'The God Delusion' Has anyone read it?

[lpounds]

'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg
I am interested in picking it up. Has anyone read it that can report with their thoughts and feelings?

Is it a worthwhile read?

[Michaelgoround]

Here's what wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) has to say. I may pick up this book just to see what an atheists thinks.

[lpounds]

This part in the WIKI text on the book interests me especially:

Dawkins had long wanted to write a book openly criticising religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion), but his publisher had advised against it. By the year 2006, his publisher had warmed to the idea. Dawkins attributes this change of mind to "four years of Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)"

[pkittle]

Haven't read it, but I believe Dawkins was the originator of the terms "meme" and "memetics," in reference to a sort of cultural equivalent to genes and genetics. His work has been pretty influential in some academic circles. Probably worth reading.

[JJuggle]

I read and thought very highly of it. It is well written, informative, well organized, and for one already an atheist, compelling. Whether it has actually changed any minds, I don't know. I doesn't rely on miracles.

It has been discussed on these forums elsewhere (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/search.php?searchid=674110) if you're interested in digging around for what's already been said when it was fresher in the minds of those who've read it.

[lpounds]

Thanks, will do.

[mr_charm]

I read and thought very highly of it. It is well written, informative, well organized, and for one already an atheist, compelling. Whether it has actually changed any minds, I don't know. I doesn't rely on miracles.

It has been discussed on these forums elsewhere (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/search.php?searchid=674110) if you're interested in digging around for what's already been said when it was fresher in the minds of those who've read it.
Check your link, it says nomatches found when i click on it..

[mornish]

I read about half of it before it mysteriously disappeared.

It's great!

[glen]

I remember being a bit dissappointed because it was all old news to me, but I imagine it's a good introduction to a lot of the arguments floating around. Some might find Dawkins a tad abrasive, especially theists.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

It's a bit spiteful which works against actually converting anyone. The points are all quite valid though.

[Seager]

That's one thing I'll give apologists over atheists - they are better converters.

I read A Case of Easter by the guy who wrote A Case for Christ, and while it was full of half truths, fallacies, and general hogwash the author was very welcoming and nice. He came off as the kind of guy who you'd like to have a beer with and who'd probably help you move even if he'd just met you. I wanted to dislike the guy, but I just couldn't. Also, I think he believes the stuff that he wrote and I can't dislike a guy for that. I don't think his fallacies are on purpose but instead are the fault of his zealousness.

Dawkins, however, is kind of a jerk - and while I agree with him, I have no desire to ever meet or hang out with him. We Atheists need our own Barak Obama, we just aren't going to get anywhere with this guy. Heck, many of us don't even like him, of course he won't be able to speak to the theists out there.

[kington99]

Dawkins, however, is kind of a jerk - and while I agree with him, I have no desire to ever meet or hang out with him. We Atheists need our own Barak Obama, we just aren't going to get anywhere with this guy. Heck, many of us don't even like him, of course he won't be able to speak to the theists out there.

I have met, and to some degree 'hung out' with Dawkins. His persona is somewhat different from that projected in the media, including his own books, he's a nice guy to chat to.

[MuniAddict]

Yes. It really makes you think, which is a good thing.:)

[BillyTheMountain]

I have met, and to some degree 'hung out' with Dawkins. His persona is somewhat different from that projected in the media, including his own books, he's a nice guy to chat to.

i hear he supports China, where the atheists don't give freedom to practice religion to anyone, and send all christians to re-education camps.

[Michaelgoround]

My friends in China I wonder if he went to the olympics.

[BillyTheMountain]

My friends in China wonder if he went to the olympics.

the atheists gave Dawkins a special invitation, and greeted him with open arms. he took a tour of the re-education camps filled with christians, and they asked him to teach the christians correct thinking.

[Seager]

^ Citation Needed ^

China is new more representative of Atheists as Bin Laden is of Muslims or Phelps is to Christians.

[hobo_chuck]

^ Citation Needed ^

China is no more representative of Atheists as Bin Laden is of Muslims or Phelps is to Christians.
yup.
Or Hitler is to Christians.
Here's my citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs), too.
I changed my first citation because it was too biased. Good ol' wikipedia.

[feel the light]

More or less

1. Religion is a mental disease that spreads like a virus. It can't be found in the natural world, you have to catch it from other people by trusting their logic.

2. The Flying spaghetti monster rebuttal. One thing all atheists get tired of hearing, over and over again from holy book fans, is some version of this pronouncement.

"Here is a missing link !, this fossil is fake ! Carbon dating is flawed !" Then in the next breath they clutch their book to their heart and smile, like they have just proved something. In religious debate, any flaw in the evidence for evolution, is perceived by the faithful as evidence for their book.

Is there an atheist in the world who hasn't had a friend or relative, or ass hole at the door say smugly in their face, "O K, then you tell me where life came from ! " ?, as if such a statement can only rationally lead to an assumption that bronze age literature was inspired by an all powerful deity.:rolleyes:

Dawkin's famous rebuttal was that flaws in our knowledge can just as rationally be explained as the work of a flying spaghetti monster.

Basically, if the fact that we have not yet created a cell from scratch, or proven the absolute origin of anything means the bible must be true, why doesn't it also prove that any other religion is true ? The flying spaghetti monster is as likely to have answered your prayer as Jesus.

I don't think he's all that offensive. I have gone further myself on many occasions.;)

For instance, there is the "believing in Jesus is low class stupid " argument. What is so offensive about taking up this as a talking point, is that it's so painfully true. Even worse, people are religious because they care about what other people think, making this argument especially painful, and only fit for tasering door knockers.

Basically, ask your proselytizer to explain why you have noticed that religious people are stupid ! The more education people have, and the more income they have, the less likely they are to believe in the bible. Conversely, the prisons are full of people mumbling to god before they go to the shower.
If the bible is true, why do the stupid people embrace it enmass, while no one talks about it at the national academy of science? What is so ungodly about thinking well that causes the vast majority of high IQ people to abandon religion at a young age ? In any other field in life, the smart people have done so well. :)

Dawkins will tell you holy book loving is a virus. He doesn't tell you what that virus may cause.;)

[BillyTheMountain]

More or less

1. Religion is a mental disease that spreads like a virus. It can't be found in the natural world, you have to catch it from other people by trusting their logic.

2. The Flying spaghetti monster rebuttal. One thing all atheists get tired of hearing, over and over again from holy book fans, is some version of this pronouncement.

"Here is a missing link !, this fossil is fake ! Carbon dating is flawed !" Then in the next breath they clutch their book to their heart and smile, like they have just proved something. In religious debate, any flaw in the evidence for evolution, is perceived by the faithful as evidence for their book.

Is there an atheist in the world who hasn't had a friend or relative, or ass hole at the door say smugly in their face, "O K, then you tell me where life came from ! " ?, as if such a statement can only rationally lead to an assumption that bronze age literature was inspired by an all powerful deity.:rolleyes:

Dawkin's famous rebuttal was that flaws in our knowledge can just as rationally be explained as the work of a flying spaghetti monster.

Basically, if the fact that we have not yet created a cell from scratch, or proven the absolute origin of anything means the bible must be true, why doesn't it also prove that any other religion is true ? The flying spaghetti monster is as likely to have answered your prayer as Jesus.

I don't think he's all that offensive. I have gone further myself on many occasions.;)

For instance, there is the "believing in Jesus is low class stupid " argument. What is so offensive about taking up this as a talking point, is that it's so painfully true. Even worse, people are religious because they care about what other people think, making this argument especially painful, and only fit for tasering door knockers.

Basically, ask your proselytizer to explain why you have noticed that religious people are stupid ! The more education people have, and the more income they have, the less likely they are to believe in the bible. Conversely, the prisons are full of people mumbling to god before they go to the shower.
If the bible is true, why do the stupid people embrace it enmass, while no one talks about it at the national academy of science? What is so ungodly about thinking well that causes the vast majority of high IQ people to abandon religion at a young age ? In any other field in life, the smart people have done so well. :)

Dawkins will tell you holy book loving is a virus. He doesn't tell you what that virus may cause.;)

the IQ controversy is cultural bias and racism cloaked in science.

please don't tell me you truly believe in IQ! Hah!

oddly enough, it's always the high IQ people who think IQ is so damn important

why is that?

[kevinalexandersmith]

More or less
The Flying spaghetti monster rebuttal. One thing all atheists get tired of hearing, over and over again from holy book fans, is some version of this pronouncement.



An atheist one asked me to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

In an infinite universe, all configurations of matter and energy exist somewhere in it. Therefore the universe contains flying spaghetti monsters.

If you really believe the universe is infinite, then you must accept the existence of flying spaghetti monsters.

Is that what you are talking about?

[hobo_chuck]

yup.
Or Hitler is to Catholics.
Here's my citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs), too.
I changed my first citation because it was too biased. Good ol' wikipedia.
Sorry, Corrected that for ya'll

In an infinite universe, all configurations of matter and energy exist somewhere in it. Therefore the universe contains flying spaghetti monsters.

The problem is...I don't believe that the universe is truly infinite. Just incomprehensibly large and long in duration. For all we know the dimension we know as "width" in fact curls in on itself if you travel far enough along it... We live in a doughnut :)

[Seager]

If you really believe the universe is infinite, then you must accept the existence of flying spaghetti monsters.

Not that I necessarily agree with that statement, but the same logic then applies that no creator God would be necessary for the complexity of our planet and life.

[feel the light]

Infinite in scale isn't the same thing as infinite in variety.

Really, looking out in any direction, you see a lot of similar structures repeated millions of times. That likely goes on forever, without any flying spaghetti monsters, or gods sitting on thrones surrounded by angels etc.

[feel the light]

the IQ controversy is cultural bias and racism cloaked in science.

please don't tell me you truly believe in IQ! Hah!

oddly enough, it's always the high IQ people who think IQ is so damn important

why is that?

Here is a list of per capita income by state

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

And here is one of church attendance by state

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_lz1n2thelist.html

Notice something ? Mississippi has the most churches per capita of any state. They are 1 % point behind such bastions of advanced culture as Alabama and Louisiana, in weekly attendance.

What else can we say about Mississippi ? They share with Louisiana the highest infant mortality rate, almost twice as high as states with the lowest % of church goers.

Their educational level is at the bottom. They are the most obese state. The per capita income is the lowest in the nation.

Is Mississippi an aberration ? No, with the lone exception of clean living mormon Utah, you can predict how screwed up a state is by looking at it's % of church goers.

That is because stupid people screw up more, and are way more likely to be religious.

You may not believe IQ is a relative measure of value. However, in any other measure I have cared to look at, religion appears to harm the people and culture. Can any of you find a case besides Utah where a higher degree of church going isn't associated with a bad health, financial, or educational out come ?

[BillyTheMountain]

Here is a list of per capita income by state

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

And here is one of church attendance by state

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_lz1n2thelist.html

Notice something ? Mississippi has the most churches per capita of any state. They are 1 % point behind such bastions of advanced culture as Alabama and Louisiana, in weekly attendance.

What else can we say about Mississippi ? They share with Louisiana the highest infant mortality rate, almost twice as high as states with the lowest % of church goers.

Their educational level is at the bottom. They are the most obese state. The per capita income is the lowest in the nation.

Is Mississippi an aberration ? No, with the lone exception of clean living mormon Utah, you can predict how screwed up a state is by looking at it's % of church goers.

That is because stupid people screw up more, and are way more likely to be religious.

You may not believe IQ is a relative measure of value. However, in any other measure I have cared to look at, religion appears to harm the people and culture. Can any of you find a case besides Utah where a higher degree of church going isn't associated with a bad health, financial, or educational out come ?

IQ is just a ghost in the machine. You can drop it, replace it with socio-economic status (SES), and you'll find the SES explains everything better.

You're trying to say attending church causes infant mortality? How does church kill babies??!

even your use of the term "bastions of advanced culture" is so ethnocentric and stereotyped, it borders on criminal.

and you're saying attending church makes people obese? what's the connection, dude? seems like you should look up the phrase "illusory correlation."

what state did you say you were from?

i want to thank you for making my statement crystal clear, by your example: the IQ controversy is cultural bias and racism cloaked in science. that's what ethnocentrism is, too.

Billy

[feel the light]

I wanted to check this out more, so I made two tables, with data from the above 2 links.

Maybe this won't print out so good, I'm smart enough to think of stuff, but not so clever at learning how to post things LOL.

top 10 in weekly church attendance
1000's $ per capita income
Alabama 58% 30.9

Louisiana 58% 31.8

South Carolina 58% 29.7

Mississippi 57% 27

Utah 55% 29.4

Arkansas 55% 28.5

Nebraska 53% 34.4

North Carolina 53% 32.2

Tennessee 52% 32.2

Georgia 52% 32.1

Average all 10 $ 30,800 /yr.

Bottom 10 in weekly church attendance
1000's $ annual per capita
New York 33% 44

Oregon 32% 33.3

California 32% 39.6

Washington 32% 38.2

Maine 31% 32.1

Massachusetts 31% 46.3

Rhode Island 28% 37.5

Nevada 27% 39

Vermont 24% 34.5

New Hampshire 24% 39.8

average for all 10 $ 38,400/yr

So what does this mean ? Why will the average citizen from the 10 most religious states earn $ 7.600/ yr less then does a citizen from the 10 least religious ?

I submit that stupid people are less adept at earning money, and many times more likely to be religious.

Even the Mormons were no exception. Their shunning of alcohol and smoking gives them a better health outcome then the other stupid states. But they are no better at earning a living.

[feel the light]

and you're saying attending church makes people obese? what's the connection, dude? seems like you should look up the phrase "illusory correlation."-Billy

I didn't say that going to church was the cause of obesity. If that were true, I'd be skinny LOL !:)

What I think is happening, is that embracing holy literature results in a poorer interest in education, and a poorer educational outcome. This in tum is at the root of poverty, as people with little interest in true science, learn it poorly and earn little compared to the more curious who achieve a better educational outcome as a result.

And as Billy wrote, the SES is where we find the link to poor behaviors. Ignorant poor people are more likely to smoke, eat junk food and have a child that dies young.

And the link between church, ignorance and poverty seems hard to ignore.

[BillyTheMountain]

try: people with no money for your computer games, movies, DVDs and other entertainment go to church because its cheap or free.

remember, a good % of church goers are atheists (as established on another thread here),

[feel the light]

Maybe you guys can help me here, and find some sort of metric that the more religious states are good at.

I just checked out "murder rate per 100,000/yr. "

I am to lazy to do a table of 10. He's the gist.

The average murder rate in the 5 states with highest weekly church attendance
is 10.2 . Would be much higher without 5 th place Utah with 3.2 .

The average murder rate in the 5 states with the lowest weekly church attendance is 4.5 . This would be much lower, except for all the murderous atheists in Nevada pulling a 13.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169

[feel the light]

I just checked a bunch of tables, looking for a gap in the trend.

A child growing up in an average of the top 10 weekly church attending states, as compared to the 10 least church attending states is in for a serious heap of shit.:eek:

They will grow up in a family that earns 24 % less. Be 20 % more likely to drop out of high school. 50 % more of the girls will be teen mothers. They will gain 10 lbs and smoke more, unless they are Mormon.;)

Twice as likely to be incarcerated, the resident of the pious state is also twice as likely to be murdered, and about 50 % more likely to be divorced in their life time.

Billy makes a fine point, that association is not causation. However, in this case Billy, why wouldn't everyone move from a "bad luck state ", to a good one ? Seems like the wisest move one can possibly make ! If it is random bad economic circumstance that makes the pious states suck, why would anyone stay ?

I submit that life is good in any state if you avoid being intellectually crippled by religion. The more pious states are dragged down statistically because embracing religion has caused a greater % of their citizens to be scientifically illiterate and irrational. It is these individual citizens that suffer, and collectively make the stats for their state suck.;)

Because such a high percentage of the religious are stupid people with sucky lives, there is a direct statistical connection between church attendance rates, and crappy socio economic outcomes in each states data.

[Seager]

That is because stupid people screw up more, and are way more likely to be religious.

Holy cow man, are you giving us a bad name or what?

All it takes to refute a "proof" is to show an alternative explanation eh? You say people live in poverty, have high crime, and go to church because they are stupid. (More or less.) At the very least you say that religion is a symptom of a low IQ, and that this low IQ then leads to crime and poverty.

Well, I would counter that, quite possibly, the reason that church attendance is so high in those areas is because their live's suck. What do you do when your life sucks? You go to church to try and make it better. It's the only source of hope for these people. The church is a focus point for their community and empowerment. They use the church as a tool to try to better their sucky lives. WHY do their lives suck? Who knows - that's a discussion for another thread.

I think religion is as silly as the next guy, but it really does help some people. Let them have it. We have no more right to judge them and force Atheism on them as they do to force religion on us.

[feel the light]

I have great respect for anyone that can come up with links and data shuffling, to show I'm full of crap. Please, go ahead.:)

I can't see myself how I have proved anything. Proving stuff is like seriously hard.:rolleyes:

The claim that adopting medieval texts as divinely inspired actual truth in your personal world view is stupid, and will impoverish you, your family, your state, and your country, is stunningly easy to prove.:rolleyes: OK, not prove, I just wish someone would help me out and find any data that shows any "more religious" , state, or country has a better statistical outcome then their less pious peers. That was my discovery today. Every attempt I made to find a statistical connection between church attendance and society being better was unsuccessful. I did try. Please help me.:)

The internet is a more sacred text to me then the bible. They are both full of crap, but you get to follow your own ideas and study other peoples data fast here.:)

[Seager]

The claim that adopting medieval texts as divinely inspired actual truth in your personal world view is stupid, and will impoverish you, your family, your state, and your country, is stunningly easy to prove.:rolleyes: OK, not prove, I just wish someone would help me out and find any data that shows any "more religious" , state, or country has a better statistical outcome then their less pious peers.

The thing is, all you found is correlational data, not causal. We don't have to find alternative data to refute your hypothesis. All we need to do is offer up a competing hypothesis for the same data (which I did.)

Anyways, Saudi Arabia is very religious and very rich. It's because of oil, of course, but it's the evidence you asked for. Oh, and North Korea has a similar religious stance to China and is poor as dirt.

[monkeyman]

Oh, and North Korea has a similar religious stance to China and is poor as dirt.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e335/johndavidhomeboy/1201487079818.jpg

[zod]

So what does this mean ? Why will the average citizen from the 10 most religious states earn $ 7.600/ yr less then does a citizen from the 10 least religious ?

I submit that stupid people are less adept at earning money, and many times more likely to be religious.


I submit that the cost of living is higher in those 10 least "religious" states so that change in salary is in reality a much smaller number than it appears. On top of that I live in The South and if I made $7600 less a year it'd be like not getting a bonus. Big whoop. Believe it or not we actually can make money down here in po'dunk.

Holy cow man, are you giving us a bad name or what?

Well, I would counter that, quite possibly, the reason that church attendance is so high in those areas is because their live's suck. What do you do when your life sucks? You go to church to try and make it better. It's the only source of hope for these people. The church is a focus point for their community and empowerment. They use the church as a tool to try to better their sucky lives. WHY do their lives suck? Who knows - that's a discussion for another thread.


Funny you want to criticize "feel the light" and then you turn around and make just as idiotic a statement. I've gone to church almost every Sunday of my life for a LONG time and let me tell you I'm a very very happy person. I have had a very easy going and fruitful life. Everything falls into my lap and I can literally count the stressful days I've had in 35 years on my fingers. I have no hardships to pull me into the church looking for a god-lottery.

Also I'd say I have far more experience with church people than you two scholars do and I know most of them to be very joyful and smarter than your average stump. You're humorous at best, but continue to convince yourselves that use poor old depressed snake handlin' backwoods groundlings are down here praying for the 2nd coming because we're just helpless monkeys. :D What a joke.

[Enoch]

I've been following this thread and reading all this "Educated Spew" I really thought it was all just too stupid to comment on, but dang Zod that was just hilarious

I can't wait to hear what these mental giants will come up with next...

Remember, Money can by you happiness, and he who dies with the most toys win


Maybe that's why all the rich celebraties from Hollywierd live such fine lives, gee I want to be just like 'em when I grow up

[zod]

Well you're just a backwoods jesus freak like me so WTF do you know grit-grubber??? ;)

[Enoch]

Yep, I'm a poor stupd blak boy donwed here in da' Bible belt south,

man dess, churches and Jesus are holtin' me back

If we coul just get rid oven we wood all be ritch

[hobo_chuck]

Anyways, Saudi Arabia is very religious and very rich. It's because of oil, of course, but it's the evidence you asked for. Oh, and North Korea has a similar religious stance to China and is poor as dirt.
They're outliers. Comparison between states is better because we all have a similar government and such.

[BillyTheMountain]

Yep, I'm a poor stupd blak boy donwed here in da' Bible belt south,

man dess, churches and Jesus are holtin' me back

If we coul just get rid oven we wood all be ritch

Enoch,

:D

Thanks!

and of course, the founding fathers of the USA wan't no dummies, and all were theists, meaning they believed in a personal GOD.

whereas the atheists who decided how to run china, well, they just don't have what the inventors of democracy have.

but i've had enough of this kooky correlations.

billy

[monkeyman]

You know, I've heard so many different theories about the founding fathers' beliefs, I don't know what to believe anymore.

[feel the light]

Like ^, I had my doubts about this one, having lived there for a few years in the 80's. I don't remember it as a depressing place. Maybe the crime rate was a little high, two of my friends were shot, and Tiny died. But thinking back on it, I don't recall at the funeral that there was any consensus that we would go to church now.

Still, it is a theory. How can we test this ? Reasoning that if life was so bad in some places it drives people to church, it must be depressing as hell for the atheists at home. Are they killing themselves ? Like the murder rate, which I didn't expect to find a correlation, but I checked anyway because it was easy to find the stats, suicide stats by state are easy to find.

Nothing there though, positive or negative. I was surprised that Utah had one of the highest rates. I guess having folks ringing your door all the time is more irritating then I had imagined. But church rich Louisiana had one of the lowest rates. It was all over the map really, So I won't list any numbers because I didn't find anything. So I find the theory that church attendance increases in depressing areas to be uncompelling.

I came across this by chance today. It is an article by an expert science teacher, describing some of the unique challenges he finds teaching Biology to his religious students.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?pagewanted=1

After reading this do you find it a stretch to imagine some parents not sending their children to collage, fearing the satanic influence, or some of these students doing poorly enough in school that they earn less later in life ?
That explains the income gap. The resulting poverty explains the higher murder rate, and obesity.

[Seager]

Funny you want to criticize "feel the light" and then you turn around and make just as idiotic a statement. I've gone to church almost every Sunday of my life for a LONG time and let me tell you I'm a very very happy person. I have had a very easy going and fruitful life. Everything falls into my lap and I can literally count the stressful days I've had in 35 years on my fingers. I have no hardships to pull me into the church looking for a god-lottery.

Also I'd say I have far more experience with church people than you two scholars do and I know most of them to be very joyful and smarter than your average stump. You're humorous at best, but continue to convince yourselves that use poor old depressed snake handlin' backwoods groundlings are down here praying for the 2nd coming because we're just helpless monkeys. :D What a joke.

Responding to you and everyone who's patting you on the back for response:

You misunderstood my point. Just because many depressed people turn to church DOES NOT mean that EVERYONE who goes to church is depressed. I never meant or insinuated that. It is a fact, however, that religion is a ray of hope and something that can save someone from depression or a hopeless socio-economic crisis, and that the community that churches build can also provide solutions to those issues. Surely you won't disagree with me on that point?

I simply offered up a competing hypothesis to the "church is more popular there because they are dumber" hypothesis in order to cast it into doubt. I never said that people who go to church do so because they are depressed. I did say that areas that are in turmoil will most likely have more church goers as a result. Surely you cannot disagree with me there? Offering a better life through Jesus both on Earth and Beyond is one of the main recruitment mantra's of the church. Of course attendance would go up when people are unsatisfied with their lives. The community that the church provides generally makes good on that promise.

In short, you completely misunderstood my point. I was also a church goer for 16 years, so don't assume I wasn't once one of you. I have no ill will for the church, nor do I believe any of the negative claims about the church that you attribute to me. Religion has it's bad and good sides, I think that's something everyone can agree on, but personally religion isn't for me. That doesn't mean I look down on people who do feel that is for them.

[zod]

You misunderstood my point. Just because many depressed people turn to church DOES NOT mean that EVERYONE who goes to church is depressed. I never meant or insinuated that. It is a fact, however, that religion is a ray of hope and something that can save someone from depression or a hopeless socio-economic crisis, and that the community that churches build can also provide solutions to those issues. Surely you won't disagree with me on that point?

I simply offered up a competing hypothesis to the "church is more popular there because they are dumber" hypothesis in order to cast it into doubt. I never said that people who go to church do so because they are depressed. I did say that areas that are in turmoil will most likely have more church goers as a result. Surely you cannot disagree with me there?
Well I think that reads totally different than this.......

the reason that church attendance is so high in those areas is because their live's suck. What do you do when your life sucks? You go to church....
But sure the non-commited often turn to church when hardships hit. Hardships move people out of their comfort zone. Hopefully to something like church instead of something like booze. But larger church attendance in the South still is not dues to hardships. Hardships don't keep church attendance high. If that were the case a church wouldn't be able to get enough offerings to pay their bills. For instance my church has all but paid off a 70+ acre plot of land and a new sanctuary totaling abouts 9 million dollars. We started paying on this project maybe 4 years ago and it should be paid off in full by the end of next year. Hardship isn't how that happened.

Sorry if I read you wrong though...... :)

Religion has it's bad and good sides, I think that's something everyone can agree on...
Actually I cannot agree with that but my definition of religion ends at the cross. I don't complicate it.

[Seager]

Well I think that reads totally different than this.......

You're right, I wasn't clear before. :)


But sure the non-commited often turn to church when hardships hit. Hardships move people out of their comfort zone. Hopefully to something like church instead of something like booze. But larger church attendance in the South still is not dues to hardships. Hardships don't keep church attendance high. If that were the case a church wouldn't be able to get enough offerings to pay their bills. For instance my church has all but paid off a 70+ acre plot of land and a new sanctuary totaling abouts 9 million dollars. We started paying on this project maybe 4 years ago and it should be paid off in full by the end of next year. Hardship isn't how that happened.

Certainly not in the instance of your church it would seem. I think that many people have come to religion in a time of hardship and stayed even after the hardship stopped. Community can be addicting. Anyways, it's possible that the poverty and church numbers, while correlational, have no causal effect on each other at all. I bet we can both keep finding evidence for the competing theories, but I'm not sure I care enough. Suffice to say that it's not because you guys are dumber, which was my original point. :)


Actually I cannot agree with that but my definition of religion ends at the cross. I don't complicate it.

Ok. Using a personal religion definition I don't agree with it for the most part either. I was referring to organized religion.

[johnfoss]

and of course, the founding fathers of the USA wan't no dummies, and all were theists, meaning they believed in a personal GOD.

whereas the atheists who decided how to run china, well, they just don't have what the inventors of democracy have....Or were they? Back in the 1770s, what Freedom of Religion *really* meant was freedom to go to a different church. At least it didn't imply tolerance. 230 years later we've still got quite a ways to go on that. If you wanted to be in politics in 1770s America, you had better be some sort of Christian. Today that's changed. Today you only have to be Christian to be President, but you can probably get by being Jewish or Muslim in most other political offices.

What I'm saying is, you either pretended to be religious/Christian or you weren't going to go anywhere in politics (or business).

Same thing in China. Do you think those guys were *raised* athiest? Probably not. They chose to outlaw religion so it wouldn't threaten the state. Wasn't the same more or less true in the Soviet Union? And when that government fell apart people snapped back into the churches like rubber bands.

[MuniAddict]

It was only a matter of time for the inevitable "Rebuttal" (http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-McGrath/dp/0281059276). :rolleyes:

[feel the light]

One of the great puzzles to me about the religious, I is often know a great deal more about the history of their sect then I do. Why the lack of curiosity about their own beliefs? It is stunning to me, as if I met John Foss or KH in person, and realized they know only a fraction as much about unicycles as I did, and most of that was wrong ?

For what it's worth, the founding fathers wrote 100's of letters each, many about philosophy and religion. Finding them on the net is easy.Ten minutes on google, and you can be an expert on your own religion too !:)

Was Ben Franklin what you would call a Christian ? Why not read a letter he wrote, like this one :

"In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion:
“ As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....

Did Thomas Jefferson swear the King James version was inerrant ? Why not read the Jeffersonian Bible to find out Billy ? I am sure you hold the man in great esteem no ?

Jefferson's conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".[50] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", [51] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".[51] He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[52] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to make his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible. - Wiki quote (I know I'm lazy). " It's still in print !

George Washington, I'll give that to you guys. Life long church goer, and quite possibly a believing Christian. Politics and the social life of church were more intertwined in those days, so he would likely have gone for political practicality one way or the other. He did not write much about religion, or I didn't look hard enough. In any case, he wasn't as sharp as Franklin.;)

Now my own education is getting a bit spotty LOL. Off the top of my head, Adams , Madison, Hancock, Hamilton. Does the guy who shot Hamilton count ?, I say we presume questionable moral guidance on his part and go with good hand writing instead. John Hancock not only signed his name like god, his writings revel a classic Christian belief system. No controversy there, so we are 2 and 2 going into Adams.

I don't know how to call Adams. There is this paragraph, that most Christians I think would say he was not in the fold.

"Adams was raised a Congregationalist, becoming a Unitarian at a time when most of the Congregational churches around Boston were turning to Unitarianism. Everett (1966) argues that Adams was not a deist, but he used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that God intervened in the affairs of individuals. Although not anti-clerical, he advocated the separation of church and state. He also believed that regular church service was beneficial to man's moral sense. Everett concludes that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection.[56 " - Wiki

But he has also many surviving speeches praising Christianity, and it appears he had a belief in god, and the after life. I say he was a politician, and take it all with a hand of salt, because he was a really good politician.;) I will pass on calling Adams something. I think historians refer to the founding fathers as deists, because it's hard sometimes to figure out what else to call
them.

I would have quit now, but I can't with a tie. Alexander Hamilton.

"In his early life, he was an orthodox and conventional, though not deeply pious, Presbyterian. From 1777 to 1792, he appears to have been completely indifferent, and made jokes about God at the Constitutional Convention. During the French Revolution, he had an "opportunistic religiosity," using Christianity for political ends and insisting that Christianity and Jefferson's democracy were incompatible. After his misfortunes of 1801, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation. He proposed a Christian Constitutional Society in 1802, to take hold of "some strong feeling of the mind" to elect "fit men" to office; but Hamilton now wrote also of "Christian welfare societies" for the poor. He was not a member of any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. After he was shot, Hamilton requested communion first from Benjamin Moore, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who initially declined to administer the Sacrament chiefly because he did not wish to sanction the practice of dueling. Hamilton then requested communion from Presbyterian pastor John Mason, who declined on the grounds that Presbyterians did not reserve the Sacrament. After Hamilton spoke of his belief in God's mercy, and of his desire to renounce dueling, Bishop Moore reversed his decision, and administered communion to Hamilton.[104] " - Wiki I say this is another Tie. Sure, he died a Christian, but he did all his smart stuff as an atheist, converted, then promptly marched out and got shot in the head. Perhaps in this case, a little less certainty in the afterlife probably would have done more to further his literary career. We are looking for some guidance here right ?

So I have run out of famous founding fathers, and proven that the really smart ones were not what todays Christains would recognize as where their belief system came from.

So where did that idea that the king James version is the real deal come from ? Does this sound like your beliefs ? If so, they became popular about 100 years after the founding fathers had died.

"Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrant nature of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism," seeing it as a pejorative term for historic Christian doctrine[1] while to others it has become a banner of pride.[2] "

[feel the light]

Sorry about the mangled first sentence and spelling ! I need more time to edit my long winded crap ! Anyway, I wanted to attach this picture.

[BillyTheMountain]

Sorry about the mangled first sentence and spelling ! I need more time to edit my long winded crap ! Anyway, I wanted to attach this picture.

I dont recall anyone saying the founding fathers were christians.

[feel the light]

and of course, the founding fathers of the USA wan't no dummies, and all were theists, meaning they believed in a personal GOD.- Billy

If Jefferson was a theist, which I take to mean someone who finds god by believing a text Holy, why did he write his own bible. ? Sounds like he thought he could do better then trusting the bible, he publicly corrected it and published a new one !

Is Adam's God, one that claims Jesus is not divine, and god doesn't interfere in the affairs of men your personal god Billy ? If so, I guess I did misunderstand you.

Apparently Franklin's god doesn't care if you have faith in Jesus's divinity either. What kind of theology was he reading ?, surely you know, as you share a faith in the same personal god.

[feel the light]

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
de·ism Audio Help (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-) Pronunciation Key
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

This was one of the most popular form of religious belief in Washington's time. Sounds a lot like believing the big bang theory to me. No personal god there. Also no inerrant texts, the belief in which causes a poor educational outcome in many people, leading to a life long reduction in income that has a net negative effect on the family and community.

[BillyTheMountain]

Is Adam's God, one that claims Jesus is not divine, and god doesn't interfere in the affairs of men your personal god Billy ? If so, I guess I did misunderstand you.

Apparently Franklin's god doesn't care if you have faith in Jesus's divinity either. What kind of theology was he reading ?, surely you know, as you share a faith in the same personal god.

I don't know where you're getting any of this stuff you think you know about me.

You seem to be making wild leaps of reason, not just about me, but also about church goers.

[MuniAddict]

I'm not among them, but 92% of Americans say they believe in God, or a divine power. Of course, not all go to church, but they are still religious to some degree if they believe in a god. If you're in doubt about that percentage, google it.:)

[feel the light]

It's the belief in the factual truth of the bible that sets up a large % of Christians to experience cognizant dissonance. Which I would define as a feeling of being pissed off that the system is telling you to learn and be able to explain something you think is untrue. I believe many Christians feel this, because they describe to me their anger at Darwin, as if he must be at the right hand of Satan as they speak. What did Darwin ever do to them ? He is blamed by many for making them feel bad.

I am convinced that the sort of "less bible worshiping " christian will suffer much less of this effect, if at all .

For instance, the expert science teacher who wrote the article on teaching science I linked to above, goes to church, he's just not a fundamentalist. If he was, he couldn't have become the expert on evolutionary biology that he is, because of cognitive dissonance that would have made this line of inquiry unpleasant for him.

Although the 7600 $ difference in per capita income is real, the income of the "typical citizen" may be very close to the same.

If say, 4 % more people get advanced science degrees in the less pious states, then earned $ 200, 000 / yr. , that would have a huge effect on the per capita income, even if the typical citizen was no better off. Even if there were plenty of good jobs in the less pious states, if there are 4 % more in the less churched states, raking huge $, it could still swing that big difference in the per capita $ .

I think I may have a new line to research. Try to isolate the effect of fundamentalist churches, from those that don't preach moral opposition to such basic sciences as evolution and geology.

One prediction, is that because Christian fundamentalism is almost a USA exclusive, the results in Europe will be different.

I predict that if I do the same Church attendance vs. per capita income in Europe that I did in the USA, the negative effect of churchgoing on income will be less, due to the average better educational outcome for the moderates.:)

[BillyTheMountain]

It's the belief in the factual truth of the bible that sets up a large % of Christians to experience cognizant dissonance. Which I would define as a feeling of being pissed off that the system is telling you to learn and be able to explain something you think is untrue. I believe many Christians feel this, because they describe to me their anger at Darwin, as if he must be at the right hand of Satan as they speak. What did Darwin ever do to them ? He is blamed by many for making them feel bad.

I am convinced that the sort of "less bible worshiping " christian will suffer much less of this effect, if at all .

For instance, the expert science teacher who wrote the article on teaching science I linked to above, goes to church, he's just not a fundamentalist. If he was, he couldn't have become the expert on evolutionary biology that he is, because of cognitive dissonance that would have made this line of inquiry unpleasant for him.

Although the 7600 $ difference in per capita income is real, the income of the "typical citizen" may be very close to the same.

If say, 4 % more people get advanced science degrees in the less pious states, then earned $ 200, 000 / yr. , that would have a huge effect on the per capita income, even if the typical citizen was no better off. Even if there were plenty of good jobs in the less pious states, if there are 4 % more in the less churched states, raking huge $, it could still swing that big difference in the per capita $ .

I think I may have a new line to research. Try to isolate the effect of fundamentalist churches, from those that don't preach moral opposition to such basic sciences as evolution and geology.

One prediction, is that because Christian fundamentalism is almost a USA exclusive, the results in Europe will be different.

I predict that if I do the same Church attendance vs. per capita income in Europe that I did in the USA, the negative effect of churchgoing on income will be less, due to the average better educational outcome for the moderates.:)

You have no response to my comment about your seeming wild leaps of reason, not just about me, but also about church goers. OK.

Nearly all heroin addicts started out on either mother's milk or formula. Is there any theoretical relationship?

Lots of correlations are meaningless, or due to third factors, as in the case of milk and heroin addiction, and your church findings.

They are meaningless without developing your theoretical explanation.

billy

[feel the light]

To me there is only good data and bad data. Tested theories and untested ones. I am unfamiliar with idea of a leap of reason.

You are kinda interesting Billy, so it is natural to direct some of my comments at your more colorful remarks.:)

As far as making assumptions about your beliefs, you believe Dawlkins is in favor of world wide Chinese domination based apparently only on his fame as an author. You state the founding fathers all shared a personal god, and you are happy working at Walmart in USA. So I say your personal god is Jesus Christ. I never said I was Sherlock Holmes, and I am sorry if implying you are a christian is somehow offensive to you, I am surprised at that.

Actually, I throw this stuff out there because we all have the same data, and maybe someone else will interpret it differently then me, or find some flaw in the reasoning I did not see.

I find your assumption that you understand church goers better then me puzzling. Half the people I have met in my life were church goers, and they surround me today. Often, you can understand a man much better by asking pointed questions, then by singing in his choir. People don't explain things to people that already agree with them. So I have likely heard many more personal explanations for belief then you have, simply because I asked for them.:)

[Seager]

To me there is only good data and bad data. Tested theories and untested ones. I am unfamiliar with idea of a leap of reason.

You left out bad interpretations of good data, and untestable theories based on no data or bad interpretation of data. A leap of reason would be when you claim an untestable causal relationship from correlational data.

[feel the light]

A leap of reason would be when you claim an untestable causal relationship from correlative data. - Seagar

IMHO, what I have done is comparable to finding an association between smoking and Cancer. You can never prove causation from association, yet it is still a useful tool in science. You can use a theory that predicts a cause for the association, make logical predictions, and test the data to see if it follows the pattern. This is what I have done.:)

For example, I can't prove that cigarettes killed Bogart. But is there a dose- response association with smoking and cancer in broad populations ? Yes there is. Just as across a sample of 50 states and 300 M people, we have discovered a dose dependent relationship between church attendance %, and per capita state income. A dose- response relationship ( more cigarettes, more cancer ) makes the association significant. I do not need to prove smoking killed Bogart, to demonstrate a dose response association for smoking and cancer, which was all the surgeon general had to bash smoking (arguably more popular then Jesus in '63), and you are throwing the exact same bogus "association is not causation" argument against me that smokers have used for decades.

Now onto my latest experiment. Is it going to church that produces a bad educational outcome in the USA, or are some types of churches especially effective at stunting intellectual development ?

My prediction was that the more moderate churches of Europe would cause less cognitive dissonance in their followers, leading to a better educational outcome, and higher income in those countries then high church attendance is associated with in the USA, with it's high prevalence of fundamentalists.


Church attendance is low, and declining in Europe. The best I could find was a chart that lists the % of people that never or almost never go to church.

I then added the per capita US $ income on the right, the numbers on the left are the % that don't go to church.

I decided not to use recent ex east countries, because they are apples and oranges so to speak, still poor from the cold war.


Country 1981 2000 K $ per capita
France 59% 60% 27.5 least church
Britain 48% 55% 27.65
Netherlands 41% 48% 28.6
Belgium 35% 46% 28.9
Sweden 38% 46% 26.6
Denmark 45% 43% 31.2
Norway 38% 42% 37.3
Spain 26% 33% 22.0
West Germany 23% 30% 27.5
Finland 15% 28% 22.1
Canada 22% 26% 29.7
Italy 22% 17% 26.8
United States 18% 16% 37.5
Ireland 4% 8% 30.5 Most church
Mean 31% 36%
Source: World Values Survey

So my prediction works out well. There appears to be no significant association between church attendance, or non attendance, and per capita income in Europe.

Of course, this result is very different with what is found in the USA. I already told you my theory why, made a prediction, and then looked at data.
It is others who say I am claiming to have proved something. I am just saying that I am using the scientific method. The lack of an absolute proof is not the same as a lack of good science.:)

[BillyTheMountain]

You left out bad interpretations of good data, and untestable theories based on no data or bad interpretation of data. A leap of reason would be when you claim an untestable causal relationship from correlational data.

Excellent!

As you can see however, it is unlikely that FeelTheLight will ever SeeTheLight.

You state the founding fathers all shared a personal god, and you are happy working at Walmart in USA. So I say your personal god is Jesus Christ. I never said I was Sherlock Holmes, and I am sorry if implying you are a christian is somehow offensive to you, I am surprised at that.

I'm of course honored to be seen as a christian, and always thought Jesus was very cool. I'd be equally honored to be seen as a muslim, jew, lesbian, bicyclist, etc.

But any assumptions you make are leaps of reason, as you display above.

The founding fathers were Deists. I hope you're not still arguing against this. I never said they were christians.

And please don't argue that everyone who is happy working at WalMart is a christian. Quite a number of the men and women working here as maintenance persons, cashiers and shelf stockers are witches, wiccans, satanists, etc.

[feel the light]

The original table was to show the decline in church attendance in Europe. So there are 2 percentage numbers on the left side, for different years. I copied this , and added in per capita income $ from a different source, on the far right.



I see a possibility that a lot of negative things in my country could be made better !:)

I have no personal dislike for fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims, or any group.

What I just got was a "logical leap" LOL of what this may actually mean.

I do not see atheists turning on the fundamentalists. (The Chinese backed take over ) I have been such good friends with so many of them for so long.:) The change will come slowly, as more moderate Christians convince the fundies to give up the party, for educational reasons that make a lot of sense. It is important to convince the fundies that they have a poor educational outcome for a reason.

People who don't want to learn reality because the earth must be 6000 years old, will collect in ever smaller groups, as the advantages of a real education
become ever more apparent.

Churches may still fill with people, but they will not be trained from birth that opposing geology and biological science is a moral virtue. Instead, just as in Europe, the pews will be filled with people who understand the basics of science .

If that was the reality today, I think the bad outcomes of the churchy states vs. the less churched would disappear.:)

[BillyTheMountain]

I do not see atheists turning on the fundamentalists.
If that was the reality today, I think the bad outcomes of the churchy states vs. the less churched would disappear.:)

are you a fundamentalist atheist? a fundamentalist scientist? "if it's in the science book, it must be true."

i like you anyway.

[Seager]

A leap of reason would be when you claim an untestable causal relationship from correlative data. - Seagar

IMHO, what I have done is comparable to finding an association between smoking and Cancer. You can never prove causation from association, yet it is still a useful tool in science. You can use a theory that predicts a cause for the association, make logical predictions, and test the data to see if it follows the pattern. This is what I have done.:)

The comparison doesn't work because the cancer link can be explained by science. The actual mechanism for the mutations can be shown. It can also be tested to a certain extent in lab animals.

However, your theory cannot be tested. Your mechanism, from what I understand, is that stupid people pick religion. That mechanism I can refute, which refutes your theory. (Unlike the cancer mechanism, which is proven.) Also, unlike the cancer link, I have proposed other competing theories to explain the correlation.

It really isn't the same. This is like saying whenever it gets stormy there is lightning, so the lightning must cause the storms. If the mechanism doesn't make sense the theory to explain the correlation should be thrown out.

[feel the light]

This has been an interesting few days for me, as I mush around in my head some new ideas.:)

I am convinced that my data linking church attendance and um, problems in my society is real, just because of the data correlation.

The fact that this association is not found in Europe, a population that mirrors the USA genetically, and in most ways culturally, is a preoccupation of me now, in my daily musings.:)

I would consider further posting, no matter how stupid ;) , helpful to me in some way.

I have become fascinated by my recent research in google into cognitive dissonance.

I am still working on this. I can't write about it now.

The strangest thing about cognitive dissonance, is it's the last thing anyone wants to learn about.

I would compare it to Terry trying to make a living in a world where everyone got angry at the suggestion that their piano is out of tune. Some folks would love him, but most would be sure he was a dick. Especially if they loved their piano and the way it sounded.

[BillyTheMountain]

This has been an interesting few days for me, as I mush around in my head some new ideas.:)

I am convinced that my data linking church attendance and um, problems in my society is real, just because of the data correlation.

The fact that this association is not found in Europe, a population that mirrors the USA genetically, and in most ways culturally, is a preoccupation of me now, in my daily musings.:)

I would consider further posting, no matter how stupid ;) , helpful to me in some way.

I have become fascinated by my recent research in google into cognitive dissonance.

I am still working on this. I can't write about it now.

The strangest thing about cognitive dissonance, is it's the last thing anyone wants to learn about.

I would compare it to Terry trying to make a living in a world where everyone got angry at the suggestion that their piano is out of tune. Some folks would love him, but most would be sure he was a dick. Especially if they loved their piano and the way it sounded.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the Intenational Society of Scientists has you on their sh*t list, and you will not be allowed membership until you take a course in research methods and demonstrate mastery in the subject area.

Billy

[Seager]

I would compare it to Terry trying to make a living in a world where everyone got angry at the suggestion that their piano is out of tune. Some folks would love him, but most would be sure he was a dick. Especially if they loved their piano and the way it sounded.

Welcome to the shoes of a Jehova's Witness, Scientologist, or Evangelist. Some people just don't want your brand of "fix."

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Especially if the horse thinks the water is bad.

[feel the light]

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.

Often one of the ideas is a fundamental element of ego, like "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can result in rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice, or in other cases. Prevention of cognitive dissonance may also contribute to confirmation bias or denial of discomforting evidence." - Wiki

Because it is impossible to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and 6,000,000,000 years old, at the same time, fundamentalist beliefs will make an advanced science education impossible in many lucrative fields. High paying jobs like oil company geologist, or pharmaceutical researcher, will all go to those with degrees unavailable to the fundamentalist population.

This is no problem to European church goers, who have only a tiny number of fundamentalists. So church going has no effect on the economy there.

My next prediction, is that states with the highest % of fundamentalist church goers, will have a poorer economy then states with the same % of church attendance, but a lower % of fundamentalist churches.

[Seager]

In order for your theory to be true people would have to be unable to ignore contradictions in their lives and live with "cognitive dissonance," and that is patently false.

My mother in law is a science teacher and doesn't believe in evolution. This should be impossible under your system. Many, many people rise to high levels of science without giving up their dogmatic beliefs simply by choosing to not believe that aspect of science. Thus, there is no economic impact like you are try to purport. Cognitive dissonance is something that people can easilly ignore by lying to themselves, and they do.

An example: You are undoubtibly against cheating. You also love the Chinese "heros." Thus, against all logic, you continue to argue that they didn't cheat in order to avoid your "cognitive dissonance." You mind will never by changed, and you will continue to hold two contradicting viewpoints. People lie to themselves all the time in order to keep their beliefs from contradicting. You are doing it just because you like the Chinese girls. Imagine if you were motivated by money or a career?

[BillyTheMountain]

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.

Often one of the ideas is a fundamental element of ego, like "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can result in rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice, or in other cases. Prevention of cognitive dissonance may also contribute to confirmation bias or denial of discomforting evidence." - Wiki

Because it is impossible to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and 6,000,000,000 years old, at the same time, fundamentalist beliefs will make an advanced science education impossible in many lucrative fields. High paying jobs like oil company geologist, or pharmaceutical researcher, will all go to those with degrees unavailable to the fundamentalist population.

This is no problem to European church goers, who have only a tiny number of fundamentalists. So church going has no effect on the economy there.

My next prediction, is that states with the highest % of fundamentalist church goers, will have a poorer economy then states with the same % of church attendance, but a lower % of fundamentalist churches.

So one of your basic flaws is wrongly assuming 100% of those attending fundamentalist churches don't believe in the theory of evolution.

You also wrongly assume that 100% of those who identify as fundamentalist don't believe in the theory of evolution.

[feel the light]

You are puzzling me Billy. I made the assumption that fundamentalist belief is more common at fundamentalist churches. I don't have any info on % of heretics in the congregation, but surely only a very few churches would have 100 % conformity, I would think.

Surely, we all live with CD to some extent. I am sure I do. To me there is nothing remarkable about a science teacher that doesn't believe what they are teaching. Maybe she needs the job.

However, those who can do, and those who can't teach. It is a fact that at the top of science there are almost no fundies. It is one thing to be a high school teacher, and a totally different challenge to get that $200,000 /yr research job with your geology degree from a creation collage.

[Seager]

Unfortunately we don't live in a world where scientists are the highest paid jobs out there. There are very few, if any, 200k per year research jobs. The money is in managing researchers or similar venues. You don't need to believe in "science" to be a cubicle monkey, computer programmer, union electrician/plumber, Marketer, CEO of anything, entrepenuer, Donald Trump, tycoon of any type, etc etc etc. All these people generally make as much or more than researchers.

If you don't believe my other refutation, fine. I'd say this one just about blows your theory out of the water.

[feel the light]

What percentage of the GNP is in health care ? You need to pass biology to become a doctor. How many top shelf programmers are poor at logic ? Or parsing out inter relationships in data ? Perhaps 1 % of collage professors are fundies, outside of the religious institutions. Is that such an uncommon job?

Figuring out our DNA links to other animals is crucial to advancement in the field of DNA research and application. The use of DNA analysis is a multi billion dollar industry, in law enforcement and health. How many jobs there ? This field is growing in high $ jobs. High paying factory jobs have been in decline as long as I can remember, and I'm 50.

Also factor in that with all other jobs besides church positions (a multi billion dollar job source), the fundies have no advantage over atheists or moderate Christians. Those jobs don't really enrich the fundie fold, because they are funded by a tithe on the fundie congregation, contributions etc. Peter paying Paul to build a big house no one can live in.

[napalm]

interesting read so far-
feel the light- just thought you might like to read about 'bad faith', a concept promoted by Sartre (strangely has more to do with cognitive dissonance than faith in a religious sence). Deals with the individuals ability, nay nessesity, to deal with two contradictory ideas.
mark

[BillyTheMountain]

You are puzzling me Billy. I made the assumption that fundamentalist belief is more common at fundamentalist churches. I don't have any info on % of heretics in the congregation, but surely only a very few churches would have 100 % conformity, I would think.

Surely, we all live with CD to some extent. I am sure I do. To me there is nothing remarkable about a science teacher that doesn't believe what they are teaching. Maybe she needs the job.

However, those who can do, and those who can't teach. It is a fact that at the top of science there are almost no fundies. It is one thing to be a high school teacher, and a totally different challenge to get that $200,000 /yr research job with your geology degree from a creation collage.

Good for you! You are beginning to recognize that, as established by research discussed here on JC, even atheists are observant Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. So church/temple/mosque attendance is at best an indirect measure of SOMETHING, and any scientist would advise you to find a more direct measure of "belief" if you're going to base your claims on it.

It's off topic, but your statement "those who can do, and those who can't teach" has never been empirically validated, and is in fact questioned by many university professors who perform both research and teaching.

You're unsupported claim that "at the top of science there are almost no fundies" also admits there are some fundamentalists at the top of science. How do you explain the presence of top scientists who are also fundamentalists? There are law enforcement officers who enforce marijuana laws yet also support the legalization of marijuana, and they do their job just as well as those who support the criminalization of it.

Of course YOU live with CD: you claim to support science, yet you make a mockery of science, you crucify science, you've been excommunicated by the International Society of Scientists.

If science is your religion, why do you instead practice charlatanism?

interesting read so far-
feel the light- just thought you might like to read about 'bad faith', a concept promoted by Sartre (strangely has more to do with cognitive dissonance than faith in a religious sence). Deals with the individuals ability, nay nessesity, to deal with two contradictory ideas.
mark

Mark,

Good citation!

Billy

[Seager]

What percentage of the GNP is in health care ? You need to pass biology to become a doctor. How many top shelf programmers are poor at logic ? Or parsing out inter relationships in data ? Perhaps 1 % of collage professors are fundies, outside of the religious institutions. Is that such an uncommon job?

You don't have to believe in evolution to be a doctor or pass biology. I have a degree in Microbio, and I went to school with many religion folks who, when it came to evolution, just put down the "correct" answers even though they didn't believe it. My Dad is a college professor (genetics) and has had years of fundi students do the same thing. Many of them became doctors. Also, college professors don't make nearly as much as standard business men. I don't know where you got the idea that scientists makes lots of money because it's undeniably false.


Figuring out our DNA links to other animals is crucial to advancement in the field of DNA research and application. The use of DNA analysis is a multi billion dollar industry, in law enforcement and health. How many jobs there ? This field is growing in high $ jobs.

Right, and the money is going to the managers, bosses, and marketers. It's NOT going to the researchers. I know how much money people in my field can make. It's average. If you want to make good money you need to go into business, programming, or engineering. (There is nothing stopping a fundi from believing in physics, btw)

Here's an example: I worked for a company researching and manufacturing bacterial flow cytometers for microbial enumeration and identification in liquid samples. They hired on a new guy to do the same job I was doing because I was only working part time. It turned out he sucked as a researcher and really didn't know the science well. He did make friends with the boss though, and after a couple of months he was moved over to sales where his salary became DOUBLE what mine was. About a year later the company was having trouble so they downsized me (I was full time then) and a few other researchers. I decided a sneak a look a their books before I left since I worked there alone at night. I found out that the lowest level managers were making almost twice as much as the highest paid researcher. This is not uncommon in biotech AT ALL.

High paying factory jobs have been in decline as long as I can remember, and I'm 50.

Those weren't on my long, exhaustive, list of jobs that pay as much or more than research jobs. Look again.


Also factor in that with all other jobs besides church positions (a multi billion dollar job source), the fundies have no advantage over atheists or moderate Christians. Those jobs don't really enrich the fundie fold, because they are funded by a tithe on the fundie congregation, contributions etc. Peter paying Paul to build a big house no one can live in.

Irrelevant.

[feel the light]

People sure do try . A lot of my heavy smoking relatives knew a 90 year old chain smoker. Proof enough for them that smoking was harmless. They are almost all dead now, from cancer and heart disease.

You need to come up with some data and links to back up your points. In the link ^ about the science teacher, a Christian, writing an article about his trouble teaching fundies, is he just imagining they have trouble learning this stuff ?

Remember, it doesn't matter if 50 % of fundies don't have a learning impairment related to CD between their views (I made up that %) , and accepted science.
Any educational or logic impairment will have a negative life impact when viewed across a broad populace.

Your contention that having a Master's or better in a a cutting edge field of science, won't rake in the cash startles me in it's opaque lack of data. You are not ever trying. People with rare skills in high demand, are paid a lot more then BA's full of BS. Bottom line is the bottom line, how much $ can this employee earn my company ? If it's a million $, and these employees are rare, I will pay high. Maybe send a recruiter after them and offer $750,000 yr.

Managers with no tech education, are a dime a dozen. If I am wrong, pull up some data. Not a personal anecdote.:)

[feel the light]

From the USA dept of Labor stats

http://www.studentsreview.com/salary.shtml average-and top 10 %

Agricultural sciences teachers, postsecondary $77,190 >= $118,180

Anthropology and archeology teachers, postsecondary $68,240 >= $109,330

Atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary $74,880 >= $121,500

Biochemists and biophysicists $80,900 >= $129,510
Biological science teachers, postsecondary $82,110 >= $82,110
Biological scientists, all other $63,560 >= $95,130
Biological technicians $38,240 >= $57,890
Biomedical engineers
majors» $78,030 >= $116,330

Materials scientists $77,010 >= $118,670
Mathematical science teachers, postsecondary $62,790 >= $103,330
Mathematical scientists, all other $64,920 >= $93,210
Mathematical technicians $46,010 >= $72,040
Mathematicians $86,780 >= $132,190

Management occupations $91,930 >= $91,930
Managers, all other $87,250 >= $138,170

It looks to me that managers do OK, but I seriously doubt many of these high paid managers have no education in the field they are managing.

The idea that people well educated in science, make less then managers, is not true. Doubly so if you assume that most managers were chosen because of their competence in the field they are managing.

[feel the light]

Because the top ten % of bio chemists and bio physicists earn at least $130,000/yr. my statement that there is a significant % that earn 200 G or more $ /yr is likely true.;)

There are many jobs like this, that will cause cognitive dissonance in someone that adheres to fundamentalist doctrine.

Because moderate Christians have less CD while learning info about geology and biology, they will have a better life outcome compared to fundies.

I don't dislike fundies. Really, I kinda think we are all nuts.;) It's part of being human. But how to improve our society is a lofty goal, and my links between fundie belief and poor socio-economic outcomes for our society may help IMHO.
I see change coming slowly, and peacefully. Ideas that cause CD stress in people do not have to be solved today. But just as all sorts of fun stuff went out of fashion, very simplistic world views will become less popular, as people grasp there inherent disadvantages.:)

[Seager]

You need to come up with some data and links to back up your points.

Actually, I don't. In this case the exception disproves your rule. See my next statement.


Remember, it doesn't matter if 50 % of fundies don't have a learning impairment related to CD between their views (I made up that %) , and accepted science.
Any educational or logic impairment will have a negative life impact when viewed across a broad populace.

Well, I think if only 50% of fundies can't learn science then they are WAY better off than the general populace. Newsflash: Science is hard. I wager that there is no significant difference between fundies who can understand science and regular people who can understand science. Anyone smart enough to handle biochem can overcome cognitive dissonance - especially with a fatty paycheck as motivation.


Your contention that having a Master's or better in a a cutting edge field of science, won't rake in the cash startles me in it's opaque lack of data. You are not ever trying. People with rare skills in high demand, are paid a lot more then BA's full of BS. Bottom line is the bottom line, how much $ can this employee earn my company ? If it's a million $, and these employees are rare, I will pay high. Maybe send a recruiter after them and offer $750,000 yr.

Managers with no tech education, are a dime a dozen. If I am wrong, pull up some data. Not a personal anecdote.:)

Look, the only dissonance fundies have with science would be in evolution - which is irrelevant to most biotech because microevolution has been proven and fundies are OK with it, and macroevolution is irrelevant to biotech. If you don't know the difference you have no business even discussing this subject. It's akin to you arguing with a surgeon about the best way to take out a heart. You don't even know enough to know what you don't know.

The only other field that would contradict is in geology, and there are plenty of "Christian Scientists" out there being paid as geologists trying to prove that the earth is 6k years old. They're wrong, but they do have degrees in geology and are getting paid.

Do you get it now? FUNDIES DO FINE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION! It's not hard to learn something you don't believe in, especially when biotech doesn't care about macroevolution or the origin of species. It's irrelevant and any scientist knows that.

Heck, I studied religion for a long time as an Atheist. I know tons of different religious myths, practices, and origin stories. Explain to me how that's different from a fundie learning evolution, because according to you it should be impossible for me because of CD.

[kevinalexandersmith]

Everybody keeps talking about this 6,000 year old stuff. I've studied the bible since child hood and found nothing that indicates the age of the Earth.

There are patchwork genealogies. However, It was customary to only right down people of significants, often skipping many generations. I see no way of telling from the bible how old the Earth is.

I’ve run in Christian circles, in the bible belt, all my life and never heard anyone claim to know how old the Earth is based on scripture.

I imagine some idiot claimed he knew the age of the earth once. Non-Christians grabbed on to it because it was kooky, and now they love to sit around and say how dumb we all are.

This would be like us in the US always talking about the “70 virgins” thing in Islam. It turns out, it’s not in scripture and almost nobody believes it. We just focus on some nut and say well that's how "they" are.

[Seager]

I imagine some idiot claimed he knew the age of the earth once. Non-Christians grabbed on to it because it was kooky, and now they love to sit around and say how dumb we all are.

No, it's a pretty common belief in many fundamentalist circles, just apparently not your circles. (Kudos)

Where they get it from is explained here:

http://goodnewspirit.com/clockchapter4.htm

Also mentioned here:
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=630

In regard to the earth's age, God's word clearly chronicles its age through the genealogical record. In Genesis, Chapter 5, Verse 3, the Bible's genealogical record of mankind begins with the statement, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth;" If you read this chapter to its end it will end with Noah begetting his three sons. If you add the years between each father and his son, you will arrive at the time of Noah's flood. It was 1,656 years from the day Adam opened his eyes until the time God destroyed the earth by a worldwide flood. If you add the rest of the genealogical spans recorded in the Bible until Christ, you will basically arrive where Archbishop Ussher did in the year 1654 when he declared the years before Christ to be 4,004. Now add the years from the birth of Jesus Christ until today and you will have an earth just over 6,000 years old.

If you Google it you will see it everywhere. It's not the majority of Christians at all, but it's a strong belief among Fundamentalists, Evangelists, Creation Scientists (some), and Fundamentalist Mormons. I'm not sure about Jehovah's Witnesses...

[MuniAddict]

Because the top ten % of bio chemists and bio physicists earn at least $130,000/yr. my statement that there is a significant % that earn 200 G or more $ /yr is likely true.;)

Top tier Piano Technician: $150k-unlimited per year.:) But you really have to be earning at least a cool Million-net-per year to get by these days. And that's just for a single person, with no family to support and no debt. I mean how else could anyone afford a basic lifestyle; live in maid, car collection, three homes, fully staffed, Maine lobster flown in from...Maine, a few dozen italian hand made suits, etc.:rolleyes:

[uniqueunicycling]

Some good ideas in it, but he goes a bit too far and it ends up being a 500 page rant that makes him seem like a raving lunatic...shame, could have been a very good book!

[BillyTheMountain]

Any educational or logic impairment will have a negative life impact when viewed across a broad populace.

Patently false.

As you know, those more in touch with reality are more anxious and depressed. Death may come at any moment, you may not live to see tomorrow, everyone you love may be taken from you now, or may already be gone when you get home.

Look up illusions of control and http://books.google.com/books?id=ISezR6pODo8C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=ilusions+protect+against+depression&source=web&ots=D-oHip4fhB&sig=I8cwkYIHR6L8iz7cCe6k4Y4Ub84&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

[BillyTheMountain]

1: We atheists dont have any rules which would order us to be rational.

2: We atheists are just as irrational and illogical as everybody else. (or are we?)

Seager,

Do you agree?

Billy

[JJuggle]

My copy of this book has mysteriously vanished.

[BillyTheMountain]

My copy of this book has mysteriously vanished.

GOD is telling you something.

[phlegm]

Did Dawkins get Aquinas wrong in The God Delusion?

So claims this podcast along with a bunch of thoughtful discussion about New Atheism from a Christian perspective:
Is God a Delusion? A Philosopher’s Response to the New Atheists (http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/06/10/is-god-a-delusion-a-philosophers-response-to-the-new-atheists-homebrewed-christianity-53/)

[My Wife thinks I am Nuts]

LOL well I never figured that I would be caught chiming in on a "religious" discussion.

Just some observations/comments......

First off....I am a Christian and proud of it, that being said 99% (and possibly higher) of the christian based religous folks nausiate me. Frankly how you live and conduct yourself should do more to convert someone than the sermons you preach with your mouth. The religious world has become just as enamoured with the "idols" of this world as the secular folk....sports, movies, TV, and other entertainments. Really it seems to me that the athiests live truer to what they profess than the Christians. I think that before you cast the first stone you should look in the mirror and make sure that you really practice what you preach.



Just some observations....

[kerosian]

LOL well I never figured that I would be caught chiming in on a "religious" discussion.

Just some observations/comments......

First off....I am a Christian and proud of it, that being said 99% (and possibly higher) of the christian based religous folks nausiate me. Frankly how you live and conduct yourself should do more to convert someone than the sermons you preach with your mouth. The religious world has become just as enamoured with the "idols" of this world as the secular folk....sports, movies, TV, and other entertainments. Really it seems to me that the athiests live truer to what they profess than the Christians. I think that before you cast the first stone you should look in the mirror and make sure that you really practice what you preach.



Just some observations....

Thank you, I feel the exact same way. That said I am an Atheist, but I respect Jesus as a philosopher. The way I see it, organized religion has gotten so far up its own ass that it can't see anything else. I believe if you are a christian, great, but maybe you shouldn't only adhere to the parts of the bible you think make you sound right all the time. Remember that part about being tolerant and kind to your fellow man? :D Have a nice day!

[BillyTheMountain]

Thank you, I feel the exact same way. That said I am an Atheist, but I respect Jesus as a philosopher. The way I see it, organized religion has gotten so far up its own ass that it can't see anything else. I believe if you are a christian, great, but maybe you shouldn't only adhere to the parts of the bible you think make you sound right all the time. Remember that part about being tolerant and kind to your fellow man? :D Have a nice day!

RIGHT! "being tolerant and kind to your fellow man or woman seeking an abortion" and protecting the women from those unkind, intolerant, nasty anti-choice protesters that hang outside the abortion clinic.

Which parts of the Bible do you like?

[phlegm]

I respect Jesus as a philosopher.

Jesus told his disciples to follow him, not his "philosophy". What do you think Jesus meant by the coming "Kingdom of God"? He is attributed as referring to it throughout the Gospels many times. How does it relate to his "philosophy"?

(Some) organized religion has gotten so far up its own ass that it can't see anything else.

Some, not all.

maybe you shouldn't only adhere to the parts of the bible you think make you sound right all the time.

Why do you speak of the Bible as a book of rules? Sure, there are historical laws and ethical ideas, but they are just part of a much larger story.

Remember that part about being tolerant and kind to your fellow man?

Love is far more profound than simply putting up with others.

[BillyTheMountain]

What do you think Jesus meant by the coming "Kingdom of God"? He is attributed as referring to it throughout the Gospels many times. How does it relate to his "philosophy"?

Definitions of Kingdom of god on the Web:

1. the spiritual domain over which God is sovereign

2. The Kingdom of God or Reign of God is a foundational concept in the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

3. The term used to describe God's rule over the world through his power and the exercise of it. The term does not usually refer to a time or place in history. Frequently in the gospels the use of the term suggests that the kingdom is external and in the future, although "close at hand. ...

4. The 1,000 year kingdom that starts on 2008Nisan16, March 23rd, 2008. Wherein Satan and the demons are locked up for the duration. [BTM: Who wants to be there when the 1,000-year lock-up ends and they get released?]

5. That God existed was the essence of Jesus' teaching; that God ruled over the world he had created was the way in which what might have been simply an abstract idea (God is) was concretely related to everyday human life. The term Jesus chose to express this understanding was the "kingdom of God.

[Michaelgoround]

RIGHT! "being tolerant and kind to your fellow man or woman seeking an abortion" and protecting the women from those unkind, intolerant, nasty anti-choice protesters that hang outside the abortion clinic.

Which parts of the Bible do you like?
You aren't pro-choice are you Billy?


Why do you speak of the Bible as a book of rules? Sure, there are historical laws and ethical ideas, but they are just part of a much larger story.

Love is far more profound than simply putting up with others.

Basically the whole point of the Bible and its laws and ethical ideas is to bring Gods lost children back into a personal realationship with him. Gods laws were not invented for your determent, but for your benifit.

In the bible it say in Proverbs 13:24 "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him". So if a Christian truly loves you they will seek to change your wrong actions and bring you into the Kingdom of God. This verse also works very well in explaining Gods love.

[BillyTheMountain]

In the bible it say in Proverbs 13:24 "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him".

State law says: A parent who commits excessive corporal punishment shall lose custody of the children until they complete a parenting class, and learn effective nonviolent ways to treat children.

[Michaelgoround]

State law says: A parent who commits excessive corporal punishment shall lose custody of the children until they complete a parenting class, and learn effective nonviolent ways to treat children.
Haha. They should talk to my Grandpa about that. He used a belt. I only remember him using it once on my cousin (he wouldn't listen after excessive warnings).

[BillyTheMountain]

Haha. They should talk to my Grandpa about that. He used a belt. I only remember him using it once on my cousin (he wouldn't listen after excessive warnings).

and he was drunk, and your mother never found out, or she'd have given him hell!

[phlegm]

So if a Christian truly loves you they will seek to change your wrong actions and bring you into the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is ruled by God alone. What you say sounds like you're implying that Christians are the gatekeepers to the Kingdom of God.

[Michaelgoround]

and he was drunk, and your mother never found out, or she'd have given him hell!
My Grandpa most likely did not like drinking.
The Kingdom of God is ruled by God alone. What you say sounds like you're implying that Christians are the gatekeepers to the Kingdom of God.
Sorry if you got that out of my statement. I was by no means implying that.

[BillyTheMountain]

My Grandpa most likely did not like drinking.

You can thank your lucky stars of that! Or you kids would have gotten grandpa's belt far more often!!!!!

[nimblelight]

I respect Jesus as a philosopher.

...and what a great philosopher he was!
Muhammad was, too!

Take the Jesus quiz! (http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html)

[BillyTheMountain]

...and what a great philosopher he was!
Muhammad was, too!

Take the Jesus quiz! (http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html)

Wasn't Muhammad more of a Prophet, like Abraham and Moses?

What was his philosophy?

[nimblelight]

Wasn't Muhammad more of a Prophet, like Abraham and Moses?

Yes.



What was his philosophy?

The philosophy of the Qur'an, obviously, since such moral depravity cannot possibly come from God.

Speaking of which, take the Jesus Quiz! (http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html)

[BillyTheMountain]

The attempt to fuse religion and philosophy is difficult because there are no clear preconditions. Philosophers typically hold that one must accept the possibility of truth from any source and follow the argument wherever it leads. On the other hand, classical religious believers have a set of religious principles that they hold to be unchallengeable fact. Given these divergent goals and views, some hold[citation needed] that one cannot simultaneously be a philosopher and a true adherent of Islam, which is believed to be a revealed religion by its adherents. In this view, all attempts at synthesis ultimately fail.
However, others believe that a synthesis between Islam and philosophy is possible. One way to find a synthesis is to use philosophical arguments to prove that one's preset religious principles are true. This is a common technique found in the writings of many religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but this is not generally accepted as true philosophy by philosophers[citation needed]. Another way to find a synthesis is to abstain from holding as true any religious principles of one's faith at all, unless one independently comes to those conclusions from a philosophical analysis. However, this is not generally accepted as being faithful to one's religion by adherents of that religion. A third, rarer and more difficult path is to apply analytical philosophy to one's own religion. In this case a religious person would also be a philosopher, by asking questions such as:
What must one actually believe to be considered a true adherent of our religion?
How can one reconcile the findings of science with religion?
How can one reconcile the findings of math with religion?

[nimblelight]

W00t!Take the Jesus Quiz! (http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html)



How can one reconcile the findings of science with religion?
How can one reconcile the findings of math with religion?

Become a deist or create a "God of the gaps."

It's impossible to keep any of the holy books in their entirety as part of your beliefs unless you either reject the scientific method or are uneducated, but with the God of the gaps approach, you can just pick and choose.

The entire struggle is quite hilarious, and futile, really.

[nubcake]

"The Lord is my shepherd!" - If this is true for people then quite clearly they are sheep (ready for the slaughter perhaps?). If you want to be blindly led then by all means follow blindly the words of others, and believe that they hold in your interest only goodness. Sing their songs and they will become yours. Read their words and they will become yours. Recite their dogma's and they will become yours. You no longer have to think, just follow. You no longer have to have reason or justification, you only need faith.

I find it hilarious that people of religion are all believing they live the truth... despite differing religions conflicting with each other, the people within each religion are living "the true life" and following "the true word of God" etc. They all differ and sometimes conflict with each other but are somehow all correct? With so many right answers is there a wrong answer?

I also find it hilarious that people of religion think they can begin to grasp the concept of God. They think they can understand and represent that which is supposed to be infinitely greater than them. That's like me expecting an ant to understand me and know what i'm about. They want to give shape and voice to that which they can not possibly comprehend. But give them a book to follow and they shall, and this book will be the word of that which can not be heard or understood.

If God is all-powerful etc then yes it is by definition possible that "he" is able to communicate his will to us in a form that we can understand. So why are there then so many differing and conflicting religions and views and understandings and so on and so forth? Why be all powerful and communicate your will, but then allow it to be segregated and bastardized into conflicting factions? This idea alone is of so very conflicting. Is this a result of free will? If there is free will that allows us to be completely divided about what is true then what value is there in a God giving us his truth for it to then be swept away in the wind and mixed with all the voices of the world who all say something different. It is futile, but this is also God's will. What a conflicting concept.

All religions are right, but within each religion all other religions are wrong. Well then let me roll the dice and "hope to God" that He guides me towards the truth and I don't get sucked-into the 'wrong' religions instead, that is, the religions He allows to be wrong.

For man to be man saying he is only man beneath a God infinitely powerful who creates all and dictates what is, and in the same breath have any claims to being on God's team and understands God's will... facepalm! As soon as anyone believes they understand that which is beyond their understanding they have surely lost all credibility don't you think? Perhaps these Shepherds are actually greater than the general common man, and therefore they are the God's to the common man beneath another God of even higher existence. Am I a God to the ants beneath my feet I wonder?

Instead of being a God's sheep and looking to the outside and to others for our Truth's, does it not make sense to believe that there is the possibility that there is something greater than us (God, aliens, the flying spaghetti monster... etc etc to infinity) but until we become greater beings than we currently are how can we possibly put label and concept into something we are not capable of puting label and concept to? How can someone understand that which they don't understand? Perhaps our evolution will take us to a point where we are able to conceptualize things we currently can not, and perhaps at that point the concept of God will have tangible meaning, and perhaps also at that point "God" will not be the "end of the line" in terms of things which are greater than us and our current understanding and ability to conceptualize.

(following this train of thought you may see it's relationship to the following paragraph)

It was mentioned early in this thread about how apparently only "people of intelligence care about / put importance on IQ scores" etc... um, well maybe that's because "intelligent" people have the mental capacity to understand that which is being represented by an IQ score, whilst those who have lower IQ scores who apparently don't care about IQ scores are a little too busy trying to decide which hand is their left and which is their right and then which one to use to fling their own poo against the wall while picking their nose etc (clearly a generalisation to a point of extremity for the sake of painting a clear picture). Funny how a test that is meant to reveal an ability to process and understand information and a persons mental capacity might not be appreciated by someone who 'fails' this very test... someone who the test has revealed has problems understanding information and whose mental capacity and ability has been shown to be low.

It's a bit of a circular argument, but so is that of religion.

This then follows why it is often seen that people of religion are not people of intelligence. People who blindly follow that which they can not fathom, and hold faith in that which they can never know or prove is real. People who don't care that it is by word of others alone that compels them to believe in something they otherwise would not have any concept of, and this concept being that which has been given to them by others and not by something tangible they themselves already have concepts of. God only exists because people say he does, and His will is that which others say it is. It's interesting that all the ideas of God are coming from people who look and sound like me, and if I'm to consider them to be like myself then I must consider that they can't possibly conceptualize God for I myself can not honestly conceptualize God. Therefore, there is nothing stopping me from saying to anyone my own version of God, whether or not I believe it to be true and whether or not I can prove it to be true. It is only my word but with the power of it being associated with a higher power, and if you are to believe in a higher power and to believe that I somehow have the ability to understand it then you are to believe that I am greater than you and believe my version of something that you can never understand.

It is then conflicting when people who are seemingly intelligent also claim to be a person of religion. I think to compare these people to those who ARE less intelligent and are also of religion would show that they are like chalk and cheese, and the person of intelligence with religious aspects of their lives are actually not really as religious as we may be thinking and instead are picking and choosing the aspects of "their religion" which enrich their lives not because they have blind faith from their religion but because they can conceptualize particular real tangible benefits from the aspects they have adopted from the religion... not because they believe in God, but because they believe in, and benefit from, the aspects they have adopted. I imagine they are not so ignorant as to believe they can comprehend something which is supposed to be greater than them, and they understand their own limitations and account for this.

They don't / won't get into the specifics of how they may be trying to lead a good / pure / honest / whatever life which is in accordance with a particular religion and therefore associate themselves with that religion whilst also explaining the idea that their concept of God is not as the religion dictates it to be and is instead more of an open-ended idea of something not yet understood or defined. To do this would be like a rocket scientist trying to explain the intricacies of one of their designs to a baboon.

Anything is possible if it can be imagined, but until it becomes something real and tangible it will only be a possibility. God is possible. It's also possible that there is no "God". It's also possible that we are all God and don't know it, or that some know it and some don't. It's also possible that Michael Jackson and Elvis are drinking at the pub around the corner. Until someone does more than tell me this to be true then I have no further reason to believe in it, but I can still believe in it's possibility and account for this.

It is also possible that nothing is real and this is all an illusion in my head and none of you exist.

[BillyTheMountain]

It's impossible to keep any of the holy books in their entirety as part of your beliefs unless you either reject the scientific method or are uneducated, but with the God of the gaps approach, you can just pick and choose.

The entire struggle is quite hilarious, and futile, really.

When you say the holy books, you mean biology, chemistry and physics books?

[nimblelight]

nubcake, you might be interested in http://www.happyatheistforum.com/

It's existential! (kinda)


Yay Satan!:rolleyes:
http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/satan.jpg

[nimblelight]

When you say the holy books, you mean biology, chemistry and physics books?

Burn the Heretic! yaa!

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2003-04-15.gif

I want my evil robot-child, and I want it now!



No, I mean more of this when I say "holy book":
http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2008-01-26.gif

[Michaelgoround]

Become a deist or create a "God of the gaps."

It's impossible to keep any of the holy books in their entirety as part of your beliefs unless you either reject the scientific method or are uneducated, but with the God of the gaps approach, you can just pick and choose.

The entire struggle is quite hilarious, and futile, really.
The way I see it science has really gone further and further to prove that there is indeed a God. The creation of a life bearing universe is just to insanely unlikely to be left up to chance. To be honest some scientific theories are just complete bunk and scientist are allways revising them (a good thing).

Don't really know anything about the math side.

[nimblelight]

The way I see it science has really gone further and further to prove that there is indeed a God. The creation of a life bearing universe is just to insanely unlikely to be left up to chance.

Roll a 100 sided die enough times and eventually you will get 7. omigawd.

[nimblelight]

Don't really know anything about the math side.
Then how do you know that formation of life is "insanely unlikely"?

Do you know the processes involved, the probability of each event occurring in the 'right' way, and the number of times that those events have a chance to occur?

Wow. Early life had to be incredibly simple. This ruins everything!!! aaaaah!!!

Thwarted by simplicity! I'm melting! Meeeellllllllttiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg.......

[splodge88]

The way I see it science has really gone further and further to prove that there is indeed a God. The creation of a life bearing universe is just to insanely unlikely to be left up to chance. To be honest some scientific theories are just complete bunk and scientist are allways revising them (a good thing).

Don't really know anything about the math side.


I totally agree with this.
Seriously, I may not know how to create a person, or even some simple form which woulkd then evolve into one, however think of something like a computer or clock. These are reasonably hard to make...if you chucked all the bits together chances are it would not form a working computer...there would just be a mess.

Same with the universe. Someone had to make it. (i.e. a God)

[davidp]

Become a deist or create a "God of the gaps."

It's impossible to keep any of the holy books in their entirety as part of your beliefs unless you either reject the scientific method or are uneducated, but with the God of the gaps approach, you can just pick and choose.

The entire struggle is quite hilarious, and futile, really.

This really isn't true. There are plenty of extremely well educated, scientific people who are religious. Alister McGrath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath) and Francis Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)) are two well known examples. McGrath in particular has written a response to Dawkins's book. Science and religion don't require any reconciliation because when both are properly understood there is no conflict between them. This isn't to say that properly understanding either the physical world we live in or God's revelation to us is easy.

[nimblelight]

Science and religion don't require any reconciliation because when both are properly understood there is no conflict
Tell that to this epic fail of a watchmaker argument:

Seriously, I may not know how to create a person, or even some simple form which woulkd then evolve into one, however think of something like a computer or clock. These are reasonably hard to make...if you chucked all the bits together chances are it would not form a working computer...there would just be a mess.

....all you need is a bubble of fat and some nucleotides (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU6QYDdgP9eg&ei=yd9lSon2IIKqswPgrNnzDg&usg=AFQjCNFG1xXP_nGeHEvwvplSwl8b9JMyqg&sig2=iLHNXswZyqmJK3GeskFdaw).... the rest is just time

[Biggestbtc]

No.

[BillyTheMountain]

SO many of the Holy Books stick closely to the scientific method,and use it as the measure of Goodness.

[JJuggle]

stick closely
Close but no shofar.

[BillyTheMountain]

The Holiest Books of the 20th and 21st century contain the Revelation of the Scientific Method as the one Path to Truth.

[nubcake]

The Holiest Books of the 20th and 21st century contain the Revelation of the Scientific Method as the one Path to Truth.

What an interesting statement. To me that sounds almost like the books are saying "take your head out your bum and stop following the scribbles of some random person centuries ago, and instead look to what's real and in front of your face right here and right now". But then again my position on the whole God cult is fairly clear, and someone else may see it different.

[nubcake]

Further to the last post...

Does anyone else think of the lady from Donnie Darko when they think of church-goers? A big aspect of religious nuts / preachers (as opposed to religious people with an open mind and some actual thought and mental balance) is that they are so right in their own minds, and nowhere else, about everything they do because "they do it from love" etc... i don't know if there are more obnoxious people in existence. Reason and reality are not to be wasted on such people. No matter what the spaghetti-monster will save their soul, and everyone else who isn't on board with the whole deal needs salvation at all costs.

The world would be a different place if people would just think about what's right, instead of thinking about what they perceive as right as has been dictated to them from a book according to their interpretation of said book.

I'm no Scientologist, but I can see aspects of it that make very real sense. The problem is that it's mixed in with a lot of stuff that seems completely hokey and is also mixed with finances. Not really a good combination. But from my take on Scientology it at least has the theme of looking within and trying to identify areas of weakness or inability and discover one's flaws and be aware of these and account for them. Of course you get the morons anywhere, so some people are going to be sheep no matter what and not really understand what they are doing and i'm sure Sci has them aplenty. Tom Cruise? I don't think he's a nut like the world seems to. Big deal he jumped up and down on a couch on Oprah. That doesn't make him a nut, that makes him a man doing what all the weak-kneed ladies in the audience wanted him to do. You don't go on Oprah as a person of Tom Cruise's status with a new love in your life and just sit there like a stoned cat... the audience and Oprah want some SHOW and PIZAZZ and EXCITEMENT which is what he saw and what they got... and then the world keeps getting shown a clip of him jumping up and down without context or thought and so the world deems him crazy... and a Scientologist which must make him doubly crazy. Maybe he is crazy, but I honestly don't see it. He's just a man doing his thing and getting through life.

Every cult has their weirdo's and their one's that do well. It's what people discover about themselves and the world around them and how they use this information that matters. It's interesting that without any real knowledge about the Christian God it is generally assumed that He is about love and compassion etc etc (sugar and spice and all things nice), yet it seems that the reality of the writings of him is that he's the biggest terrorist and perpetraitor of things society general considers evil. Is that an accurate take on things or am I misinformed?

What a world.

[nimblelight]

The Holiest Books of the 20th and 21st century contain the Revelation of the Scientific Method as the one Path to Truth.

*sigh*

...I thought I already posted this:
http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2003-04-15.gif



Seriously, Billy, you've been watching too much Blarney (http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3168).

I laugh.

[nubcake]

Seriously, Billy, you've been watching too much Blarney (http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3168).

I laugh.

that link cracked me up. nice one. i take it you might just happen to be possibly slightly atheist?

[phlegm]

It's interesting that without any real knowledge about the Christian God it is generally assumed that He is about love and compassion etc etc (sugar and spice and all things nice), yet it seems that the reality of the writings of him is that he's the biggest terrorist and perpetraitor of things society general considers evil. Is that an accurate take on things or am I misinformed?

If you are referring to, for example, people experiencing God as plagues, then I think you are misinformed. Like the Christian fundamentalists whom you are quick to label as nuts, you seem to be assuming that the Bible should be read as if it is separate from history.

The Bible stands out as great literature because it is a collection of historical accounts and artifactual writings that span a large period of history. And, when read together, certain themes emerge out of history.

One of the themes is a variety of ways that humans have understood God. Yes, there was a time when people viewed plagues as God punishing them. But the way humans understand God has changed throughout history. Does any sane person blame God for swine flu?

Christians believe that Jesus is the key turning point in history for understanding God. The Good News of the Gospel is that God is revealed as love through the historical person of Jesus. And in the same way that Jesus lived in anticipation of the full revelation of God's Kingdom as love, we too can live our lives toward profound love, thereby being in relation to God. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:7-21;&version=72;)

[nimblelight]

The bible? I've read it, and it's just a whole bunch of scary that someone labeled as "Love." It's not even well-written, and at no point is it inspiring. Even the psalms, which are supposed to be the "good" part, describe horrific acts.

I heard the Christian Radio griping about how little people knew about the Bible, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a GOOD thing for their religion. Many of the people I've talked to that stopped believing in God did so because they read the Bible.

Any Muslim you talk to will agree, of course... but when it comes to THEIR Holy Book, no, it's perfect. It even describes the Earth as "round!":eek::rolleyes:

[nubcake]

phlegm seemed to not get what i meant, yet nimblelight was right on the money. would be good to hear other peoples views too.

no i don't blame god for the swine flu if he exists... i blame him for everything, including the ability to blame goddamnit! (see what i did there?). and you better believe i blame him for the religious nutjobs and the bible-bashers who need to get laid instead of knocking on peoples doors when they aren't invited or wanted or trying to catch you in the city and give you their flyers and crap. i blame him for letting me think he is a load of baloney and let me think the cult followers need to be given their own planet to populate (considering they are space-cadets anyway) so that the normal people can have this one to themselves and live in reality.

i think i'm developing an atheist-crush on nimblelight *giggles like a school girl*

[davidp]

It's interesting that without any real knowledge about the Christian God it is generally assumed that He is about love and compassion etc etc (sugar and spice and all things nice), yet it seems that the reality of the writings of him is that he's the biggest terrorist and perpetraitor of things society general considers evil. Is that an accurate take on things or am I misinformed?

This is a common sentiment and while there are books which address the question directly (Hank Hanegraff's Bible Answer books are a good example), I've found that improving my understanding of the nature of the Bible has helped me the most (which I think is where phlegm was going with his response). I'd recommend reading Graeme Goldsworthy's According to Plan or William Vangemeren's The Progress of Redemption.

[nubcake]

The only reading I intend to do in the near future is trading related, but it sounds like you have read these books... so what are the chances of a synopsis or para-phrase?

[nimblelight]

This is probably a VERY good way to kill this thread;)



i think i'm developing an atheist-crush on nimblelight *giggles like a school girl*
My response depends entirely on your gender...:p

[nubcake]

This is probably a VERY good way to kill this thread;)


My response depends entirely on your gender...:p

it's all good... i can tuck it :cool:

[davidp]

The only reading I intend to do in the near future is trading related, but it sounds like you have read these books... so what are the chances of a synopsis or para-phrase?

My reason for posting in this thread was to share what has helped me and hopefully help anyone who might be looking for a place to start doing their own digging for answers. I'm not particularly interested in an argument on the topic and don't expect that anything I write here will change anyone's mind. That said I can try to present my understanding...

The Bible should be viewed as a progressive history of God's plan for the redemption of man. The major redemptive event of the Old Testament is the exodus of Israel from Egyptian slavery. This is the culmination of a series of events designed by God to reveal himself to the world through the Jewish people. It is also a foreshadowing of the major redemptive event of the New Testament and the key to God's plan: Christ's propitiatory death on behalf of man and His resurrection. It is through Christ's sacrifice that man is able to be reconciled to God.

The Old Testament is violent because at that time the world was very violent, as it is today. What is different between the Old and New testament is the progression of God's redemptive plan. In the Old Testament God used Israel as both a means to reveal himself to the other nations of the world and to carry out his judgement. From the New Testament onward God is withholding judgement, temporarily, so that more might be saved through faith.

Note that God is unchanged and both love and judgement are always central to his character. Jesus frequently speaks of Hell in his teachings so we can't forget the judgement to come. It also emphasizes the depth of God's love, and the sacrifice He made to give man a means to escape the deserved judgement of Hell.

[BillyTheMountain]

The only reading I intend to do in the near future is trading related, but it sounds like you have read these books... so what are the chances of a synopsis or para-phrase?

You'll trade much better after you store your soul. go to www.thesoulstoragecompany.com where you can keep your soul in a jar on Roosevelt Island in NYC.

[nubcake]

yeah but what sort of interest do i earn if i bank there? :s

[BillyTheMountain]

a free toaster, and a blender if you bring in a friend's soul for deposit.

OH, and while in storage, no sins can be recorded on the tally sheet!

[phlegm]

Regarding Dawkins, his atheist cohorts, and their books, quoted from here (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not).

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?

I am not—honestly, I am not—simply being dismissive here. The utter inconsequentiality of contemporary atheism is a social and spiritual catastrophe. Something splendid and irreplaceable has taken leave of our culture—some great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic expressions of belief and unbelief alike. Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.

But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicion is quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth for another—say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or something vaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.” Hume, for instance, never traded one dogmatism for another, or one facile certitude for another. He understood how radical were the implications of the skepticism he recommended, and how they struck at the foundations not only of unthinking faith, but of proud rationality as well.

A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe.

[JJuggle]

Regarding Dawkins, his atheist cohorts, and their books, quoted from here (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not).
This essay seems to be saying essentially that as a fringe view atheism is acceptable because its adherents are imbued with some moral courage and fortitude, but as a more mainstream view they are merely insolent belligerents.

Could not the same be said of the early Christians versus the established Christianity of the last thousand years?

I personally find Christopher Hitchens to be no more likable than say, Jerry Falwell. That doesn't say anything though about their respective ideas.

[phlegm]

This essay seems to be saying essentially that as a fringe view atheism is acceptable because its adherents are imbued with some moral courage and fortitude, but as a more mainstream view they are merely insolent belligerents.

Could not the same be said of the early Christians versus the established Christianity of the last thousand years?

No, I don't think so. I'm not sure what you mean by "the established Christianity of the last thousand years." I would say it's "established" in the sense that there is a historical thread and shared faith in God as revealed in Jesus that connects all Christians throughout history, but I wouldn't say that every Christian over a thousand years framed Christianity in the same way. History is filled with philosophers, theologians, and church fathers who considered deeply what it meant to be Christian in their time and reoriented Christian understanding accordingly.

What I hear Hart attacking is a present day atheism that recycles historic arguments for atheism in spite of the present day Christian philosophers and theologians who have already moved beyond such critiques. If the "new atheists" were courageous they would engage the living Christian thinkers rather than appealing to arguments from a bygone era--is this not a form of fundamentalism?

Now, I think lack of courage could be claimed of a present day Christian who appeals to historic theologies without considering what present day thinkers are saying. I don't deny that there may be Christians that do this, but I don't see such a lack of courage in theological circles. Whereas Dawkins and his cohorts are setting themselves up as the atheologians of atheism without producing any actual new thought on the matter.

[ezas]

Yes, and Unweaving the Rainbow. But let me read through these 10 pages before I chime in

[JJuggle]

What I hear Hart attacking is a present day atheism that recycles historic arguments for atheism in spite of the present day Christian philosophers and theologians who have already moved beyond such critiques.
Do you mean that the new atheists should be devoting their energy to countering statements such as "the drama of history reveal God."

Exactly how does one go about refuting such claims? To me it is akin to suggesting that one refute The Ballad of Reading Gaol or Howl.

[ezas]

I found Richard Dawkins to be a zealot with an agenda no different in practice than those he rails against. The two books I read wavered off course within a few chapters and became little more than more descriptions of science discoveries that had little or nothing to do with the subject of the book. This was particularly true in Unweaving the Rainbow which started great for the first couple of chapters and then completely lost the thread. I don't give up on many book, even some of the physics books that are making my eyes bleed with endless discussions of types particles and anti particles. I've managed to survive the begats of the bible, but I gave up on Unweaving the Rainbow.


In closing I reiterate that I find R .Dawkins to be close to insufferable in his narrow minded absolutism. should add as an author. I saw reference above that he is more charming in person and I can see where it is easy as a well published author to start making bold declarative statements your trademark style. I like his ideas. I don't share his enthusiasm for Evolution being the be all end all for how we got here. I think it oversimplifies a diverse history of the world and the great diversity of world religions.

I find slightly disturbing his seeming target on mainstream Christianity at the expense of smaller, religions some who have more creative creation myths. Seems like if your religion does not crow too loud, Richard is not concerned with you and your creation myths and creators. I guess it's go forth and multiple in the shadows and you will be overlooked in the pantheon of R. Dawkins books.

But let me leave off with the next myth I want the mythbusters to cover.

How come the Pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible? Perhaps they could do an experiment to see how far away they can be seen from?

The first pyramid was finished by 2611 BCE. Well early enough to be in existence as the jews wandered in and out of Eygpt.

The pyramids?

You know the big triangle things that were were up to 146 meters tall?

I found this blurb with regard to Egypt in Biblical Times. Anyone up for taking a whack at this seeming paradox?

Egypt was a place of great importance in the Bible, and influenced the Israelites greatly. In the beginning it was simply a place with lots of food, where they could rest in comfort while waiting for God to prepare the promised land for them, but it grew into a place of captivity and oppression. God turned it into a sign of his faithfulness to his people, when he led them out of Egypt, but it remained a stumbling block for them, as they remembered the food and good things of Egypt, and tended to trust in the military might of Egypt's army over the strong arm of God. Finally, with the coming of Christ, the place of Egypt is complete in the Bible. The savior has come out of Egypt, just as all the Israelites did, when God saved them, and he has come to save and seek the lost.

I found one web site that said that Egypt is mentioned 750 times in the Bible and the word Pharaoh 200 times


I'm baffled.

[phlegm]

Do you mean that the new atheists should be devoting their energy to countering statements such as "the drama of history reveal God."

It seems to me that would be a good start.

Exactly how does one go about refuting such claims? To me it is akin to suggesting that one refute The Ballad of Reading Gaol or Howl.

I'm not sure. It would probably be too offensive to argue in general that history has no real value and thus should be considered pure fiction. However, admitting that history has something real to say and then providing an overarching interpretation lends itself to a "God" structure like Horton's "God revealed in the drama of history."

Maybe the new atheists could use as inspiration Altizer's version of Christian atheism (http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523) in which Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God is regarded as a prophetic event and woven into an historical/"apocalyptic" vision for the future.

Post-structuralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism) is a possibility, but I don't know that a scientist would be willing to play in that sandbox. I think it's worth noting that Horton already engages post-structuralist thinkers in his writing, while the new atheists are still talking about "God" in antiquated philosophical terms.

How come the Pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible?

What do you think the Pyramids would add to the stories found in the Bible? Lots of stuff happens and is left out of historical accounts because it's deemed meaningless by the writer(s).

[JJuggle]

It seems to me that would be a good start.



I'm not sure. It would probably be too offensive to argue in general that history has no real value and thus should be considered pure fiction. However, admitting that history has something real to say and then providing an overarching interpretation lends itself to a "God" structure like Horton's "God revealed in the drama of history."

Maybe the new atheists could use as inspiration Altizer's version of Christian atheism (http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523) in which Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God is regarded as a prophetic event and woven into an historical/"apocalyptic" vision for the future.

Post-structuralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism) is a possibility, but I don't know that a scientist would be willing to play in that sandbox. I think it's worth noting that Horton already engages post-structuralist thinkers in his writing, while the new atheists are still talking about "God" in antiquated philosophical terms
I honestly don't have the vaguest idea how to counter or even address arguments about the existence of a God whose existence is completely irrelevant as is one who is merely that which is revealed by the drama of history. I can't imagine what purpose such a concept serves.

And frankly while it may be the case that in the face of scientific advancement theology has cleverly and deliberately moved past antiquated notions of God I very much doubt that the majority of the faithful have. I doubt very much that there are many suicide bombers who would act in the service of that which is "revealed by history" or many who would picket military funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags" for the same. Or many who would buy seats up front in Synagogues or tithe. Or thank God for their touchdowns or Emmys. Or make pilgrimages to Mecca or Lourdes. Or frankly seek the counsel of ministers, imams, rabbis, and priests if they believed those men and women represented merely "that which is revealed by history."

[phlegm]

I honestly don't have the vaguest idea how to counter or even address arguments about the existence of a God whose existence is completely irrelevant as is one who is merely that which is revealed by the drama of history. I can't imagine what purpose such a concept serves.

You agree that history has something real to say, right? So how does God conceived as revealed specifically in covenants found in the drama of history result in an irrelevant God? That leaves believers asking how to live those promises as history unfolds, promises like that profound newness is possible, that what the Christ event means is a sign of what is to come as heaven invades our world. Living the meaning of Christ in our world seems pretty practical and relevant to me.

On the other hand, if we were to locate ourselves in a history without the meaning of Christ, what other historical drama would you propose for us to be part of?

And frankly while it may be the case that in the face of scientific advancement theology has cleverly and deliberately moved past antiquated notions of God I very much doubt that the majority of the faithful have. I doubt very much that there are many suicide bombers who would act in the service of that which is "revealed by history" or many who would picket military funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags" for the same. Or many who would buy seats up front in Synagogues or tithe. Or thank God for their touchdowns or Emmys. Or make pilgrimages to Mecca or Lourdes. Or frankly seek the counsel of ministers, imams, rabbis, and priests if they believed those men and women represented merely "that which is revealed by history."

I purpose to not say who the "faithful" are--I'm not God so it's not my place. But I do agree that suicide bombers and "God Hates Fags" picketers are misguided.

I don't know why it would be a problem that believers would thank God for their personal achievements. The Bible says "in him we live and move and have our being," which is to say that God sustains our existence. If an athlete thanks their sponsor who sustains them financially, why wouldn't they thank God who sustains their existence?

Keep in mind that "that which is revealed by history" is not intended as an exhaustive definition of God. A primary problem of a Christian Theology (capital T--referring specifically to God "the father") is to say enough about God without saying so much that one would presume to know everything about God. As such theologians speak about God revelead "specially" and "generally." "God revealed in a covenantal structure of history" is Horton's way of talking about special revelation, i.e., what specifically points to God. Whereas many theologians, Horton alike, would talk about God revealed generally in nature. The specificity is required to name the concept "God" while some vagueness is important to acknowledge that we can't fully define God.

[BillyTheMountain]

IOr make pilgrimages to Mecca or Lourdes. Or frankly seek the counsel of ministers, imams, rabbis, and priests if they believed those men and women represented merely "that which is revealed by history."

Rabbi means teacher. Why not consult a teacher?

[munimutant]

The Bible stands out as great literature because it is a collection of historical accounts and artifactual writings that span a large period of history. And, when read together, certain themes emerge out of history.

One of the themes is a variety of ways that humans have understood God. Yes, there was a time when people viewed plagues as God punishing them. But the way humans understand God has changed throughout history. Does any sane person blame God for swine flu?

OK, so is this the new Christian thinking? Is this the new way to interpret the bible? I'm so confused. It seems there are parts we are supposed to take literally, and others we're supposed to put into historical context. Exactly who decides which parts we must believe in without question and avoid the eternal hellfire? Men in pointy hats? Cherub-faced evangelists? And if the answer is something like "we must all find our own way, with our own personal relationship with Jesus," then any subscriber to that belief cannot claim that being gay is a sin, or that anyone who refuses to "accept JC as their personal savior" is going to hell. If you're saying that modern Christianity is evolving to this kind of thinking, I am encouraged. But my impression is that people like Jim Wallis do not represet the majority of modern christians.

It just seems to me the more mental gymnastics you need to apply to make a theory plausible, the more likely it is to be false.

[phlegm]

OK, so is this the new Christian thinking? Is this the new way to interpret the bible? I'm so confused. It seems there are parts we are supposed to take literally, and others we're supposed to put into historical context.

Hmm, I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I think the Bible should be read for what it obviously is--a collection of writings spanning a large portion of history that collectively tell a story about all time. I doubt that's a new way of thinking. I think the story is as good or better than other stories I've heard, so I try to play my role. Do you have another story you prefer to live in?

Exactly who decides which parts we must believe in without question and avoid the eternal hellfire? Men in pointy hats? Cherub-faced evangelists? And if the answer is something like "we must all find our own way, with our own personal relationship with Jesus," then any subscriber to that belief cannot claim that being gay is a sin, or that anyone who refuses to "accept JC as their personal savior" is going to hell.

The Bible is a lot more direct about how we live our lives in this world than about spelling out the details of an afterlife. I'm not sure why afterlife is so often brought up as a main thing. I partially blame the KJV translators for translating three separate words--sheol, hades, and gehenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs)--as the single word "hell."

We find our way but with others. I would say the church, ideally, decides what the Christ event means, but I also leave defining "the true church" to God.

If you're saying that modern Christianity is evolving to this kind of thinking, I am encouraged. But my impression is that people like Jim Wallis do not represet the majority of modern christians.

I had to look up who Jim Wallis is. My question to those who have a favorite expression of Christianity in spite of conservative stereotypes is always, "What prevents you from living Christianity that way?" 1 Corinthians 12 (http://esv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/12.htm) expresses the need for diversity in the church.

[JJuggle]

Living the meaning of Christ in our world seems pretty practical and relevant to me.

On the other hand, if we were to locate ourselves in a history without the meaning of Christ, what other historical drama would you propose for us to be part of?
I have no response or comment on this or the rest of your post at this time. :)

[BillyTheMountain]

I honestly don't have the vaguest idea how to counter or even address arguments about the existence of a God whose existence is completely irrelevant as is one who is merely that which is revealed by the drama of history. I can't imagine what purpose such a concept serves.

And frankly while it may be the case that in the face of scientific advancement theology has cleverly and deliberately moved past antiquated notions of God I very much doubt that the majority of the faithful have. I doubt very much that there are many suicide bombers who would act in the service of that which is "revealed by history" or many who would picket military funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags" for the same. Or many who would buy seats up front in Synagogues or tithe. Or thank God for their touchdowns or Emmys. Or make pilgrimages to Mecca or Lourdes. Or frankly seek the counsel of ministers, imams, rabbis, and priests if they believed those men and women represented merely "that which is revealed by history."

Who would anyone bother arguing about the existence of a God whose existence is completely irrelevant?

These arguments only arise because, for at least one party, GOD is relevant.

What do you recommend the Atheist say to his grandmother, on her deathbed, asking him to pray with her?

Argue with her?

[Kerv]

Wow, this thread started two years ago asking about Dawkins book "The God Delusion". It has certainly roamed rather far.

Some points: Both Atheists and Believers tend not to come by their views "honestly". I have met many atheists who do not have a clue about the actual teachings they denounce (that is not quite true, the atheists tend to have a "cartoon" view of religion).

Similarly, I have met many believers who have never tried to understand the atheists' objections. The believers know even less about atheism than the atheists know about religion - the believers don't even have the "cartoon" view of the other camp.

I personally find that Dawkins says a lot of absurd things. (In pointing out the evils of Christian faith, he points to the deaths of the Spanish Inquisition, while saying that at least people have never been killed in the name of atheism. How could he miss Lenin's and Stalin's swath of death in communist Russia as they sought to remake man free from the shackles of religious constraint? To say nothing of Pol Pot in Cambodia!)

Anyway, if you are a seeker of truth, read Dawkins book - but only if you also expose yourself to the other view. Also try D'nish D'sousa's book "What's So Great About Christianity?" It is expressly written as an answer to Dawkins, Christopher Hitchen, Sam Harris and others. Because it directly takes on the Atheists' arguments, it is better book for this project than other works of general apologetics like C.S Lewis's (of Narnia fame) "Mere Christianity". Then, once you have read both, come to an informed decision yourself. If you are truly seeking answers (instead of just a confirmation of your existing view) you need to read both sides.

A couple of years ago, D'Sousa barnstormed the country debating the famous atheists: Hitchens, Daniel Denit, etc. Some of it can still be seen on-line. Generally the believers say D'Sousa creamed the atheists, while the atheists said D'sousa was just a better debater. No surprise here, both entrenched camps didn't change their view. This happens in many areas, religion, politics, etc. We tend to discount the other side's valid points while over-emphasizing our own. This makes true inquiry very difficult.

I challenge the believers to read the Dawkins book and the atheists to read D'Sousa's book.

[unibabyguy]

I challenge the believers to read the Dawkins book and the atheists to read D'Sousa's book.

I agree with a lot of what you say, except for the part about Dawkins book being a challenging read for believers. It seems to be mostly an ad hominem attack on believers, and a "call to arms" of atheists against religion. I think most believers would be turned off by his book.

I would suggest reading one of Bart Ehrman's books if you wanted to be challenged. He was a former Christian turned Agnostic, and teaches religion as a professor. His book _Misquoting Jesus_ is pretty popular judging from the reviews on Amazon.

[Kerv]

UniBabyGuy: I very much agree with your assessment of Dawkins. He mostly just rants about religion and religious belief. But since this thread started by asking about one of Dawkins' very popular books, I kept the focus on him.

Actually, I find that most of today's popular atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc) just make snide remarks that aren't really good arguments. As such, they are easily parried by someone with even a limited knowledge of history and religious thought.

We need a modern day Voltaire to carry the atheist load. I had not heard of the book you recommend. I'll have to check it out.

[BillyTheMountain]

Should atheists try to understand another position?

Should abstainers try to understand heroin addicts?

Should law-abiding citizens try to understand criminals?

Should capitalists try to understand communism?

Democrats understand Republicans?

MUni understand street, trials?

[DSchmitt]

Should atheists try to understand another position?

Should abstainers try to understand heroin addicts?

Should law-abiding citizens try to understand criminals?

Should capitalists try to understand communism?

Democrats understand Republicans?

MUni understand street, trials?

only one way to find out the answers to those questions, and that is to flip a quarter.

heads = yes , tails = no.

Should abstainers try to understand heroin addicts?
Yes


Should law-abiding citizens try to understand criminals?
Yes

Should capitalists try to understand communism?
Yes

Democrats understand Republicans?
No

MUni understand street, trials?
Yes

(i literally flipped a coin 5 times....if only i would have this luck at flip night)