Battle of the New Atheism

[Colrom]

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe that our evolution was only guided by a God.

 

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm somewhat confused as well. I read it as a non-interventionist viewpoint. God is the creator, but he doesn't have any direct influence on the way things happen. He wound it up and let it go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since God is believed to transcend time it would not be a problem for him to wind it up and let it go and then only keep the one (or ones) that best satisfy him - sort of like an artist might chuck some of their paintings. Sort of like rolling D&D characters and then just keeping the one that is good as a Paladin or Wizard.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Colrom

[Plano Skywalker]

one of the things that I think helps with our conceptualization of diety or no, creation or no, immortal soul or no, is to simply ask ourselves whether we believe in transcendent reality. The Ancient Greeks (or at least the philosophers of the school of Socrates) believed that reality was transcendent and eternal. And these were not religious people as we now understand the term.

 

of course, most of us have heard of "Plato's cave", which is the idea that everything in this world is a mere reflection of the transcendent "real" world. the chair in your study is not really a chair but a cheap immitation of the ULTIMATE CHAIR, etc.

 

where this really comes into play for us is on moral issues. why is it that human societies (almost) always reach the conclusion (independently) that murder is wrong, for instance? is it just pragmatism or could it be that all men believe in some sort of transcendent reality, all men believe in universal truths?

[WITHTEETH]

where this really comes into play for us is on moral issues.  why is it that human societies (almost) always reach the conclusion (independently) that murder is wrong, for instance?  is it just pragmatism or could it be that all men believe in some sort of transcendent reality, all men believe in universal truths?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe we just have a natural capacity for empathy that has helped human kind survive and work in groups. That paired with basic real world experiences automatically gives a negative aura about death tot he human psyche.

 

There is no proof of this other realm that the Platonist or Christians believe, the fact of the matter is, they have to deal with this life, how they do it is up to them. Its not a moral issue I believe, its an intellectual issue because it should be based on reason not so called universal truths or absolutes.

[Sand]

In actuality, the only thing that could possibly defeat a bad idea is a better idea.  To convert your enemy, not kill him (a la 1984).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And if they don't convert, then what?

 

What people need to learn, extremists to the moderates is that to respect each others view and let people be. If you have a strong religious belief then good for you. keep it to yourself. Don't judge others. Don't tell others they are wrong in their beliefs. Don't go door to door. Don't push literature. Don't be hassling random strangers on the street. One's relationship with God is a private affair so keep it private.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Sand

[Musopticon?]

Hypocrite.

[Sand]

Aren't we all.

 

Besides, Muso, there is no need to make personal attacks. That is exactly the sort of thing we do not need. It is something we all need to work on. Some more than others. Only when each of use, meaning every person on the planet, keeps their own religious views and worship between themselves and whatever God they worship, or not, can there be progress.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Sand

[Dark_Raven]

Jesus saves! Remember that dear people.

[Sand]

No, he does not. Jesus was a preacher and some call a prophet over 2000 years ago. His teachings are quaint but never truly taken hold and ultimately perverted to fit the needs of an organized religion and give justification for persecuting others who do not fit the religious organization's definition of normal.

[random evil guy]

atheism rules. theism sux. mkay?

[Dark_Raven]

Oppsy. I forgot my sarcasm mark.

 

If there was such a person, he was another delusional individual even though his heart may have been in the right place to preach peace

[Sand]

No. Some of the greatest pieces of literature and art have been inspired by religion, such as John Milton's Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, and various pieces of art from Leonardo Da Vinci.

[metadigital]

A nuclear bomb

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Total annihilation in other words. Or genocide, if you will. Either way, that still would not eliminate it. You would always have extremists, many of whom do not fear death. Such a thing might only strengthen it by provoking outrage.

 

In actuality, the only thing that could possibly defeat a bad idea is a better idea. To convert your enemy, not kill him (a la 1984).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tigranes Levantus: If you looked into a magic crystal, you saw your army destroyed and yourself dead. If you saw that in the future, as I'm sure you're seeing it now, would you continue to fight?

Spartacus: Yes.

Tigranes Levantus: Knowing that you must lose?

Spartacus: Knowing we can. All men lose when they die and all men die. But a slave and a free man lose different things.

Tigranes Levantus: They both lose life.

Spartacus: When a free man dies, he loses the pleasure of life. A slave loses his pain. Death is the only freedom a slave knows. That's why he's not afraid of it. That's why we'll win.

[WITHTEETH]

Aren't we all.

 

Besides, Muso, there is no need to make personal attacks.  That is exactly the sort of thing we do not need.  It is something we all need to work on.  Some more than others.  Only when each of use, meaning every person on the planet, keeps their own religious views and worship between themselves and whatever God they worship, or not, can there be progress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats sounds fine and dandy to keep ones viewpoint to himself but is it really possible living in todays societies? I don't think it is, we need to talk these things out, and find the best reasons to believe whatever makes sense. reason should be contagious, and by taking the tabooness out of religion, humanity might eventually break free from the bonds its made for itself. Not entirely, but enough for those who dont follow religion to have their rights, and still live in acccordance to law.

[Dark Moth]

Aren't we all.

 

Besides, Muso, there is no need to make personal attacks.  That is exactly the sort of thing we do not need.  It is something we all need to work on.  Some more than others.  Only when each of use, meaning every person on the planet, keeps their own religious views and worship between themselves and whatever God they worship, or not, can there be progress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really possible given today's society. And I don't see any reason why someone should be forced to keep his or her religious views to himself. You might as well say one should keep all his or her personal opinions to himself. As long as they don't constantly harass someone, I don't see the reason. Besides, Muso does have a point. You've been guilty of many of the same things you criticize religious folk for. I know what you're gonna say, every Christian you've met is an ****, you just had to throw out a Christian from your store for trying to convert someone the other day, blah blah blah. Save it. Point is, as long as you have that mentality, nobody can take you seriously.

 

Jesus saves! Remember that dear people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still incapable of carrying on intelligent conversation, even as an Obsidian VIP!

Edited October 29, 2006 by Dark Moth

[metadigital]

where this really comes into play for us is on moral issues.  why is it that human societies (almost) always reach the conclusion (independently) that murder is wrong, for instance?  is it just pragmatism or could it be that all men believe in some sort of transcendent reality, all men believe in universal truths?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are examples of "altruistic" bacteria, i.e. microbes that will actually sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony ... even though they have less than a rudimentary mode of communication (as far as has been observed so far, anyway ), with proteins that are not much larger than chemicals.

 

source

source

 

Does that mean there is a God of Bacteria, or that bacteria "believe" in universal truths, or just that altruism can (in some instances) be a useful surivial trait?

[Calax]

Wontan murder for the sake of murder is wrong...

 

 

Sanctioned and organized murder is perfectly A-OK!

[metadigital]

Semantics.

[kumquatq3]

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous books attacks the point.

 

I don't have the time to spell out the argument, but basically he sees evolution as about the genetic level. Rather the group or individual.

 

...I don't think that makes sense as is, but I don't have time for 3 page paper.

Edited October 29, 2006 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

Since God is believed to transcend time it would not be a problem for him to wind it up and let it go and then only keep the one (or ones) that best satisfy him - sort of like an artist might chuck some of their paintings. Sort of like rolling D&D characters and then just keeping the one that is good as a Paladin or Wizard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would that not violate omnipotent status?

 

He/she/it could automatically make the ones that make him best, as he already should know what suits him best. He/she/it knows everything.

[Xard]

That reminds me of one of my stories. My main character meets the God on one happy day, they talk nonsense and then God asks a question. My main character (not a hero or antihero surely, just a loser) is like and aks doesn't you know everything. God says that he hides big bunch of information from himself since its funnier that way.

 

That's actually possible. I mean, I'd be half mad if I knew everything and damn bored too.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Xard

[kumquatq3]

That reminds me of one of my stories. My main character meets the God on one happy day, they talk nonsense and then God asks a question. My main character (not a hero or antihero surely, just a loser) is like and aks doesn't you know everything. God says that he hides big bunch of information from himself since its funnier that way.

 

That's actually possible. I mean, I'd be half mad if I knew everything and damn bored too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, small problem tho

 

Since he is all powerful, technically he can hide something from himself, but then....if he didn't know where he hid it or what it is he hid, he no longer knows everything.

 

This means he violate Omni-potent status and the universe implodes or something.

[thepixiesrock]

Maybe he split himself up into three, and each third of him knows a third of everything, thus he knows everything. And maybe he has a division of powers. You know, checks and balances.

Edited October 29, 2006 by thepixiesrock

[kumquatq3]

3 gods violates the 1 god principle

[Dark Moth]

3 gods violates the 1 god principle

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if it's the same God.

[thepixiesrock]

As I said, it was just the one God split three ways, not three different Gods.