Religion is slowly killing this great country

[Guest ex-minister]

But that's the thing--religion didn't make those good people good people. They were already good people. I don't religion has earned any of the credit for the good people who believe in it.

I don't have the studies on the answer, but living what I have lived, I would respectfully disagree in most cases. Many of the people did, or certainly tried, to become better people. I think they were indeed good, but living up to a code has indeed helped them. It's not for everyone, despite what some would have you believe.

Many people find a code in the Boy Scout Handbook, or the writings of Deepak Chopra, or the songs of Cat Stevens or the Beatles. Whatever it is, a code exists to help people live with each other. For some, many, it's a religion. Unfortunately, many people also abuse that religious code and start claiming their is the right one to the exclusion of all others. That's the problem with "religion" as you see it, but don't discount the purpose of everything about religion just because you don't subscribe to a particular one.

You know what? I say nobody truly needs that--they settle for it. If only people were more caring and friendly with each other, not a single one of us would feel the need to lean on an imaginary shoulder. A real one is more comforting. :/

Of course. I agree totally. But humans are by nature self-serving, left over from our caveman days when we had to hunt to survive (although the creationists would disagree with me on this). So imaginary friends are important, even if they are figureheads. Martin Luther King has been dead nearly 40 years, yet people still revere his speeches and look to them for comfort. In 300 years after his death, will people start to "worship" him as a "God?"

That's what I think happened with Jesus. A good man, a good teacher, good speaker. It took 300 years to decide if he was a God, and the religious zealots won that day, and 2000 years later no one really knows the truth any more.

Civility has been tried...but these people do not know how to leave well-enough alone. Instead of being happy that they live in a country that legally protects their freedom to worship, they want to convert everyone. That is disrespectful and condescending, and damned right I am outraged. They have crossed the line far too many times, often with as much of a cavalier attitude as Mr. P. did here in this issue.

This is the saddest part indeed. Many of my friends are still involved in the church and have a deep faith and are content not to preach on street corners. They live their life by example and share when asked. I harbor no ill feelings towards them. When the people come knocking on my door with bible in hand, I look forward to preaching right back to them.

If they will leave me alone, I'm happy to leave them alone. But when they come into my house, I have to "defend" myself. I have no interest in asking people to leave their faith, nor did I have any interest in asking people to join my faith.

Well, sometimes you need to get angry. Sometimes you need to get indignant. And sometimes, you need to push back. I will not stand for this, and that does not mean I have "contributed equally to the split." It means I'm patriotic, and am willing to defend that which those people insist on continually attacking--if we stop defending, they will gleefully reshape this country as they see fit...and I guarantee you they are not as big on freedom as the founding fathers were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you do, but again quoting Dr. King, there is a way to stand up while not destroying everything and everyone in your path.

Today, when I see or hear the fundamentalists preaching what I now know to be false I feel pity for them. They probably feel pity for me too. But I don't have the need to go out of my way to debase them. In my opinion, they are doing a good job of it themselves.

What can we do to combat this? We can't write our congressmen - most are religious fundamentalists these days anyway. But we can start at the local level. Run for School Board, for City Council, and become part of the people that can actually stop their madness from spreading. Talk to principals of public schools and encourage them to keep real learning in the schools and take a stand against religious indoctrination.

I noticed you were actually from Kearny. Did you visit the school and talk with the principal and express your views personally and politely? What would happen if 10 people did this? 50? 100?

Religion has a place in society just like sporting events. For some, supporting a sports team is akin to religion! They both serve the same purpose when applied correctly. I remember seeing riots in the stands at soccer matches because some zealots starting arguing about who was the better team. How is that different from arguing whose God (or lack of God) is better?

[Guest 2smart4u]

I don't have the studies on the answer, but living what I have lived, I would respectfully disagree in most cases.  Many of the people did, or certainly tried, to become better people.  I think they were indeed good, but living up to a code has indeed helped them.  It's not for everyone, despite what some would have you believe. 

Many people find a code in the Boy Scout Handbook, or the writings of Deepak Chopra, or the songs of Cat Stevens or the Beatles.  Whatever it is, a code exists to help people live with each other.  For some, many, it's a religion.  Unfortunately, many people also abuse that religious code and start claiming their is the right one to the exclusion of all others.  That's the problem with "religion" as you see it, but don't discount the purpose of everything about religion just because you don't subscribe to a particular one.

Of course.  I agree totally.  But humans are by nature self-serving, left over from our caveman days when we had to hunt to survive (although the creationists would disagree with me on this).  So imaginary friends are important, even if they are figureheads.  Martin Luther King has been dead nearly 40 years, yet people still revere his speeches and look to them for comfort.  In 300 years after his death, will people start to "worship" him as a "God?" 

That's what I think happened with Jesus.  A good man, a good teacher, good speaker.  It took 300 years to decide if he was a God, and the religious zealots won that day, and 2000 years later no one really knows the truth any more.

This is the saddest part indeed.  Many of my friends are still involved in the church and have a deep faith and are content not to preach on street corners.  They live their life by example and share when asked.  I harbor no ill feelings towards them.  When the people come knocking on my door with bible in hand, I look forward to preaching right back to them.

If they will leave me alone, I'm happy to leave them alone.  But when they come into my house, I have to "defend" myself.  I have no interest in asking people to leave their faith, nor did I have any interest in asking people to join my faith.

Of course you do, but again quoting Dr. King, there is a way to stand up while not destroying everything and everyone in your path. 

Today, when I see or hear the fundamentalists preaching what I now know to be false I feel pity for them.  They probably feel pity for me too.  But I don't have the need to go out of my way to debase them.  In my opinion, they are doing a good job of it themselves.

What can we do to combat this?  We can't write our congressmen - most are religious fundamentalists these days anyway.  But we can start at the local level.  Run for School Board, for City Council, and become part of the people that can actually stop their madness from spreading.  Talk to principals of public schools and encourage them to keep real learning in the schools and take a stand against religious indoctrination.

I noticed you were actually from Kearny.  Did you visit the school and talk with the principal and express your views personally and politely?  What would happen if 10 people did this?  50? 100? 

Religion has a place in society just like sporting events.  For some, supporting a sports team is akin to religion!  They both serve the same purpose when applied correctly.  I remember seeing riots in the stands at soccer matches because some zealots starting arguing about who was the better team.  How is that different from arguing whose God (or lack of God) is better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ex-Minister and Strife really make a good tag-team. I just can't decide which one should be Mumbo and which one should be Dumbo.

[Strife767]

Strife, just curious .......Have you ever been diagnosed with an obsessive- compulsive disorder ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why would I be diagnosed with something I show no symptoms for?

But on that subject, how about that schizophrenia? Haven't gone and taken care of that yet, huh? Maybe then you'll stop talking to your imaginary friend and convincing yourself he's going to "save" you or something like that.

[Strife767]

I don't have the studies on the answer, but living what I have lived, I would respectfully disagree in most cases.  Many of the people did, or certainly tried, to become better people.  I think they were indeed good, but living up to a code has indeed helped them.  It's not for everyone, despite what some would have you believe. 

Many people find a code in the Boy Scout Handbook, or the writings of Deepak Chopra, or the songs of Cat Stevens or the Beatles.  Whatever it is, a code exists to help people live with each other.  For some, many, it's a religion.  Unfortunately, many people also abuse that religious code and start claiming their is the right one to the exclusion of all others.  That's the problem with "religion" as you see it, but don't discount the purpose of everything about religion just because you don't subscribe to a particular one.

It seems fairly obvious to me why religion came to be in the first place (responding to "don't discount the purpose of everything about religion")--as a defense mechanism against the realization of our own mortality. Once humans became self-aware, we apparently started to freak out, but calmed down once we got to convincing ourselves that we're going to keep living even after we 'apparently' die.

But here's the thing...this is, as you seem to suggest below, a primitive, reactionary feeling. In the words of George Carlin, "in no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century." Considering how often religion clashes (often violently) with reality as best we can understand it, this does seem like one primitive 'urge' humanity could well do without.

Of course.  I agree totally.  But humans are by nature self-serving, left over from our caveman days when we had to hunt to survive (although the creationists would disagree with me on this).  So imaginary friends are important, even if they are figureheads.  Martin Luther King has been dead nearly 40 years, yet people still revere his speeches and look to them for comfort.  In 300 years after his death, will people start to "worship" him as a "God?"

Well, there are a few differences. One, MLK Jr. is real. *chuckles* Secondly, the "worship" (though that just doesn't seem to be the most appropriate term in this case) of teachings or lessons or moral code is very different, because those are 'concrete' too--not like worshipping a creator god or anything like that.

That's what I think happened with Jesus.  A good man, a good teacher, good speaker.  It took 300 years to decide if he was a God, and the religious zealots won that day, and 2000 years later no one really knows the truth any more.

Actually...something many people have come to accept without really looking into is Jesus's existence. A lot of 'moderate Christians' etc. will say something similar: that he wasn't divine, just a moral teacher. But before you talk about whether he was divine...

When you really look at it, the fact is that there is no real evidence that Jesus is anything more than an amalgamation of contemporary myths, for the following reasons (they're looked into more completely in the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" (written by a former hardcore Christian fundamentalist) if you're interested (trailer: http://tinyurl.com/36eenk):

1. Jesus has a LOT more than most people realize in common with lots of accepted-as-myth people of the time, like Osiris, Mithra, Appolonius of Tyana, etc. Sure, could be coincidence, but this is only #1.

2. There exists zero contemporary accounts of Jesus's life at all--what we believe to be the earliest gospel (Mark) was written at LEAST 40 years after Jesus's alleged death. We get this date from the fact that Mark mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple, something that we know happened in the year 70. So, we have a gap of at least four decades between Jesus's alleged life and the first time he's mentioned as a guy (divine or not) who "walked among us."

3. The only real link in that 'blank' period between Jesus's alleged life and the gospels is Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus. But the thing is, Paul knows nothing about any of the events of Jesus's life, including his parents, any of his miracles, etc. In Paul's 80,000 words written about the Christian religion, Paul refers to nothing but the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and on top of that, he does not place any of these events on Earth. Just like the other savior gods of the period, Jesus is described by Paul as having been crucified etc. in a mythical realm.

And it goes downhill from there...

The bottom line is that there is nothing better than hearsay to suggest that the Jesus in the Bible ever actually existed--the existing evidence (after reading #2 and #3, go back and read #1 again--it'll stick harder this time, I think) suggests that it is more than likely that Jesus is, to put it quite bluntly, just another savior god from the time's mythology.

For more information on just how shaky a foundation the conclusion that Jesus existed to begin with rests on, in text form: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

This is the saddest part indeed.  Many of my friends are still involved in the church and have a deep faith and are content not to preach on street corners.  They live their life by example and share when asked.  I harbor no ill feelings towards them.  When the people come knocking on my door with bible in hand, I look forward to preaching right back to them.

If they will leave me alone, I'm happy to leave them alone.  But when they come into my house, I have to "defend" myself.  I have no interest in asking people to leave their faith, nor did I have any interest in asking people to join my faith.

Of course you do, but again quoting Dr. King, there is a way to stand up while not destroying everything and everyone in your path. 

Today, when I see or hear the fundamentalists preaching what I now know to be false I feel pity for them.  They probably feel pity for me too.  But I don't have the need to go out of my way to debase them.  In my opinion, they are doing a good job of it themselves.

What can we do to combat this?  We can't write our congressmen - most are religious fundamentalists these days anyway.  But we can start at the local level.  Run for School Board, for City Council, and become part of the people that can actually stop their madness from spreading.  Talk to principals of public schools and encourage them to keep real learning in the schools and take a stand against religious indoctrination.

I noticed you were actually from Kearny.  Did you visit the school and talk with the principal and express your views personally and politely?  What would happen if 10 people did this?  50? 100? 

Religion has a place in society just like sporting events.  For some, supporting a sports team is akin to religion!  They both serve the same purpose when applied correctly.

I'm still trying to get more in the habit to using the word "theism" instead of "religion," in order to make the distinction clear. What I think hurts people is to abandon reality in favor of something that sounds better to them.

I remember seeing riots in the stands at soccer matches because some zealots starting arguing about who was the better team.  How is that different from arguing whose God (or lack of God) is better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sounds redundant, but the difference is that sports teams are real and their existence can be verified. It's one thing to get angry about whether you think one thing is better than another, one team, or one leader, and so on. However, I think the height of insanity is when people or groups of people start arguing about which _god_ is better or 'real' or 'true,' considering that chances are highest that the entities they are defending do not even exist outside their imaginations. I have to say that is different than being fanatic about a sports team (after all, "fanatic" is the term the word "fan" came from in that context).

[Guest Dingo Dave]

(Religion has) Given a lot of people hope for a better future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is pure bullshit as far as all the non-Christians in the world are concerned. Go back and read your Bible. Especially the book of Revelation!

I can't remember where I read this, but I think it sums up the projected Biblical scenario quite nicely.

-The Book of Revelation:

"If a modern secular reader was to sit to down and read it through for the first time, my guess is that they would find it to be one of the most violent and hateful documents they had ever seen. If you tally up the death count and project it onto our modern world with a population of five billion people, you come up with an absolutely horrible kind of statistic. You come up with something like four billion people dying from the famines, wars, earthquakes and plagues intentionally inflicted on humanity by the Christian god."

And after being brutally murdered by the Christian God, every non-Christian will then be thrown into a fiery Hell, to suffer unspeakably for all eternity.

Personally, speaking as a non-Christian, I don't find this view of the future to be at all comforting or hopeful.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

If there is no God, how do you explain our existance .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there is no SuperGod, how do you explain Yahweh's existance?

[Guest Guest]

Ex-Minister and Strife really make a good tag-team. I just can't decide which one should be Mumbo and which one should be Dumbo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no doubt of the choice for village idiot...............YOU!

[Bryan]

If there is no SuperGod, how do you explain Yahweh's existance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A first cause requires no cause, regardless of whether it is personal or impersonal, Dingo Dave.

Suggesting otherwise begs the question of whether or not the first cause is a first cause.

It boils down to this: There is either a first cause, or there is not a first cause.

If there is no first cause, then history may be described in terms of an endless succession of discrete events.

A corollary of that endless succession of discrete events is that fact that an infinite number of discrete events in the past must have occurred so that the current present can be reached.

This is a problem, philosophically and mathematically. Though modern mathematics may make some sense of infinite sets, it remains that crossing an actual infinity through successive addition is counterintuitive if not completely impossible.

This is part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, by the way.

The only two choices, I emphasize, are a first cause or an endless succession of causes.

In addition, positing more entities than necessary is discouraged by the application of Occam's Razor. The anthropic principle may be used to argue probabilistically in favor of an intelligent first cause (as a needed entity).

[Strife767]

A first cause requires no cause,

Here's a dead end for creationist logic. If a first cause requires no cause, then you agree that a natural first cause is possible. And since that would mean there is a possible natural explanation, a supernatural one (God) needn't even be considered until it and every other possible natural explanation is exhausted.

[Guest Guest]

I'm amazed that some people are absolutely convinced that there is a god without any evidence to support that position.  You cannot disprove the existence of anything, but that does not mean that the probability of some god existing is 50%.  In fact, the probability of it is extremely low.  There is NO evidence to support the existence of god.  There is no evidence to support that praying to a god has any effect at all (in fact, there was a study to find out if prayer helped heart patients, and the ones that were prayed for did marginally worse during recovery than the ones that were not prayed for). 

And contrary to you statements on the lack of evidence for evolution, there is plenty of evidence for macro evolution, especially when it comes to fish and amphibians.  Just because we have not found a missing link doesn't mean that no evidence exists.  Evidence is there, it's just not what you want.  Keep making excuses for you warped ideology, because there is no way to convince you otherwise.  You cannot reason with people that will believe in something without any evidence at all.

While you're making your excuses, maybe you should also think about why you don't believe in any Greek or Roman gods, Thor, Leprechauns, and fairies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do people feel that NOT believing in God puts them on some intellectual high-horse? There is as much evidence in either direction (God, or no God) in that no one on Earth really has the foggiest idea of where we came from, where we are going, or how any of this stuff around us works. For me, the intracacies of the interactions all about me are enough to believe that this whole world was more than a series of fortunate events. It's also perfectly reasonable for someone to draw the opposite conclusion (given the lack of evidence to support either side). However, my hypothesizing that there is a greater force at work (a God) doesn't make me delusional, nor does your disbelieving make you the Copernicus of your age.

[Guest Guest]

It's not religion destroying this country, it's the Christian Fundamentalist Pentacolist-Baptist Hypoctires like Ted Haggard and Mark Foley and Tom Delay and George W Bush and Sam Brownback who are destroying the country.

Religion is fine, if you want to believe in something bigger than yourself, but keep that nonsense out of the mainstream.

Who elected these bozos to public office?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about other religious fundamentalists ... are they also destroying this country, or is it just the Christians? And, as a point of curiosity, are you religious and, if so, which religion/denomination?

[Guest Paul]

A first cause requires no cause, regardless of whether it is personal or impersonal, Dingo Dave.

Suggesting otherwise begs the question of whether or not the first cause is a first cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The hypothesized uncaused first cause begs the question of nature itself. All this hypothesis does is assert an exception for the rules of nature and reason. But based on what? Based on nothing, except that it is what you wish to believe.

Dress it up in some language, say it often enough, get other people to say it, especially if they say it with conviction, and people will believe it. Sound familiar?

[Calybos]

In addition, positing more entities than necessary is discouraged by the application of Occam's Razor.  The anthropic principle may be used to argue probabilistically in favor of an intelligent first cause (as a needed entity).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And a Creator is definitely one more entity than necessary. The notion that everything must have a cause is--once again, I point out--a philosophical demand, not a scientific one.

In addition, the "anthropic principle" is one of the few areas where both rationalists and theists agree: it's nonsense. From the evolutionary perspective, life arose and evolved to suit the conditions that prevail in our universe, not vice-versa. And from the theist perspective, God doesn't make bad designs. Either way the "remarkable coincidence", which is what the anthropic principle boils down to (a Belief from Incredulity/Improbability argument), is simply not meaningful evidence.

[Guest Paul]

Why do people feel that NOT believing in God puts them on some intellectual high-horse?  There is as much evidence in either direction (God, or no God) in that no one on Earth really has the foggiest idea of where we came from, where we are going, or how any of this stuff around us works.  For me, the intracacies of the interactions all about me are enough to believe that this whole world was more than a series of fortunate events.  It's also perfectly reasonable for someone to draw the opposite conclusion (given the lack of evidence to support either side).  However, my hypothesizing that there is a greater force at work (a God) doesn't make me delusional, nor does your disbelieving make you the Copernicus of your age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many people believe that not believing in a god is more intellectually honest because there is no evidence for the existence of a god (supreme being). In the absence of evidence, non-belief is the more reasoned position. That doesn't mean that one dogmatically asserts that there is no god, but only that one does not "believe." Belief is an affirmation, for which there is no basis. Non-belief is not negation. Of course, there are militant atheists, but they are another case.

As for whether a god exists, I would have to ask "What kind of god." If you assert the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient god who loves all his creatures, then suffering makes no sense. On the other hand, if you say that this god does not love all his creatures, that makes even less sense --- or, to look at it another way, why have faith in that? If you take omniscience and/or omnipotence, or Love out of the picture, then what's the point --- rather takes the wind out of the sails, doesn't it.

There are greater forces at work in the universe, many of which we do not understand. That does not justify settling on an answer regarding their form and nature. Doing so is intellectually irresonsible, and leads to the irresponsibility --- among some --- that we see in the rabid fundamentalisms. It's a license to believe whatever one wishes to believe, which is not a good thing at all.

For myself, I spell God with two o's.

[Guest Paul]

Why do people feel that NOT believing in God puts them on some intellectual high-horse?  There is as much evidence in either direction (God, or no God) in that no one on Earth really has the foggiest idea of where we came from, where we are going, or how any of this stuff around us works.  For me, the intracacies of the interactions all about me are enough to believe that this whole world was more than a series of fortunate events.  It's also perfectly reasonable for someone to draw the opposite conclusion (given the lack of evidence to support either side).  However, my hypothesizing that there is a greater force at work (a God) doesn't make me delusional, nor does your disbelieving make you the Copernicus of your age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To add to my previous response: You're right, believing in a god does not necessarily make you delusional. But it can. I spent some time in a pentacostal group my freshman year in college. Some of them "spoke in tongues," but managed to do it the same time in every meeting. It was on cue, which is not how it's supposed to work. One could argue that they were delusional, but my impression was that they were just full of it, and of themselves. One member who was obviously "odd" kept talking about healings he had seen, which no one else verified. To my observation, he was either delusional or mighty close to it.

If we want to believe things badly enough, we can. If our belief system says "It's OK, in fact it's the essence of faith, to believe what we wish to be true," that way of thinking paves the road to delusions in some people. I suspect that much depends on how strong one's defenses are and how strongly one is attached to reality and reason. I've known hard-core atheists who were arguably delusional in their response to theists. Maybe the neurosciences will shed more light on this eventually, as they are beginning to do.

[Bryan]

And a Creator is definitely one more entity than necessary.

How do you figure?

I predict that you have never considered Richard Swinburne's argument.

The notion that everything must have a cause is--once again, I point out--a philosophical demand, not a scientific one.

That's vacuous. Science is built on a philosophical foundation (the discipline "Philosophy of Science" concerns the foundations of science). Take away causation (or correlation closely simulating causation) and science fails.

In addition, the "anthropic principle" is one of the few areas where both rationalists and theists agree: it's nonsense. From the evolutionary perspective, life arose and evolved to suit the conditions that prevail in our universe, not vice-versa.

Your explanation (stunningly though predictably) completely ignores the importance of cosmological constants (one of the factors that prompts popular science writer Paul Davies to write in terms that appear theistic).

And from the theist perspective, God doesn't make bad designs. Either way the "remarkable coincidence", which is what the anthropic principle boils down to (a Belief from Incredulity/Improbability argument), is simply not meaningful evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you really thought about the alternative?

It sure doesn't look like it when you display such ignorance above.

[Bryan]

The hypothesized uncaused first cause begs the question of nature itself.

lol

How?

Put it in a syllogism. That should be good for some laughs.

All this hypothesis does is assert an exception for the rules of nature and reason.

Oh, really?

How do you treat the causeless formation of quantum particles? Ignore them since they beg the question of nature?

lol

But based on what? Based on nothing, except that it is what you wish to believe.

You're talking out your arse, Paul.

As I described earlier, there are two philosophical options. One is a uncaused first cause (intelligent or otherwise), and the other is an infinite regress.

There are problems with an infinite regress--but I guess you can ignore them if that's what you wish to believe.

Dress it up in some language, say it often enough, get other people to say it, especially if they say it with conviction, and people will believe it. Sound familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds your M.O. since you invovled yourself at KOTW, as a matter of fact.

And the post you just finished qualifies as more of the same. You ignore my argument, make a few unsupported assertions, and now you'll run away after belatedly realizing that you've put your foot in your mouth again.

Toodles.

[Bryan]

Here's a dead end for creationist logic. If a first cause requires no cause, then you agree that a natural first cause is possible.

That depends quite a bit on how you define "natural." Good luck defining it to exclude a god without special pleading.

And since that would mean there is a possible natural explanation, a supernatural one (God) needn't even be considered until it and every other possible natural explanation is exhausted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that you're into the realm of explanation, please explain how an acausal phenomenon could be scientifically explained in principle.

Let me give you a clue before you blow a mental gasket trying to figure it out: It's impossible. It's a contradiction in terms.

[Strife767]

Why do people feel that NOT believing in God puts them on some intellectual high-horse?

Well, not so much not believing in a god, but not believing in the God a bunch of guys made up a few thousand years ago.

There is as much evidence in either direction (God, or no God)

If you mean there is no scientific evidence either way (since the concept of a god isn't scientific, but supernatural), then you're right.

in that no one on Earth really has the foggiest idea of where we came from, where we are going, or how any of this stuff around us works.

Absolutely untrue. We have a pretty good idea of most of those things--at the very least, we have workable, falsifiable, testable explanations that fit around the body of evidence we have compiled to date.

For me, the intracacies of the interactions all about me are enough to believe that this whole world was more than a series of fortunate events.

But then you make the mistake of assuming that the Theory of Evolution defines evolution as such a series. It's a straw man, plain and simple. In other words, don't worry that you don't believe that we all got here by "a series of fortunate events," because none of the evolutionary/life scientists claim that either.

It's also perfectly reasonable for someone to draw the opposite conclusion (given the lack of evidence to support either side).  However, my hypothesizing that there is a greater force at work (a God) doesn't make me delusional,

But believing the 'Abrahamic' bullshit story does. And so do lots of the things that religious wackjobs claim, stuff like this guy Satan possessing/influencing people, people suffering forever in some place called Hell, etc.

I'll also say this. When it comes to believing in a 'greater power,' there are still natural alternatives to believing in some sort of god. It could just as well be aliens as it could be a creator god. So...I would have to say...maybe "delusional" isn't the right word, but there is at least inherent bias and intellectual irresponsibility (and some arrogance, I'd say) in drawing a conclusion one way or another without any evidence--that is, to conclude god over aliens, etc.

Atheism is, simply put, an unwillingness to draw such a conclusion about 'greater powers' in the absence of evidence. Is that not a mindset that should be aspired to?

[Strife767]

(double-post removed (why can't you delete your own posts?))

[Strife767]

That depends quite a bit on how you define "natural."  Good luck defining it to exclude a god without special pleading.

lol, so you claim that gods are not supernatural. Yeah, I needn't waste my time responding to any more of your post, if this is how it starts.

[Guest Paul]

lol

How?

Put it in a syllogism.  That should be good for some laughs.

Oh, really?

How do you treat the causeless formation of quantum particles?  Ignore them since they beg the question of nature?

lol

You're talking out your arse, Paul.

As I described earlier, there are two philosophical options.  One is a uncaused first cause (intelligent or otherwise), and the other is an infinite regress.

There are problems with an infinite regress--but I guess you can ignore them if that's what you wish to believe.

Sounds your M.O. since you invovled yourself at KOTW, as a matter of fact.

And the post you just finished qualifies as more of the same.  You ignore my argument, make a few unsupported assertions, and now you'll run away after belatedly realizing that you've put your foot in your mouth again.

Toodles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You assume a linear universe, Bryan. That assumption was proved false by Einstein and others more than a century ago. That is the answer to all your questions above. Whether you understand it is another matter.

[Bryan]

lol, so you claim that gods are not supernatural.

No, I expressed skepticism that you could define "natural" so that it excluded a god that exists in reality.

Notably, you avoided trying to address the challenge in favor of misrepresenting what I said.

Yeah, I needn't waste my time responding to any more of your post, if this is how it starts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're chickening out, then.

Good idea to cover it up with bravado. Some of the least perceptive in the audience might even buy it.

[Bryan]

You assume a linear universe, Bryan.

No I do not, Paul. You're invited to point out where I make anything approaching an equivalent assumption. Good luck.

That assumption was proved false by Einstein and others more than a century ago.

Eliminate causation and you eliminate scientific explanation.

It is the scientific enterprise that loses out with the fall of causation or with the inability to observe phenomena in principle. A cause beyond all observation has no scientific utility.

That is the answer to all your questions above. Whether you understand it is another matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact is you cannot explain this alleged answer of yours because it doesn't address the questions as you claim.

For example, the relativity of time and space cannot address the issue of the dichotomy between an uncaused first cause and an infinite regress.

Such an issue is not addressed by declaring it addressed, but by proposing a third alternative.

I anticipate that you will decline to even try to explain how this (ad hoc) rescue is supposed to work, Paul.

I'll invoke Einstein and pretend that settles everything!

Munch on this, pretender:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...02/01/mind.html

[Calybos]

You assume a linear universe, Bryan. That assumption was proved false by Einstein and others more than a century ago. That is the answer to all your questions above. Whether you understand it is another matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for summing it up so succinctly, Paul. I tried to walk Bryan through the basics of naturalism as the core methodology for science, and he kept whining about how I wasn't leaving room for anything "supernatural" in science.

Eventually, I gave up on him. Some skulls are just too thick, you know?