Religious Beliefs

[Womble]

in fact i just noticed there's an article on how altruism might have evolved in this week's new scientist. it seems to nicely outline what i'm getting at!

Can't comment on articles I haven't read.

[s09119]

The entire concept of a divine creator answers most, ifnot all, of science's many questions.

How did the universe begin- God created the heavens (the universe) and the Earth.
How did life begin- God created the animals, each according to his own kind
How logical is evolution- not really logical, as there is no evidence that it actually happened. Just because diferent species share things in common doesn't mean they evolved from the same thing. It just proves that they are all from one planet, and have the necessary body parts for life and their environments.
Is death the end- According to religion, no. There is hope and life in some form after death. The spirit is eternal, the body is temporal.

And once again, I state that if there is no universal basis for morality, then the entire concept of law and justice, good and evil, right and wrong is utterly useless. How can you judge something based on personal opinion? There must be a basis for morality. Which is exactly why God must exist. Society would collapse if, as you say, morality is based upon individual interpretation.

Not really.

I mean, how logical does it sound that a being created from nothing (exactly what you're trying to say is dumb) created everything in the universe, but only gave one out of trillions of planets life (that we know of).

That's just... well, it sounds like a fairy tale to me, and it always has. Because it always comes back to; if God made everything, what made God? Because, supposedly, the theory that the universe just was is soooo incredibly dumb according to religious people, and therefore God must have done it all. But the idea of one man (okay, being) doing it all sounds equally as incredibly dumb to me.

No one will ever really win this debate, because God is the almighty checkmate; he can never be proved or disproved, since he is, by definition, outside of science and the physical laws that govern the universe and everything in it.

[kymeric]

I think theres one thing we call all agree on. Almost all priests are child molestors.

[Womble]

The entire concept of a divine creator answers most, ifnot all, of science's many questions.

How did the universe begin- God created the heavens (the universe) and the Earth.
How did life begin- God created the animals, each according to his own kind
How logical is evolution- not really logical, as there is no evidence that it actually happened. Just because diferent species share things in common doesn't mean they evolved from the same thing. It just proves that they are all from one planet, and have the necessary body parts for life and their environments.
Is death the end- According to religion, no. There is hope and life in some form after death. The spirit is eternal, the body is temporal.

You are confusing the "why" and the "how" in a typical fashion of a zealous atheist (oh, the irony!). How the Universe began and WHY it began are two different questions: one is descriptive and can be answered by science, the other is metaphysical and outside of the science's realm. They do not contradict one another. As for evolution, the idea was first proposed by medieval theologists, for crying out loud (namely, by the Jewish scholar RASHI, in the form of "creation in potential). The evolution theory may or may not be correct, but either way it has no bearing on the question of God.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

exactly. that's the entire deal behind religion. God is not meant to be explained through scientific means because He is not physical; He is Spirit. Eternal, unchanging. Now, about the universe issue. God chose to give life to one planet because He wanted people with whom he could have a relationship. Everything else was created for us to marvel at God's craftmanship. Everything else was created to bring glory to Him. the stars, moon, everything. As far as planets go, everything God has done has been centered here, on this planet. And it makes it all the more special. Because He chose to have one group of people with whom He could have an intimate relationship. Not an emotional one, but a spiritual relationship. God, yes, exists outside of the scientific, physical realm- because He created it. He is not limited by the laws of physics, which He set in place. And that's the beauty of it. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present.
and why did the universe begin? Technically, the universe is a vast space of nothing. And, of course, nothing is merely thr absense of something. And I believe I already stated the reasons why He created everything in the above paragraph.

[Cameron Mitchel]

You are confusing the "why" and the "how" in a typical fashion of a zealous atheist (oh, the irony!). How the Universe began and WHY it began are two different questions: one is descriptive and can be answered by science, the other is metaphysical and outside of the science's realm. They do not contradict one another. As for evolution, the idea was first proposed by medieval theologists, for crying out loud (namely, by the Jewish scholar RASHI, in the form of "creation in potential). The evolution theory may or may not be correct, but either way it has no bearing on the question of God.

Uh, no, he's right, according to Christianity at least.
How did the universe begin: God created it by speaking it into existence.
How did life begin: God spoke it into existence.
How did human life begin: God formed it from the dust of the ground. He formed the body, and then he breathed into it the breath of life.
Why did He created human life: God was lonely. Says it in Genesis. God created man in His own image.
So, I don't think he's getting confused.

[Cameron Mitchel]

I think theres one thing we call all agree on. Almost all priests are child molestors.

I might could agree on that...Just kidding, but I'm not Catholic anyway, so oh well.

[mlarke]

It'd be quite hypocritical of him to have a problem with the direction this thread is going after he explicitly invited the posters to "go ahead" in that direction in his opening post.

thank you for having my back Womble, I dig the sig by the way.

And like Womble said, I did say go ahead, it doesn't mean that I have to continue to read the posts from this point on. That's the beauty of free will, whether it was given to me, or I just have it.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

Ok. I was just commenting about the childish garbage part. that's all. And, as a side thought, 3 weeks until my GW birthday!

[Gibsnag]

Atheism is only the default position until the question is asked. After that, it's a belief. A person who has never been aware of the concept of God existing is an atheist by default. A person who consciously rejected the idea of there being a God is an atheist by choice, therefore a believer.

That is completely ridiculous. Ok. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No, ok well now you're an A-Monsterist. Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No, ok well now you're a A-Unicornist. There are infinite unprovable entities which I could ask you whether you believe in and according to you the actual act of asking changes the validity of the hypothetical entity.

The only logical position? One would have thought that in the absence of proof "either way", both positions would logically be equally legitimate.

No, did you read the link I sent? If you don't accept that disbelief must be the logical position when there is no evidence then you could claim that anything exists.

[An-Alteran]

And then indoctrinated in to believing in a particular set of beliefs.

As happens in the school and college systems in regards to evolution, naturalism, and the like.

Faith or believe in god is not an inbuilt,

This is baseless and unprovable,
It also doesn't par with the evidence.

it is a physcological accident stemming from child -parent relationships.

This is simply vain wishful thinking on the part of people who reffuse to look ay real evidence.

You don't want to see the blatant testimony of nature pointing to God therefore you see conspiracies everywhere.
"There must be a purely non-theistic reason for everything" is your assumption. And it is based on faith and is unprovable.

Latin is based on Anqueetas, the Ancient language. The Alterrans never called themselves humans. Thus, they are not Man. Thus, God did not create them (or if he did, he didn't state so in the Bible).

I was talking about the real life origin of the name "alteran".

Remember: Stargate is a TV show.

Doesn't matter. The Bible specifically states God created Man. No mention of Alterrans.

First: Stargate is a TV show.
Second (in the context of the show): Alterans were a SECT that broke off from the larger group that included the Orii.
Alteran was the name of a sect of the larger race that included the sect known as the Orii. So your point is moot-you are arguing semantics.
Alterans are humans. They are an advanced form of human who (apparently) created and seeded galaxies with primitive versions of themselves.

If it exists and it's an actual religion, it should have an entry. Show me reliable sources on it.

If A under every deffinition equals B, than A = B.

I was (I specifically stated this, so the confussion on yours and the others parts is simply based on not reading what I said fully) reffering to NATURALISTIC ATHEISM! IE: No-God-Naturalism.

It's not a "set of beliefs". The only thing all Atheists have in common is the common disbelief in a higher power. There's nothing we all (or even most of us) believe in.

You just contradicted yourself:
"The only thing all Atheists have in common is the common disbelief in a higher power."

"There's nothing we all (or even most of us) believe in."

A disbelief in something is equal to a belief in the opposite.

Wikiepdia: "Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system."

Ok. Wikipedia is not an authority.

Dictionary.com: 1.a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Ok.

No, it is not a doctrine. Neither is Atheism a doctrine.

You just contradicted yourself: "1.a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government"

Thus this clearly

Appeal? The English language and dictionaries worldwide specifically put in state rules that makes it impossible to classify Atheism as a religion.

Really? Prove it.
And again: Naturalistic-Atheism is what I was reffering to.

Provide adequate arguments for your position.

I already did. Multiple deffinitions of English words.
You asserted this: "Too bad the dictionary and English language disagrees" without any evidence.
The burden of proof is on you to prove your initial assertion and the assertion you made above.

It's not semantics. It's called "What the academical world considers the truth". Ask any theologist, religion professor, dictionary, whatever.

False appeal to authority-False appeal to consensus-False appeal to popularity.

And, again, Naturalistic-Atheism is what I was reffering to.

Oh, and BTW: I have asked people with such qualifications.
Yout point is moot.

Oh and BTW: I was using the dictionary to demonstrate my point.

Yah. Then go ask anyone who's studied religion.

I have.

It's a theological position. It does not mean that it's a religion.

Let me specify: Humanism is a religion. Neo-Darwinism is a Religion.
A religion is a type of philosophy.

1) It's a position, but it's not part of a religion. You cannot use circular argument here. Nor is it part of a government view.

Those deffinitions apply primarily to the use of the word in regards to religion.
Anything that fits the deffinition itself is a doctrine. The word is most generally used in refference to religion or government, it isn't a property unique to government.

2) We do not teach anything. Atheism is the belief in no higher power. There is nothing more to that that holds true for Atheism as a whole (however, Atheists are free to pursue other spiritualities, but that does not make said spiritualities a part of Atheism)

Except that there is no higher power. Again you contradicted yourself.
And again, I was reffering to Naturalistic-Atheism.

3) There is no system of teachings

Naturalistic-Atheism teaches:
Neo-Darwinism,
Humanism,
and many other belief systems.

It's a theologic position.

You said Atheism (and this applies to all atheism not just naturalistic Atheism) had no theology.
It does- that is my point.

Ask anyone learned in the field of theology/religion and the answer will be (at least almost) unequivocally: Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is not a religion itself per se, it is a general philosophy.

I was reffering to Naturalistic Atheism as I stated in the first part of my post.

That can easily be classified as a religious belief.

No thats a common misconception, that the misbehaving christian is somehow not a real one. Dont get me started on priests.

Jesus made things clear on what "is an is not" a Christian.

If someone acts and believes in ways that are contrary to what a Christian is, then they, regardless of what they claim are not a Christian.

Wrong. If you mean naturalism then say it, Atheism is not a belief system, you don't even need a position on 'God' or even heard of one to be an atheist, it's just the natural human default setting. You were born an atheist.

Note: I specifically said in my first post about this I was reffering to Naturalistic-Atheism.
Which IS Naturalism.
So you all are arguing semantics.

in fact i just noticed there's an article on how altruism might have evolved in this week's new scientist. it seems to nicely outline what i'm getting at!

The New Scientist is not a Peer Reviewed work.

I emphasize the word "might" and emphasize the fact that altruism is a rather modern notion-interestingly based mainly in Christian thought-at least Western Altruism.
Think about the Romans- Who slaughtered animals in droves for fun.
The Romans- Who brutally treated many people.
The Greeks.
Ect.
The many nations who commited child-sacrifice.
The presence of torture, sadism, masachism, ect.
Altruism is not a notion that exists in all cultures, and wasn't derived by some process-specifically-the attempts to explain morals and beliefs by evolutionists is based on one thing:
Naturalist Atheists like Richard Dawkins want to have morals in spite of the logical extension of his own philosophies.
He wants the cake on a pedestal and to eat it too.

The logical extension of naturalism is that morality is relative and subjective.
There is no truth or good, there is no morality.

This logically dictates that such evils as Naziism is not wrong-as there is no wrong. There is no basis to be against racism, sexism, or any thing considered wrong becaues there is no wrong.

Rape, murder, ect. are all just natural expressions of animalistic tendencies.

Richard Dawkins and others can not stomach such a conclussion so they desperatly try and create an absolute morality of sorts without an absolute anchor-God. This is immpossible.

[Gibsnag]

Naturalist Atheists like Richard Dawkins want to have morals in spite of the logical extension of his own philosophies.
He wants the cake on a pedestal and to eat it too.

The logical extension of naturalism is that morality is relative and subjective.
There is no truth or good, there is no morality.

Richard Dawkins is well aware of this, at least in terms of how religious people think of morality.

This logically dictates that such evils as Naziism is not wrong-as there is no wrong. There is no basis to be against racism, sexism, or any thing considered wrong becaues there is no wrong.

Simply because there is no absolute moral standard handed down from an all powerful God doesn't mean that we cannot create our own morality, or evolve morality (both biologically and sociologically).

Rape, murder, ect. are all just natural expressions of animalistic tendencies.

Richard Dawkins and others can not stomach such a conclussion so they desperatly try and create an absolute morality of sorts without an absolute anchor-God. This is immpossible.

You really should, I don't know, read some of Dawkin's books. Or if you have read his books then maybe try understanding them. He is not attempting to create an absolute morality, in any way shape or form. He recognises that morality is entirely relative, for the most part based on society's evolution. You cannot seriously think that morality is absolute, ffs the old testament has rules about where you're allowed to take slaves from, about what you're supposed to do to children if they don't respect their children and what food you're not supposed to eat. Now if modern day Christians don't follow this then their morality has changed (whether through Jesus or not) and therefore their morality is not absolute. But is relative, adhering to Dawkin's hypothesis of a changing social moral Zeitgeist.

[An-Alteran]

I try to do the right thing to help others, I respect and love my parents, I'm kind to my neighbors, I try not to swear, etc. I've met all his standards as far as I've seen.

Good. Then sell all your things and give the money to the poor in Africa-and then shant you have eternal life?

I mean, how logical does it sound that a being created from nothing (exactly what you're trying to say is dumb) created everything in the universe,

We say God has power and can create from nothing as a cause.

What we are saying is dumb is that something that had a beggining and exists in a temporal form (IE: our universe) and thus must have had a cause (begginings have causes) came from nothing.
God isn't nothing. He is spiritual. That is not nothing. He caused and created.

but only gave one out of trillions of planets life (that we know of).

If God was creative and wanted to make a piece of art and wanted to glorify Himself and bless Sapient creations of His with seeing His glory why wouldn't He create a massive glorious piece of beauty and art to demonstrate His majesty?!

That's just... well, it sounds like a fairy tale to me, and it always has.

Evolution (at the very least non-theistic evolution) and naturalism sounds just like a mythical fairytail to me.
As demonstrated a page back was just a few of the points against naturalism.

Because it always comes back to; if God made everything, what made God?

A begining requires a cause.
The universe had a begining and thus requires a cause.

God had no begining and exists outside of time... thus has no cause.

Because, supposedly, the theory that the universe just was is soooo incredibly dumb according to religious people, and therefore God must have done it all.

There is no theory that the universe just "was".
There are only hypotheses that state such.
The big bang theory demonstrates the exact opposite.
The Universe by all indication had an exact beggining.

A begining demands logically a cause.

But the idea of one man (okay, being) doing it all sounds equally as incredibly dumb to me.

Why?

No one will ever really win this debate, because God is the almighty checkmate; he can never be proved or disproved, since he is, by definition, outside of science and the physical laws that govern the universe and everything in it.

There is no dichotemy.
The glory and majesty of the universe, irs complexity, and our existence therin declares His glory.

Richard Dawkins is well aware of this, at least in terms of how religious people think of morality.

He is inconsistent himself.
In the God delussion he mentions how he was "horrified" to learn that the CEO of Enron based his Social-Darwinism on Dawkins book- why would this so called "misuse" of Dawkins work horrify him if it was a logical and beneficial (for the Enron CEO) extapolation?
What was 'wrong' with it being used that way?

Simply because there is no absolute moral standard handed down from an all powerful God doesn't mean that we cannot create our own morality,

Yes it does. Morality is by nature absolutist.
You can create oppinions on how things could be run or could not be run better-but you have no "right" to base those oppinionson.
What is wrong with rape Gibs?

You really should, I don't know, read some of Dawkin's books.

I have read the God delussion-especially the part on morality.

Or if you have read his books then maybe try understanding them.

I did understand it sir, you are using a personal attack.

He is not attempting to create an absolute morality, in any way shape or form.

He could have fooled me with such terms as "many religious people believe atheists can not be good".
And the constant use of aterms like "morality" and "good" which are absolutist by nature.

He recognises that morality is entirely relative, for the most part based on society's evolution.

Morality can't be relative.
Morality is an absolutist term and thus is not-relative by deffinition.
Oppinions are relative.

You cannot seriously think that morality is absolute,

Oh yes I can.
I can both think that, and think it seriously.

ffs the old testament has rules about where you're allowed to take slaves from,

Uh, no it doesn't.
And you need to define "slave".
The common term used today is somewhat stigmatized (this is a good thing-but it conotatively poisons the well).
The most common form of 'slaves' were ones that were put into 'slavery' because of dept or by capture in war-war prisoners and debtees.

There were laws in the Old Testament about how legally bound servants were to be treated, and that countrymen who had been put into servitude were to be freed every 7 years.

about what you're supposed to do to children if they don't respect their children

You meen parents?

First of all: You are taking that out of the cultural context.
Second of all: Morality is absolute. Punishment is not. Punishment is culturally based and conditionally based.
Third of all: Context.
Fourth: Please provide quotes.

and what food you're not supposed to eat.

Those were health and symbolic laws, not moral laws.
In fact many of those laws were logical in retrospect.
There were strict sanitation and dietary laws.

Now if modern day Christians don't follow this then their morality has changed (whether through Jesus or not) and therefore their morality is not absolute.

Morality=Absolute.
Punishment=Somewhat Relative and cultural.

Third: We believe that the ceremonial laws and the prophetic and sanitation laws (they were NOT moral laws!) were lifted when Christ was Cruxified for all.

But is relative, adhering to Dawkin's hypothesis of a changing social moral Zeitgeist.

What is wrong with rape?

[Womble]

That is completely ridiculous. Ok. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No, ok well now you're an A-Monsterist. Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No, ok well now you're a A-Unicornist.

Uh, no. Rejecting a particular form of the idea of god is not rejecting the entire concept. You are conflating two different things here.

Atheism from ignorance or from indifference is not a belief system, that much is a given. Rejecting a particular form of an idea of God is not a belief system in and of itself, but there's certainly a belief system behind it on which the rejection is founded. However, theoretical atheism that explicitly posits arguments against the existence of any and all gods, rather than a specific God of a specific religion, is by necessity a belief system, as it is founded on the prior assumption, whether overt or implicit, that nothing supernatural can exist. This is not a passive denial of the unproven, but an active proposition.

No, did you read the link I sent? If you don't accept that disbelief must be the logical position when there is no evidence then you could claim that anything exists.

And the problem with that is...?

Besides, in the case of God we aren't dealing with the absence of evidence, but rather with evidence which one side finds sufficient while the other does not.

[Womble]

Uh, no, he's right, according to Christianity at least.
How did the universe begin: God created it by speaking it into existence.
How did life begin: God spoke it into existence.
How did human life begin: God formed it from the dust of the ground. He formed the body, and then he breathed into it the breath of life.
Why did He created human life: God was lonely. Says it in Genesis. God created man in His own image.
So, I don't think he's getting confused.

Of course he is. "How" is the mechanics of the process. "Why" is the significance and the purpose.

You walk down the street. I drop a flower pot onto your head. "How" it falls is the velocity and the acceleration of the fall, governed by the force of gravity. "Why" it falls is my reason for having dropped it. Science can answer the former, but never the latter.