look up the definition of evidence (here's one); if you don't believe that any of that exists for God, then you're not being intellectually honest. "Scientific proof" is a subset of evidence, not vice versa.

I don't see why it seems to irritate some people so much that other people believe in god. Most of the people I know believe in god and so far they all still are capable of thinking for themselves and none of them have started a holy war (yet, I don't want to rule it out). I also can rub along with people who like Vince Vaughn movies and not feel the need to constantly attack them for it.

I agree there is a big difference between the belief in a god and religion. But I also think it's silly to believe that without religion we'd all live peaceful, accepting lives. Humans are born to see the world as us vs. them...race, nationality, religion, whatever we decide to impose as a separation.

"tends to lead to the infliction of all sorts of annoying and awful stuff on the rest of us." Amy...

Amy, isn't that a human condition? Some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century were perpetrated by people who didn't believe in anything but their own power. As often as you can point to religion, you can point to other things. Some people think what they wish, and have the absolute need to force everyone else to accept that, it isn't JUST the religious that do so. Leads me to conclude that humans are that way regardless.

Now, if you want to talk religion in a vacuum... well yeah, that's a different horse.

I find a lot of things interesting in the discussion, especially when it comes to the semantics of this word or that. Some of that is just a mental whack-job though. Interestingly in all my doctrine classes we always separated the idea of God from the idea of religion. The idea of religion being a human idea, and because they're not perfect, the idea isn't either. If we were perfect we wouldn't need saving [from a Christian perspective] I know people regard some religions as more absolute than others, but their own religion in their own mind? That is the strongest place to see that you aren't and cannot be perfect... so you just strive to get closer to it. There again we go someplace that seems to be the human condition, striving to be better. To know more, to make others and ourselves happy...

Which brings me to Rad's 'truth' Fact is demonstrable and testable, and truth depends on your own point of view. [the old saw? Truth is a 3 edged sword, my truth, your truth, and what is actually true.] But, most places on the earth, if I drop a rock, it will fall towards the ground. Fact. Earth rotates in such a way that the sun appears to come up in the east... great line in Indana Jones about that - if you want truth, a philosophy class is down the hall. Truth is one word we torture a lot. A lot of these words are.

For all the 10 commandments kids out there? If you are a Christian, didn't he give you a more important one? Love your neighbor as yourself? Ring any bells? Hey, couldn't that be common sense too?

ps. Flynne, I think people think about the founding in terms of Protestants, starting with the Puritans, flooding into the country. Not necessarily what the Founding Fathers believed personally. Actually I'd bet that most religions at the time REALLY had a problem with the plurality potential of religion in the future US...

> It's obvious that there are some
> reasons and some evidence to
> believe in God

Sez who?

I almost agree with you. In recent weeks here I've been tempted to say exactly the same thing in as many words. But when one listens to the preciousness and delicate wordings by which the best 'reasons and evidence' are presented, the attraction of placing one's immortal soul on the wager evaporates.

> then you're not being intellectually honest

Will SOME FUCKER please describe what's supposed to happen when we hear the words "intellectually honest"?

That is such horseshit. Stinky-stanky.

> I don't see why it seems to irritate some
> people so much that other people believe
> in god.

In this OK book, Sagan explicitly notes that an important component of almost everything we call culture is to make distance from other people. Except for the occasional tirade against noisy teenage music, this inherent human enthusiasm gets too little credit....

Especially in churches, which are supposed to be about compassion, and universal love, and sanctuary.

The typical God-botherer wants to believe I'm going to burn in Hell forever. At the very least, he wants to be able to speak of such an outcome without me taking a piss in his coffee in response.

Why on Earth should anyone be permitted to give such 'irritation'?

Fuck 'em.

God, that was a good post Pseudonym. Scientism irritates me. (Scientism is the view that all knowledge comes from empirical science.)

"Scientific proof" is a subset of evidence, not vice versa. (Pseudonym)

Scruton illustrates this in a helpful way. (I can't remember which book it's in.)

Suppose you are on trial for murder. You plead self-defense, and you decide to take the stand in your own defense. The prosecution asks, "Why did you shoot Mr. X?"

You might give a scientific answer, assigning most of the cause for the shooting to farmers and ranchers in the American midwest. The day of the incident, you had a steak and lots of corn. This was metabolized by your body in a chemical process that eventually culminated in nervous impulses that caused you trigger finger to abduct. This set off another chemical reaction that caused a bullet to speed out of the pistol into the other party. Setting off another chain of physical events that caused his heart to stop beating.

You might give another answer from human purpose, "I was afraid the bastard was going to stab me, and I didn't want to die."

So there are at least two ways we can answer the question, "Why?" In this case, and most others, the scientific answer, dealing only in physical causation, is unsatisfactory and even nonsensical. Most of the time we don't want or need scientific answers. Most of the time, we deal in human purposes. That's why literature is of a fiction, but it still can be true.

For questions of religion, we ought to look to purpose not to physical causation. Throughout human history, most people have found religion to be supremely useful. Why? Is religion useful? Why? Is there a God?

I doubt that you will find a sensible answer in science, one way or the other.

It's obvious that there are some reasons and some evidence to believe in God, just as it's equally obvious that there isn't enough to convince these two people. Perhaps, by being imprecise, they reveal that their target audience is not smart people. Intellectual rigor requires careful wording.

Intellectual rigor requires being very specific about your terms.

You are conflating god with religion. Mr. Hitchens is very specific on that point: the two are not even remotely the same.

There is no evidence whatsoever, no reason at all, to believe that any religion's instantiation of god, which thereby earns the capital "G", is other than a carefully tended fantasy.

We can easily substantiate that answer without spending even a moment on whether such a thing as "god" exists. Indeed, granting god exists still leaves plenty of room to demonstrate that no God ever has.

Will SOME FUCKER please describe what's supposed to happen when we hear the words "intellectually honest"?

Already done. My post at 7:08am, next to last para. Maybe if you read it out loud, instead of just moving your lips, you will be able to figure it out.

Based on previous performance, though, I am not optimistic.

Will SOME FUCKER please describe what's supposed to happen when we hear the words "intellectually honest"? (crid)

Crid, you asked the same question on this blog on 31 March 2008. Below is the reply I sent that very day.

You make 'intellectual' modify 'dishonest' as a quality, but mostly 'intellectual' in this sense is used as a category. So, people use the term 'intellectual dishonesty' to mean dishonesty about ideas, as opposed to simply lying about some observable fact like "that ditch is NOT two feet deep."

'Intellectual dishonesty' refers not to dishonesty in reporting the facts, but dishonesty in interpretation and theory about the facts. It's a useful distinction, IMHO. (Jeff)

I do believe this has been answered for you.

> I do believe this has
> been answered for you.

Every bit as convincingly as the existence of God; with as much fear and as much (baseless) ego. "Interpretation and theory" are not the sorts of things people should get precious about until they're getting advanced doctorates in philosophy... And people who do that know better than to try to impress at cocktail parties like ours.

"Intellectual honesty" is posturing, and nothing more. It's like when a normal guy begins a sentence with "I do believe..."

Don't kid a kidder.

"Why is it, he asks, that the religious are so determined to be slaves?"

For the same reasons people believe in unicorns and rainbows filled with skittles will bring "Hope and Change!" and thus they don't go beyond the fluff. But pardon me, thats only Christians or other peoples of faith who do that.

/agnostic-deist type person

"Interpretation and theory" are not the sorts of things people should get precious about until they're getting advanced doctorates in philosophy... And people who do that know better than to try to impress at cocktail parties like ours. (crid)

Heh. Nice way to unframe the occasion. This is not a cocktail party. It's a blog. In particular, it's a post about a philosophically abstruse topic: the metaphysical claims for the existence of a god. Yours is just the tired, old ploy, pretend to be something you're not.

Posturing may be a problem, but imposture is a lot worse, crid.

"Intellectual honesty" is posturing, and nothing more. It's like when a normal guy begins a sentence with "I do believe..." (crid)

Or like when someone ends a sentence with "at a cocktail party like ours," perhaps?

[posturing] Well, let's see. [/posturing] The debate over human-caused global warming: dispute over the interpretation of the facts. Disagreement between Keynsians, Monetarists, Austrians: dispute over interpretations of the facts. Standard model vs. String Theory: dispute over mathematical interpretation of observed facts.

[posturing] Let me put another way. [/posturing] Facts don't explain anything. Interpretations and theories do. Honesty in the one doesn't imply honesty in the other. Since explanations are important, the difference has both effect and affect in the real word.

But maybe this is too abstruse for a grounded linguistic aesthete like yourself. [posturing] I get that. [/posturing]

People need hope, sometimes more than food and water and air. As science has not yet found a way to manufacture hope, God it is.

Let's all hold hands & go buy a t-shirt

http://store.theonion.com/are-your-cats-old-enough-to-learn-about-jesus-p-193.html

Isn't there any evolutionary psychology work being done on this topic, Amy? I would suggest people are to some extent hard-wired to look to the supernatural to provide comfort and/or good harvests.

"what's supposed to happen when we hear the words "intellectually honest"?" Crid

wait, isn't this one of those 'monkey throws the switch' things? Touch this panel and get pondering, touch the other one and receive an electric shock? ;)

Megan, all the cats I know have been worshipping Bast for the past several millennia. Because, you know, in ancient times, cats themselves were once worshipped as gods. They have never forgotten this.

o.O

"People who like Vince Vaughn movies don't try to legislate my behavior according to their movie-going habits" Amy.

Now THIS is an important takeaway, and the thing the irks me no end about some religious people. But, attacking their religion because of this, is self defeating. Why choose that method. Instead, call them on it, as you would any special interest group. "Your private belief is different from public policy." Public policy has to apply broadly to all, including those that believe that there are no gods, or that the earth itself is one, so you can't make X law that imposes your view on everyone without their consent.

Then you don't need to care if they think that the moon is made of goat cheese, or that praying to a piece of toast that looks like Jesus will cure their bunyons.

Attacking a person's religion makes it all about force of will, and how strong their faith is [here in the US, anyway], instead of framing the question as, "this must apply to everyone including you, even people at odds with your philosophy". I don't think this is too much to demand of all special interest groups, no matter if it's the Episcopalians, or AARP. Heh, such an optimist I am...

"I don't see why it seems to irritate some people so much that other people believe in god."

Maybe because it's so stupid? I am similarly irritated by people who think dowsing rods or scented candles cure people, or who waste money calling psychic hotlines.

Flynne, that makes sense. Esp w/ the stuck up little catbitches I have.

There's another one ...

http://store.theonion.com/kitten-thinks-of-nothing-but-murder-all-day-p-86.html

I don't see why it seems to irritate some people so much that other people believe in god. Most of the people I know believe in god and so far they all still are capable of thinking for themselves and none of them have started a holy war.....

Let's see how belief in god (or religion) effects me:

• Alcohol sales on Sunday have different rules from any other day of the week.
  
• Certain localities prohibit yard, garage and other types of personal sales on Sunday.
  
• If I have a concealed carry weapons license, in some locations, I am automatically committing a felony by carrying it in a house of worship.
  
• Hundreds of thousands of Muslims would consider me an infidel.
  
• I have to tell the JW's to get off my property every couple of weeks.
  
• The government has legislated -- and continues to do it -- what a woman can do with her body.
  
• RU-486 and the Morning After pill (and other drugs) are effected by religion.
  
• At one time condoms were also illegal, as well as all other forms of BC.
  
• The Pledge of Allegiance has been changed.
  
• My right to end my life with dignity is effected.
  

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

"People who like Vince Vaughn movies don't try to legislate my behavior according to their movie-going habits"

If that's truly your issue with religion, then talk about that. Telling me that I'm an idiot and a slave (of which I am neither) because I'm a Christian doesn't foster intelligent debate over what you claim is your problem with religious people.

I don't want to legislate your behavior. Nor do many like me. Believe it or not, not all religious people are the same! Some of us don't care what you do with your life so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

I don't want control over your decisions; hell, I don't even like to have control over decisions like where my coworkers and I are going to go to lunch.

But the way you've framed your argument easily leads one to believe that, in fact, legislation of behavior is NOT your problem with religion. That you hate religious people simply because they are religious.

There are some hateful religious people out there. But two wrongs don't make a right. Don't sink to their level in opposing them. Stick to the issues, stick to what actually affects you. My belief in God shouldn't matter one whit to you, just as your non-belief doesn't matter to me.

"That you hate religious people simply because they are religious."

I don't hate religious people. I don't even think they're stupid. There are smart people who believe stupid things because they have been convincingly misled. But I think religious beliefs are stupid. And therefore it's fun to make fun of them. Why should that bother you? You say non-belief doesn't matter to you, so if I'm not going to Christian sites and making fun of people, why are you coming here and getting all offended? Leave, so we can laugh about your silly superstitions and not make you uncomfortable.

Crid, I don't claim to be an authority on this subject, but this is what I understand about "intellectual dishonesty." The phrase "intellectually dishonest" might be a synonym for "disingenuous."

An example. I heard that Newt Gingrich was once describing how the Republicans were not decreasing the funding for Medicare, and he continued to point out that the proposed funding vs. the current funding was higher, hence called "an increase." He kept showing with his hands, for instance, current funding is down here, but new funding is up here.

Where does the intellectual dishonesty come in? The increase has not been adjusted for inflation and rising medical costs. Technically, while the numbers increase, they do not increase sufficiently to keep up with the rising costs. You'll still be less care.

Hence, the intellectually dishonest. On the surface, it appears honest, but it is keeping certain details from you, which would disprove the premise. In this case, Newt Gingrich was claiming that we're increasing the funding for Medicare, hence an increase. But if Newt had bothered to tell us that this increase would not pay for the current level of care being received because costs will increase more than the funding, you'd realize that what you're actually getting is a decrease. I cite this example because a supporter of Gingrich's, when confronted with the fact that these were not constant dollars, admitted to being "a little intellectually dishonest on this one."

Only a person with a grasp of the bigger picture would hope to catch Newt in this lie.

Pirate Jo -

I see my points have fallen on deaf ears.

"But I think religious beliefs are stupid."

Quite frankly, I think certain secular, atheistic beliefs are stupid. But I didn't bring that up as my first point, did I? Because what would that accomplish? At best, nothing, and at worst, anger.

"Why should that bother you? You say non-belief doesn't matter to you, so if I'm not going to Christian sites and making fun of people, why are you coming here and getting all offended? Leave, so we can laugh about your silly superstitions and not make you uncomfortable."

I didn't say I was offended, did I? I'm well used to hearing/reading stuff like this, and it doesn't really offend me unless it comes from a friend or relative, someone that matters to me.

Your non-belief is not an issue to me. It doesn't affect my belief or my life in any way. It's your business. However, your treatment of me and others does matter.

If you want to have an honest debate on religious issues, or political/legal issues as pertain to religion, then insulting people isn't the best way to do it. If you were a car salesman, and my first tactic in negotiating the price of a new car was to call you, say, a greedy cockmonger (or something you might find insulting personally, I don't know), that won't exactly make you want to give me the best price, will it? There's a good chance you would tell me to take my business elsewhere, and then you lose a sale and I don't get the car I wanted. Neither of us win.

My point isn't that I want you, or Amy, or Hitchens, to respect my beliefs. It'd be nice if you did, but I have no control over that.

My point is this: if your issue with religious people is that they try to abuse the legal system to force their behaviors on you, then starting a discussion on that issue is not best served by opening remarks calling them slaves, morons, unable to think for themselves, and the like. People don't like to be insulted, whether they're religious or not, and people certainly don't want to listen to the ideas of others who joyfully insult them. Civility matters.

"If you want to have an honest debate on religious issues, or political/legal issues as pertain to religion," ... "if your issue with religious people is that they try to abuse the legal system to force their behaviors on you,"

But I don't want to do that, and that isn't my issue. I just think it's silly to believe there is an invisible man living in the sky. It's also silly to believe in palm reading, leprechauns, to be afraid of black cats, or to think that Ouija boards and seances work. I'm not singling you out - I openly mock all forms of superstition, which is the only thing it's good for.

You are conflating god with religion.

No, I'm quoting:
Amy: "Hitchens: No Reason To Believe There's A God"
Amy: "Believing, sans evidence, in god"

That said, my statements about evidence are true for both God and religion.

There is no evidence whatsoever, no reason at all, to believe that any religion's instantiation of god, which thereby earns the capital "G", is other than a carefully tended fantasy.

If by "no evidence" you mean "no scientific proof" then I agree. If by "no evidence" you mean that nobody claims that it is so, then you're obviously wrong.

Let's see how belief in god (or religion) effects me

Most of those things are not caused by religion, but by the unfortunate belief that it is OK to legislate morality.

Just out of curiosity, Pirate Jo, do you gain anything by being hateful and mean-spirited? Does this make you happy?

Most of those things are not caused by religion, but by the unfortunate belief that it is OK to legislate morality.

Whose morality is it? The morals are based off religious tenets -- even the Islamic one of calling me an infidel. The Q'ran says convert, dhimmi or kill as part of its moral code.

"Why would it be 'hateful' to say that it's silly to believe, sans evidence, in an invisible man living in the sky, palm reading, leprechauns, Ouija boards or seances? It is."

I suppose it would depend on the context, but I think there's a big difference in that most people don't believe in leprechauns, palm reading, etc., and find them silly, whereas the majority of the world's population believes in some major religion or other.

"I think there's a big difference in that most people don't believe in leprechauns, palm reading, etc., and find them silly, whereas the majority of the world's population believes in some major religion or other."

I think it's remarkable! Most people are correct not to believe in leprechauns or palm reading, yet they still make the equally silly leap into believing in a religion.

"If by "no evidence" you mean that nobody claims that it is so, then you're obviously wrong."

What do these two things have to do with each other? Lots of people believe silly things, that doesn't make any of those things less silly. A room full of people who believe in the tooth fairy is not "evidence" that the tooth fairy exists, it's only evidence of a room full of people who believe something silly.

Now I don't want to hear from any tooth fairy believers calling me mean-spirited or hateful. I'm wiping away a tear as we speak.

As a Christian Scientist, I can agree with this. But how I perceive God is not how Christianity is typically practiced.

Most people, I hate to say it, see their God as the intangible authority that assures them they're better than someone who doesn't believe as they do.

It doesn't matter how good a person a non-believer is, or how bad a person a believer is, the believer is assured that God loves him and will keep this person in blessed paradise forever, and the non-believer will be tortured for all eternity. (And this, mind you, is the verdict of a God who's supposed to be "good" and "just." I'll think I'll call this deity Sadist Almighty.)

The believer does not need to surpass the non-believer in ethics, character or morals. He needs only believe in God and he is assured that he is a better person, and he can console himself with half-hearted attempts to better himself, and chiding himself for wrong-doing.

This is what God is. He's a license to look down your nose at those who don't think like you...for all eternity...shaking your head in pious pity. "See? You should have listened to us. You should have believed like we do. Now it's too late for you. Can't be helped."

Now, this is what people want. License to be assured that they're better than someone else no matter what evidence of character, ethics, morals exist to the contrary. I don't have to better myself to be better than someone else. I just have to believe in a dogmatic and doctrinal deity that SAYS I'm better. And I don't even have to prove what he says to anyone else. I just have to smugly TELL you he says I'm better.

"Christianity brought man out of the dark ages."

Please. It put him there first. For a thousand years, Europe lay in the grasp of the divine right of kings, with a twist: only if you were clergy would you learn.

Greek, Egyptian, New World astronomy was all suppressed by the church. Note where all the riches went during that era?

Now, go watch the ID fans lie and lie big. There's some religion for you.

I find it funny that several people will not acknowledge the good that Christianity has brought to the world.

You don't have to believe in god or be religious to acknowledge the good it has brought to mankind.

It doesn't matter if there is a god or not.
The morals of Christianity have advanced mankind.

As we fall away from these morals we get more and more social decay.

Dang. Missed the start of yet another "people who believe in religion are stupid" post. Atomic clocks are probably getting synchronized to Amy's numerous postings of this topic. :)

Just to join in the fun, I hereby reiterate my previously stated position as discussed in all the other times this same topic has been posted. Because THIS TIME, I might change somebody's mind! Please, go read my previous posts right now! :)

By the way, I enjoy Amy's blog and she can certainly post this topic as much as she wants. It is her blog. I just refuse to restate the same position over and over on this topic. For the record - I believe. Others mock those who believe. Wash, rinse, repeat.

David M., which morals are you speaking of, that you would say are uniquely Christian?

> Heh.

Be more fun to read.

> The phrase "intellectually dishonest"
> might be a synonym for "disingenuous."

So who needs the synonym? What extra detail does it convey? No matter how bright you are or how stupid you are or weather it's the middle ages or prehistory or next Tuesday, calling someone simply 'dishonest' is always plenty clear enough.

There's no magic clarity that comes from calling them "intellectually dishonest." That's just a way to pretend the world is so complicated the it takes special powers to describe with extra wrinkles of logic that the little people can't understand... The listener who assents to this manipulation is complicit.

Don't come cryin' when it don't work out. You wanted to worry about "intellectual dishonesty"... But there was no good reason for you to do so.

> do you gain anything by being
> hateful and mean-spirited? Does
> this make you happy?

Not speaking for PJ, but.... I love it! It brings me tremendous fulfillment to offer it as return fire to presumptuous, intrusive believers.

When everyone watches their boundaries, I don't bother.

> This is what God is. He's a
> license to look down your nose

Patrick understands. Religion is nourished by the bad parts of human nature.

Maybe 'intellectual dishonesty' means when someone is lying to himself, as opposed to lying to someone else. Another word for cognitive dissonance. I'm with you, Crid - it don't excuse nuthin'.

Crid, I'm not pretending to endorse the use of the term "intellectual dishonesty," or even understand it. I'm only offering what I believe is meant by the term. You seem so frustrated that no one would explain this to you, so I thought, "Well, I'm probably not the best person to answer this, but no one else seems willing to help him out, so..."

I'm guessing it is more subtle, by the use of nuance and half-truths and obfuscution, intending to mislead than, for instance, a blatant dishonesty, such as a bald-faced lie, such as "Fred Gomez" who stole Amy's pink Rambler. That is also a dishonest act.

All well and good, but people shouldn't pussyfoot.

Whoops, whether it's the middle ages...

Lunchbreak spelling, that

i'm currently reading a novel where the existence of god is scientifcally proven. not a particular god, just a being called god. obviously this novel is not evidence in this god's existence, that would be silly, but it's interesting for the "what if" angle.

"Again with the anti-god? Someone lift the needle, please! The record's stuck."

Now let's do a little experiment. Count the many blog posts Amy has about God against the many times you tell others and yourself "God is great! Gee isnt God grand!" That's all I ever hear about God from believers. Just how great he is!

Your "God" gives no favor to one man over the other. I'll do a little experiment:

I'm gonna raise my right hand up to the sky and point my middle finger at the L-O-R-D.
I'll say a nice "Fuck you God"

Ok that's done!

Guess what I have just a good a life as you!

Now explain to me why virgin girls in South Africa are raped to cure AIDS. Do you think I am more special than they are?

I give meaning to my life because I know I'm going to be in oblivion in several decades.

You give meaning to your life because there is a Man in the Sky. And this Man in the Sky also thinks you are sooo special. In fact anything good that happens to you is because HE favors you. Anything bad is because HE wants you to learn a lesson. And all that it comes down to? Believers believe in GOD because they are the special few who have been granted the clear insight into what the right belief is. Fuck what scientists think, you know the truth.

"You give meaning to your life because there is a Man in the Sky. And this Man in the Sky also thinks you are sooo special. In fact anything good that happens to you is because HE favors you. Anything bad is because HE wants you to learn a lesson. And all that it comes down to? Believers believe in GOD because they are the special few who have been granted the clear insight into what the right belief is. Fuck what scientists think, you know the truth."

Keith Olbermann impersonation?

I'm with the folks who can see flaws in rational behind lumping religion in with the God concept. There is a difference.

I've been bitching about "intellectual dishonesty" here for years. Tonight on the commute home I figured out why it's so annoying: It's a two-sided pander!

If you complain about "intellectual dishonesty" to someone who gets pissed off at you and leans back to take a swing, you can hold up your hand and say "Relax! I didn't call you a liar! I only said you were intellectually dishonest! And that's something else entirely, y'know.... It's complicated! So... We're cool! Can I freshen up that drink for you?"

But if the people around you are dull, inattentive personalities, you get to pretend that the "intellectual" part of the lie is some shared awareness and intricate perception... But none of them will ever bother to verify the common ground. They'll trust you!

(But of course, their loyalty is worth everything you paid for it.)

> I'm with the folks who can see
> flaws in rational behind lumping
> religion in with the God
> concept. There is a difference.

Not enough of one. I understand that people who know their lives have been enriched by having been cut a little slack –by being given a little extra financial space, or a little more patience with misconduct of some other kind– will often want to attribute redemptive power to emotional states of nebulous, unarticulated description. It's a frame of mind more pleasant than thinking how close we/I/you might have come to devastation, if only that one guy/gal hadn't been so nice about it... Whatever it was.

And the popular tongue likes to mock 'organized religion' anyway. I've been bitching about that phrase for years on this blog, too. Organized religion is the only kind that counts. Everything else is navel-gazing.

Ask me what kind of dusk I just had. Go ahead, ask. "Crid, what kind of dusk did you just have tonight in coastal California?"

Thanks for asking! It was fantastic. A typical June-sunny afternoon, but here near the wet part of Lotusland, as the sun fell, the oceanside air got all cool-breezy and thick and misty and heavenly. The scent in the briny breeze was truly seraphic. This is the time of year when West Los Angelenos laugh at the South of France for their gauche, clumsy weather. On an orange-to-pink evening like this, words can't describe the whispering clouds overhead. Our weather was literally nebulous.

It doesn't mean God was here, though.

Listen, if you want to invoke spirituality outside the Church and still keep people's attention, the best approach is through sexuality. As America's only five-star General Omar Bradley once put it, "There is no second prize.

Freakin' busted links. From now on, everybody does their own Googlin'... No more hand-holding for the wimps. Dammit, research your OWN obscure allusions!

"I'm with the folks who can see flaws in rational behind lumping religion in with the God concept. There is a difference"

The "God concept", everything is about the "God concept" Even religious folks like to talk about the "God concept" before they try to lure you into their particular brand of belief. Everyone and anyone who has a belief in the supernatural tries to talk about how the "God concept" is seperate from both science and religion.

Almost everyone on planet earth has a belief in a God, so why cant I seperate that from religious belief and take it as a feeling of something real.

Because it's just a feeling. There isnt a "God". There are natural laws and it our duty to figure out what those are. They do not deserve worshipping. Live without a "God concept". Free your mind. Dont you understand? Just because you feel or sense there is a God doesnt mean there is one.

Purp. You are a little spazzy.

If you complain about "intellectual dishonesty" to someone who gets pissed off at you and leans back to take a swing, you can hold up your hand and say "Relax! I didn't call you a liar! I only said you were intellectually dishonest! And that's something else entirely, y'know.... It's complicated! So... We're cool! Can I freshen up that drink for you?" (crid)

Gawd. You are on cocktail binge. Or is it a winge.

You don't like white-collar dishonesty, and you don't want us to think it's any better than blue-collar dishonesty. You're right. You're not wrong to worry about it.

But let's not lose a distinction because it's sometimes, even often, misused. Abuse doesn't remove use. Where you you see "intellectual honesty" written without abuse, or as mere emphasis used like "he himself" -- at those times, lighten the hell up buster. Pretty please. Fuck the sugar on top, though.

We're not all professional wordsmiths, you know.

I find it funny that several people will not acknowledge the good that Christianity has brought to the world. You don't have to believe in god or be religious to acknowledge the good it has brought to mankind. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. The morals of Christianity have advanced mankind. As we fall away from these morals we get more and more social decay.

We have hard-wired morality, dear. The fact that people are gullible enough to believe, sans evidence, that a big man in the sky gives a shit about them is just some kind of evolutionary fuckup, probably because some for irrationality was, in some way, less costly for humans in terms of their survival or reproduction.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 24, 2009 4:46 PM
----------------
If we have so much "hard-wired morality" why do we have so much drug use, infidelity, stealing, welfare etc..????

If we have so much "hard-wired morality" why do we have so much drug use, infidelity, stealing, welfare etc..????

Oh, that's called "free will". Everyone's got "free will"! It's when YOU try to impose your "free will" on ME that I get pissy about it.

IJS

o.O

I find it funny that several people will not acknowledge the good that Christianity has brought to the world.

You know what I find funny? That the christians who want atheists to point out the good christianity does seem incappable of answering their own challange

The fact that people are gullible enough to believe, sans evidence,

Believing something without scientific proof is normal.

Most of those things are not caused by religion, but by the unfortunate belief that it is OK to legislate morality.

Whose morality is it? The morals are based off religious tenets

Would it be OK with you if the morals imposed in your locality were not religious in nature?

I disagree with the notion that only religious people have morals.

If we have so much "hard-wired morality" why do we have so much drug use, infidelity, stealing, welfare etc..????

Oh, that's called "free will". Everyone's got "free will"! It's when YOU try to impose your "free will" on ME that I get pissy about it
---------------
That would be saying then that morality is not "hard-wired" and that due to "free will"
morality may be a guide to get people to be better behaved and treat their fellow man better.
A good book to read is Born Liberal Raised Right by Reb Bradley.

If we have so much "hard-wired morality" why do we have so much drug use, infidelity, stealing, welfare etc..????

Oh, that's called "free will". Everyone's got "free will"! It's when YOU try to impose your "free will" on ME that I get pissy about it.

IJS

o.O
------
My point has been that you don't have to believe in god or be Christian. My point is that the morality that Christianity has brought has helped our society advance.

If "free will" rules over everything and morals are not beneficial because everyone posses this "free will" then why do more kids from fatherless homes committ more crimes and end up in jail? Is it a lack of morals or just pure "free will?"
These kids with fathers in the home and more morality are missing out on their "free will" and have a less chance of going to jail.

Pseudonym:

I wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever, no reason at all, to believe that any religion's instantiation of god, which thereby earns the capital "G", is other than a carefully tended fantasy.

Your response: If by "no evidence" you mean "no scientific proof" then I agree. If by "no evidence" you mean that nobody claims that it is so, then you're obviously wrong.

By "no evidence" with regard to a specific religion's instantiation of god, I mean something much stronger. How many active religions are there? Hundreds, thousands? Each of them makes specific claims that converts god into their specific God. However, all those Gods are mutually exclusive: if the Judaism are right, then Allah is a figment; if Islam is right, then the Jews are blinkered heretics. At the very least, one of those two religions is hopelessly wrong.

Now, extend that to all the world's religions. At least all but one is wrong, and the supposed Divine Revelations to all their various adherents nothing more than jumped up intra-cranial echoes.

So, religions themselves provide all the evidence needed to conclude that specific instances of god are nothing more than carefully tended fantasies.

Put it another way: all religionists are atheists about all religions other than their own. Atheists take that conclusion just one religion further.

David M:

I find it funny that several people will not acknowledge the good that Christianity has brought to the world.

I find it appalling that Christianity does not fully acknowledge its appalling treatment of Jews. Read "Constantine's Sword", by James Carroll, once a Catholic priest.

Unfortunately, Self referential twaddle burdens the book, but the bill of particulars against Christianity makes for extensive, horrific, reading.

> We're not all professional wordsmiths

Me neither. Be clear anyway

David M, way to throw a straw man. You can still be moral and exercise your free will. People do it all the time. The imposition of YOUR will over mine is what would piss me off. I don't like it when someone tries to tell me that his god is better than my goddess, fer instance. I worship my way, you worship yours, and that's that. Live and let live, as it were. Some people don't get that, especially the amoral ones. But for those of us who DO get it, we just want to be left alone. Savvy?

It's free will to choose self-will (in excess) without taking into consideration the impact your actions have on others.

Free will does not necessarily mean good will, or that a person will make moral choices.

On average, children raised in *healthy* two parent homes have the advantage of knowing from the start what good will, good decisions, responsibility for their actions and morality look like and exercise their free will accordingly.

The better direction you are given as a child and young adult, the better the chances are that the exercising of your free will be more in line with good will and have less of a negative impact on others. Two parent homes allow for twice the time, direction and attention.

Some kids who were not shown this in childhood are then left to resort to learning this by their consequences alone. Some learn lessons early and decide to exercise free will in a more moral way. Some don’t, and they wind up in jail.

Still, free will gives you the choice.

If they knew something different, would they still be making amoral decisions?

Hmmmm, what about Pandeism....?

David M, way to throw a straw man. You can still be moral and exercise your free will. People do it all the time. The imposition of YOUR will over mine is what would piss me off. I don't like it when someone tries to tell me that his god is better than my goddess, fer instance. I worship my way, you worship yours, and that's that. Live and let live, as it were. Some people don't get that, especially the amoral ones. But for those of us who DO get it, we just want to be left alone. Savvy?

Posted by: Flynne at June 25, 2009 8:58 AM
-------------
I see you still missed the point. That's okay.
I see religion is a hot button for you.
Restating my point in a simpler manner. You don't have to believe in god or Christianity. It doesn't matter if it is real or not. My point is the morality brought to man by Christainity especially in the U.S. has benefited man.
Just like Santa Claus benefits kids. It doesn't matter if it is real or not, there is still the benefit.
I am not posing my will over yours, I was merely making a point.
Yes you can have free will and be moral. Never said you couldn't. I'm saying most people need direction and guidance. If you don't need direction and guidance, good for you. You are the exception and not the rule.

Come now Flynne David M is right, everyone knows before christianity the earth was a wasteland roamed by beast posing as men killing and raping every warm blodded creature they ran across.

There was no law or science or art before chrisitainty and everyone routinly murdered anyone who looked at them oddly and ripped the still beating heart form children who dared sass their parents

Thank god the morals created by christianity which eceisted nowhere in the heart or minds of menn for all of human history until less than 2000 yrs ago

Show some apresciation damnit, or the christians will have to kill you

I'm saying most people need direction and guidance - David M

No Dave what you are really saying is that most people are too fucking stupid and weak willed to think for themselves and act in their own interest with out the biggest fucking stick ever imagined constanly being used to beat them into submission should they step out of line

No Dave what you are really saying is that most people are too fucking stupid and weak willed to think for themselves and act in their own interest with out the biggest fucking stick ever imagined constanly being used to beat them into submission should they step out of line

You have evidence to the contrary? Because from what I've seen most people ARE too stupid and weak-willed to act in a way that is not detrimental to society at large.

I'm sorry brian, isnt that what I just said?

It looked sarcastic to me.

I'm arguing in favor of keeping some form of religion around because there are too many people who would not otherwise be able to act in anything resembling a moral or sociable manner without the threat of eternal damnation.

I see you still missed the point. That's okay.
I see religion is a hot button for you.
Do you do this often? Tell people what's a "hot button" for them without even knowing them?

Religion is most certainly NOT a "hot button" for me; I'm not in the slightest what anyone could call "a religious person". I was brought up in a Christian household, true, but went down a totally different path once I caught on to the hypocrisy of the Church and most of the people that attend it.

If you don't need direction and guidance, good for you. You are the exception and not the rule.

I never said that. YOU did.

My point is the morality brought to man by Christainity especially in the U.S. has benefited man.

So it's only Christianity that has brought morality to man? The Jews are amoral then? The Bhuddists too? The Hindus as well? That's kinda strange, dontcha think? Morality only came into being with the advent of Christianity? I don't think so, David M.

Some people believe in a deity because they have had a religious or supernatural experience... seen one, heard one, witnessed some metaphysical happening. Perhaps these people are insane. But they believe in supernatural entities based on the observation of their senses.

I don't know if that is most people. Perhaps some of them are liars. Perhaps they are hallucinating. Perhaps they are misinterpreting. Perhaps they are a small minority of religious folks.

But it is awfully hard to logic people out of something they've seen or heard.

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

-- J.B.S. Haldane

"Fact and Faith" (1934)

For anyone still having trouble with the concept of intellectual honesty.

Point being?

Point being?

No point in particular, other than to help those, particularly you, who had so much trouble with this concept.

++++

More from the same WSJ article containing the Haldane quote:

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions."

Darn, forgot this site requires new HTML tags after each CRLF.

Both paras below the WSJ cite should be italicized.

So it's only Christianity that has brought morality to man?
Posted by: Flynne at June 26, 2009 5:16 AM
==========
This must be the straw man arguement that you referred to in an earlier post.

I only said that the morals of Christianity have benefited man. I didn't say only and I didn't put down Jews, Buddhists, or Hindu's.

I simply said AGAIN that the morals of Christianity have benefited man.
My point and only point.
You are trying to read into things I'm saying.

I see you still missed the point. That's okay.
I see religion is a hot button for you.
Do you do this often? Tell people what's a "hot button" for them without even knowing them?
Posted by: Flynne at June 26, 2009 5:16 AM
=====================
Usually people with hot button topics will get very excited and go off on tangents and change a persons talking point.

So do I have to know someone when I can see that they are doing this?

I only said that the morals of Christianity have benefited man. I didn't say only and I didn't put down Jews, Buddhists, or Hindu's. - David M

Very well Dave. Please list the morals that christianity gave to mankind that are attributable only to christianity and not found in nature or any other religion

I'm trying to come up with a new business model that demands 10% off the top from each of my customers' gross income each week.

Ideas?

I'm trying to come up with a new business model that demands 10% off the top from each of my customers' gross income each week.

I dunno, the feds take 42% off the top of mine. I'd say government is probably the way to go.

Just throwing the question out there...

What would you consider proof of a deity or other supernatural creature? What would you need in order to feel the existance of a supernatural being had been proven to you, so you had no doubts?

How about any of the miricles in the bible Nicole?

Make water sring out of a rock, make a fungus grow on the arizona desert floor that tastes like honey and is only good for 18 hours 5 days a week, good for 42 hours one day a week and never appears on the seveth day.

Bring someone obviously dead back to life and walk on water.

dived a fast flowing river by itting it with your jaeket so a few thousand people can walk thru the river bed and not get the slightest drop of moisture on them

Do all of these thing and then we'll talk

> those, particularly you,
> who had so much trouble
> with this concept.

You misunderstand the problem. It's not that it's new or unclear: Pompous obfuscation has been going on for several millenia. The problem is that even today, people seem like assholes when they deploy it.

This is what you said at the top:

Tell us again the difference between intellectual honesty and the reg'lar, old-fashioned kind of honesty. It's never been clear to me.

The word "honest" has several different usages:

honest |ˈänist|
adjective

• free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere : I haven't been totally honest with you.
• morally correct or virtuous : I did the only right and honest thing.
• [ attrib. ] fairly earned, esp. through hard work : struggling to make an honest living.
• (of an action) blameless or well intentioned even if unsuccessful or misguided : he'd made an honest mistake.
• [ attrib. ] simple, unpretentious, and unsophisticated : good honest food with no gimmicks.

The modifier "intellectual" clarifies which usage.

Now that you know the variations in the old - fashioned kind of honesty, is it clear to you now?

Which begs the question: how often do you have to make a fool of yourself before you learn to put a sock on it?

"Now, extend that to all the world's religions. At least all but one is wrong, and the supposed Divine Revelations to all their various adherents nothing more than jumped up intra-cranial echoes."

Why? Why can't most of them be right? Most of them believe in one creator of the Universe, one supreme being. The rest-lesser gods, angels, what have you, are lesser. So one could as easily argue that at least most are right, no? I rather doubt God's nitpicky on the the tiny details, if he even notices us. I chose to follow the bible as much as I can, and be good to others, but I don't damn other religions to hell. Well, except for the Islamics who want to kill us all. I do have a problem with them.

I mean, haven't you ever played telephone? Start with one message, run it through a few (million) people, it's going to change somewhat.

For a pretentious ass, you're a lot of playtime fun! But you've caught me having my own rhetorical frolic: This is really more about the second question, what's supposed to happen when we hear the words "intellectually honest".

You apparently expect people's hearts to swell with admiration, feeling certain that you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Do be in touch! We can tell you're a disciplined, demanding thinker! Keep giving us your best stuff!

crid:

You are nothing if not predictable.

Which begs the question: you do realize you were being played, right?

nicolek:

What would you consider proof of a deity or other supernatural creature? What would you need in order to feel the existance of a supernatural being had been proven to you, so you had no doubts?

lujip's answer was fine if what you were asking for was proof the Judeo-Christian God: all of lujip's suggestions added, without acknowledging, the additional requirement that these proofs include an awareness of human existence.

In other words, lujip still insists on equating religion and god.

So how about these proofs:

-- any occurrence so statistically improbable as to be essentially impossible within the lifetime of the universe. (See irreducible complexity)

-- crid no longer polluting every thread he joins.

Why can't most of them be right?
because god says no other gods before me, has a death penalty clause attached to that rule too

Most of them believe in one creator of the Universe, one supreme being.
Wrong, most of the worlds religions are polytheistic

The rest-lesser gods, angels, what have you, are lesser. So one could as easily argue that at least most are right, no?
if there are lesser gods then how do you know for sure your god isnt the lesser one?

I rather doubt God's nitpicky on the the tiny details,
re-read the law of moses

if he even notices us.
if you truly belived that you wouldnt be a christian

I chose to follow the bible as much as I can,
why? if you really think god doesnt ntice us the the bibe was written by liars

I mean, haven't you ever played telephone? Start with one message, run it through a few (million) people, it's going to change somewhat.
kinf of an impotent omnipotent god if he cant keep his own story straight

Here are the death penalties mention in the law of moses and the old testement. Please note momof4 that worshiping the wrong deity is mentioned 4 times with the death penalty as punishment

DEATH SENTANCES OF THE BIBLE
Exodus 19:12
Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
Touching a 'holy' mountain

Exodus 21:12
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
Accidental deeath

Exodus 21:15
Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
Assult

Exodus 21:16
Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
Selling someone elses slave

Exodus 21:17
Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Swearing at your parents

Exodus 22:19
Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.
Beastiality

Exodus 31:14
Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath

Exodus 31:15
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #2

Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #3

Leviticus 10:1
[ The Death of Nadab and Abihu ] Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command.
Making an offeering to god incorrectly

Leviticus 16:1
[ The Day of Atonement ] The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #4

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
Swearing at parents #2

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Adultery

Leviticus 20:11
If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Adultery #2

Leviticus 20:12
If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
Adultery #3

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Homosexuality

Leviticus 20:15
If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
Beastiality #2

Leviticus 20:16
If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Beastiality #3

Leviticus 20:27
A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
Thinking your psycic

Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Kind of an odd on given the lords acctual proprer name appears nowhwere in the bible

Numbers 1:51
Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who goes near it shall be put to death.
Going to chuch on any day but the sabbath

Numbers 3:10
Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death."
Wanting to be a preist

Numbers 3:38
Moses and Aaron and his sons were to camp to the east of the tabernacle, toward the sunrise, in front of the Tent of Meeting. They were responsible for the care of the sanctuary on behalf of the Israelites. Anyone else who approached the sanctuary was to be put to death.
Wanting to be a preist #2

Numbers 15:32
[ The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death ] While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #4

Numbers 18:7
But only you and your sons may serve as priests in connection with everything at the altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death
Wanting to be a preist #3

Numbers 25:5
So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor
Idolitry

Deuteronomy 13:5
That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
Idolitry #2

Deuteronomy 13:9
You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
Idolitry #3

Deuteronomy 13:10
Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Idolitry #4

Deuteronomy 17:5
take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death
selling "flwaed" animals for sacrifice to the lord

Deuteronomy 17:12
The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Showing contempt for church officals

Deuteronomy 18:20
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
Being a missionary for a different religion

Deuteronomy 21:21
Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid
Disobeying your parents

Deuteronomy 22:21
she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you
Sex before marrige

DeuDeuteronomy 22:24
you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help,
Being raped

Deuteronomy 22:24
you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death. . , and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Rape of a 'married' woman

Judges 6:31
But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, "Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."
Defending the life of someone who whorships a different god
And as a side note when did god ever stop someone from burning a church down?

Accidental Death l
Assualt of Parents l
Being a missonary for wrong church l
Being raped l
Claiming to be psycic l
Defending a member of a different religion l
Disobeying parents l
Touching Mount Siani l
Going to church on wrong day l
Homosexuality l
Improper slaughter of sacrifical animal l
Mocking church officials l
Rape - but only of a married woman l
Selling flawed animals for sacrifice l
Selling someone elses slave l
Taking lords name in vain l
Swearing @ parents 2
Adultery 3
Beastiality 3
Wanting to be a priest, from wrong familly 3
Idolitry(Woshiping wrong Deity) 4
Not going to church 4
Working on sabbath 4

-- any occurrence so statistically improbable as to be essentially impossible within the lifetime of the universe
Skipper

So my suggested miricles are common everyday occurences then?

> you do realize you were being
> played, right?

Riiiiiigght... You were pretending to still feel the sting from am obscure internet exchange two seasons past.

Do "critical thinking" next! You'll love it! It's from the same people who brought you "intellectual honesty".

Teach likes me! Know that!

(Check's in the mail, Amester...)

Meanwhile....

Anybody notice how the nipply Farrah seems to be generating a better class of commentary than the noseless Michael?

I got some problems with the way the LAT handled McMahon, too. In a 1600-word death notice, precisely 16 words were given to discussion of his fatherhood... This was a guy who divorced his wife and left young children to follow Johnny Carson to Los Angeles.

Anyway, we're running out of time to make and hear good Michael Jackson jokes.

lujip:

So my suggested miracles are common everyday occurences then?

Absolutely not.

Rather, you were constraining supernatural occurrences to a specific subset presuming a particular instantiation of god.

Why?

If such a thing as god exists, there is no reason to presume that being must be confined to a specific religion's box.

Yet that is precisely what you did, and Amy congratulated.

Rather, you were constraining supernatural occurrences to a specific subset presuming a particular instantiation of god.

Why?

Because most of the people on this post belive in the "god of abraham" they have this book about him they think is holy.

The way I see it, unless they can dupicate the 'miricles' contained within it their god dosnt exist.

You like to postulate that god is seperate from religion - if that were true then the logical conclusion of that train of thought is that religion is false(which is the point we've been making all along)

And David M, we are all still waiting for you to list the morals that christianity provided mankind, morals that did not exist before christianity appeared,

You went on and on about it for days. Why is it so hard for you to give an example?

only said that the morals of Christianity have benefited man. I didn't say only and I didn't put down Jews, Buddhists, or Hindu's. - David M

Very well Dave. Please list the morals that christianity gave to mankind that are attributable only to christianity and not found in nature or any other religion

Posted by: lujlp at June 26, 2009 10:06 AM
=======
Not my point. AGAIN I merely said the morals of Christianity have benefited man.I don't think these are ONLY associated with Christianity but Christanity should get their credit for spreading a moral message.

Here goes-
17 You shall not murder.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.

19 Neither shall you steal.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Dave if you want to say christinity should be thanked for spreading a plagerised message of peace then say that.

But that isnt what you said - you said you wanted us to thank christianity for spreading it own(as in never seen anywhere else on earth) morals

You see this is why we deveopled launguge, to communicate.

Your message was christianity created morals and we should be thankful.

If you really meant all along that christianity stole it message, but it was a good message and we should be thankful anyway - then ARTICULATE it, dont be so disingenious

Also why should christianity get props for spreading a message that want theirs to being with? Should the religion that came up with it originally get the credit?

And irony fully intended here - would it be the chistian thing to do in givng credit where credit is acctually due?

Fahgeddabahtit, Looj. David M has no intention of acquiessing to your point. Because you know, since when did it become HIS repsonsibility to live up to YOUR expectations? Or something like that. Even the Skipper becomes pedantic when called out on his shit. No one likes to take responsibility when the ruse is uncovered.

Just sayin'.

o.O

"Wrong, most of the worlds religions are polytheistic"

Yes, with one deity above the others. Ergo, one supreme one.

Quick fact check, who is the supreme bewing in greek mythology?

Quick fact check, who is the supreme bewing in greek mythology?

I believe that would be Zeus.

Arianna Huffington?

That would be Zeus' wife, Hera, obviously Arianna's alter ego!

In Christianity's defense, what other religion has its Kepler, Newton, Locke, Darwin, Adam Smith?

Since there isn't one, then intellectual honesty suggests giving at least some credit where credit is due.

Acctually Flynne it would be Chaos who spawned Nox and Gaia. Gaia gave birth to Uranas and made hime her husband and ruler of the heavens, Hi first to sets of kids we too powerful so he loked the below the earth, Gaia the pursuaded the youngest of her third set of children the Titans to overthrow Uranus, and they were in turn overthorwn by Cronus children(the classical era god) with the help of the hunndered hannded giants and the three cyclops.

So while Zues is well know and was the "king of the gods" he was a 7th generation offspring of original choas, tecnically Aphrodity was a higher ranking deity as she was born whole from the severed penis of Uranus after Cronus castrated him as part of his punishment.

My point being Zues while considered the "Supreme Being" wasnt, he was the youngest god of the youngest titan who was the weakest of Uranus' children, and Uranus was4th in the hierachy behind chaos, nox and his mother/wife gaia

So back around to my original question for momof4

How do you know your god isnt a lesser being?

Since there isn't one, then intellectual honesty suggests giving at least some credit where credit is due.

Posted by: Hey Skipper

Unless christianity spread morals found in other religions, right Skipper? Because in that case fuck giving credit where its due and just thank christianity.

Do you even bother to think before you write something that shows your blatant hypocricy?

lujip:

Whoa there.

My post had nothing to do with what I think of religious moral claims. (go here to see what I think on that score.)

Rather, I think it is worth noting that it is easy -- for a Christian civilization that is -- to list no end people like Kepler, et al.

No other religion can come even close. So, unless you believe that Europeans are cognitively superior to other groups, then it is worth considering the possibility that Christianity is fundamentally different from, indeed, better than, other religions.

"17 You shall not murder.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.

19 Neither shall you steal.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

please research hammurabi. which i may or may not have spelled correctly.

here you go

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM