Perhaps a better question would be why do people want to go beyond the acceptance of their beliefs and go into trying to make others have the same beliefs?

1) One has to gratify his ego. :)

2) Here's a theory I have been having: People are secretly afraid that their Ideas are, well, wrong. For example, look at the USSR and the USA. The USSR believes they are forming a utopia...and the USA...well, they believe they are forming a utopia. So why didn't the USSR and the USA shrug each other off and say, "Alright, let go form utopias!" Because both the USA's view of a utopia and the USSR's view of a utopia state that the other side's view of a utopia is just plain wrong.

In which case, the USSR and the USA want to PROVE that the other side is wrong, they want to show it to the whole world that the USA is really a capitalist dystopia or that the USSR is a communist dictatorship. If not, then both the USSR and the USA fears that other people may see the other side as nice...and most importantly, they fear that people will see their side as being wrong.

What I am trying to say is that the USA and the USSR really waged this war in order to tell themselves "Look, see, people believe in me, and not the USA. That must mean I am right! See, I'm right! I'm so right!" It is used to conceal their true fears, since the other side act as proof against their own side, and if the other side is defeated, their side can feel safe in their own ideas. Think of it more as "pre-emptive strike", if you will.

And it's the same thing here. Religious people and Atheistic people hate each other's ideas because the Atheistic acts as a way to counter the Religious Idea, and the Religious Idea act as a way to counter the Atheistic Idea. Nobody wants to face up to the fact that their own beliefs may be wrong, so they have to attack and remove the offending Idea that causes them to question and believe.

Nancy Allen''', I am writing some sort of book about Ideas and how exactly they work in today's world. I wonder if you do Beta reading, and if so, would you like to review my work if it gets done?

Sure I'll have a look. You might want to pass it on to a couple of experts as well as they'd know a lot more than I would.

The idea of right and wrong is belief and opinion created by the viewpoint of someone based on the society they live in and the upbringing they received, whether it be by themselves or from their parents. One person can say God does not exist, another can say God does exist. Both believe they are right and the other is wrong. Thus, the idea (or at least the belief) of right and wrong is relative to me because I believe that every action, every opinion and veiwpoint taken has an equally "good" and "bad" repercussion and that no opinion is right or wrong and that applies to my opinion as well.I think you speak about the right and wrong of the own, perceived truth. I speak about the states of right and wrong of a statement. I mean there are people believing god is existent and there are those who "believe" he is not. Both have their own perceived truth of what they believe is correct, right, the truth. What I talk about is the "right"or "wrong" as in testible fact which exists regardless of any belief (for example the dog-poo-universe).

I'm not exactly sure if you are mocking me, disagreeing with me, or agreeing with me to be honest.I think I agreed in general, disagreed in particular and mocked not you but the fact that so many seem to know the right belief. ;)

Although science does have some ideas that can be stated to be right and wrong. If one person says "You are breathing!" and the other person says "No, I am not." then the other would be wrong in this day and age. But, if the other person states that they are merely absorbing the life given to them by god everytime they draw breath and that it is not the air that keeps them alive, but god, how do you prove him wrong?
I don't. Because ..
Sure, science states that when you breath the oxygen is used to power your muscles and brain and it has been concluded as suchBingo. No need to add extra magic. ;)
but we make scientific discoveries all the time that disprove theories and conclusions before us.Usually, theories which science has proven to be correct don't change. Whatever conditions extend the "theory of breathing", the fact that we right now breathe air, and use its oxygen to power our system won't change and cannot be proven wrong anymore.

Maybe in a thousand years we can be proven wrong on that like so many other things.Depends. I don't think the fact that the earth is round won't change. Global warming or games causing violence on the other hand...

Maybe reality itself can be proven wrong somehow. Science and Religion are simply ideas being applied to what we have and a conclusion being created from that information. At the core, they are almost the same to me and the constant bickering does not help either side.Religion is what was before science. Religion was the attempt to explain things and find rules for a peaceful together when mankind was not able and had no time to investigate their environment because they had to survive.

Indeed, and if we could not get an answer I suspect people would probably fight over the right to call god theirs.And according to the religions everybody would be right, wouldn't they?

I do not really mind if you hate me or like me for my opinion because if I really cared I would not dare post, but please do not disrespect me by calling me a coward and labeling me to a side because I will not pick a side in this timeless debate.Okay, I cowardly withdraw my cowardly comment about you behaving cowardly and cowardly apologise.

Fifteen thousand years ago everybody knew Earth was the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago everybody knew the world was flat and five years ago everybody knew that Bush wouldn't be reelected. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Fifteen thousand years ago everybody knew Earth was the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago everybody knew the world was flat and five years ago everybody knew that Bush wouldn't be reelected. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow

Technically, five hundred years ago, everyone knew the Earth was round. There was scientific proof that the Earth was round, by the Greeks. The problem was this: How big the Earth actually was? If it was too big, then it would be physically impossible to cross the Atlantic Ocean and reach Asia.

I think the more accurate statement would be: Everyone knew there was no such thing as the American continent.

the right and wrong of a statement, idea, conclusion, whatever is not relative.
I disagree, everything seems to be relative.
This relativity of knowledge and information continues to forever change.
Also since Quantum Mechanics experiments suggest other universes of alternate histories and other realities, any truth is relative.
No, truth of any kind seems to be constant truth.
Truth is variable! :)

The quote's actually from Men in Black, but the point is we know now what everybody knew then, some of us are so damn sure there is or isn't a God. Regardless of your belief good for you I say. But it's today's equivilent of the belief the world was flat however many years it was they believed it.

The quote's actually from Men in Black, but the point is we know now what everybody knew then, some of us are so damn sure there is or isn't a God. Regardless of your belief good for you I say. But it's today's equivilent of the belief the world was flat however many years it was they believed it.
Nancy are you talking to me, or just talking to everybody here? ;)

Technically, five hundred years ago, everyone knew the Earth was round. There was scientific proof that the Earth was round, by the Greeks. The problem was this: How big the Earth actually was? If it was too big, then it would be physically impossible to cross the Atlantic Ocean and reach Asia.

I think the more accurate statement would be: Everyone knew there was no such thing as the American continent.

Actually, there was a rather fierce debate in philosophical/scientific circles over whether the Earth was round or flat.

Fifteen thousand years ago everybody knew Earth was the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago everybody knew the world was flat and five years ago everybody knew that Bush wouldn't be reelected. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.Yes, but that doesn't change the *unchangeable* fact that Fifteen thousand years ago Earth was not the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago the world was not flat and that Bush was reelected.

No, but that is what people knew as fact back then, the same as people know as fact there is or is not God.

No, it's what people assumed because they couldn't certainly test it and thus not prove it. It were theories, hypotheses, ideas, nothing more.

I think I agreed in general, disagreed in particular and mocked not you but the fact that so many seem to know the right belief. ;)
Ah, well, good enough for me :P

I don't. Because ..
Bingo. No need to add extra magic. ;)
Usually, theories which science has proven to be correct don't change. Whatever conditions extend the "theory of breathing", the fact that we right now breathe air, and use its oxygen to power our system won't change and cannot be proven wrong anymore.
Yeah, when I think back that 5am idea does seem rather stupid. I'm freakin tired right now as well, so I'll try and make an acceptable example later to make myself seem less stupid.

Depends. I don't think the fact that the earth is round won't change. Global warming or games causing violence on the other hand...
Well, there are a lot of things we saw as fact a few hundreds years ago and had, to ourselves, proven right. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just saying that everyday things we know as fact are proven and disproven. There are some things, however, that I highly doubt can be proven wrong, making my breathing example all the more silly. I apologize for that, but I think you get the idea I was trying to get weakly across anyway.

Religion is what was before science. Religion was the attempt to explain things and find rules for a peaceful together when mankind was not able and had no time to investigate their environment because they had to survive.
Well, religion will always be there to fill in the gaps for science. I doubt humanity can disprove religion on everything and even if it did, religion would still exist. You destroy science as we know it, religion is still a science by base definition as far as I can tell. The two are stuck with eachother for the rest of human's time on this earth, so a little more respect between the two could do wonders. But overall, I agree with your statement.

And according to the religions everybody would be right, wouldn't they?
And then they would rip eachother to pieces as they have done since the beginning of human history. Even if God was proven and presented before me, and I was looking directly at Her in heaven or on earth or whatever or knew 100% that She existed I still wouldn't join any of the religions personally. I might be a lot more spiritual than I am now, but I believe God just wants us to be spiritual, not religious. To not confuse dogma for spirituality and just live life to the best we can.

Okay, I cowardly withdraw my cowardly comment about you behaving cowardly and cowardly apologise.
Wow.

I'll try and make an acceptable example later to make myself seem less stupid.Not so much stupid but quite weird and pretty much screwed. XD


Well, there are a lot of things we saw as fact a few hundreds years ago and had, to ourselves, proven right. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just saying that everyday things we know as fact are proven and disproven. There are some things, however, that I highly doubt can be proven wrong, making my breathing example all the more silly. I apologize for that, but I think you get the idea I was trying to get weakly across anyway.I think with the time mankind became more carefully with stating facts. I don't think we'll see things like the flat earth is round very often anymore. I mean the earth was supposed to be flat because that's what it looked like, and it was the center of the solar system because it was the easiest way to have the sun etc moving around it. We looked on our everyday world and simply drew analogies. Since we are able to prove in many ways how it really is I doubt that will ever need correction.

So I seriously doubt that many if not all proven and tested physical laws will ever face a fundamental change. Maybe we have to add new stuff and dependencies and whatnot, but nothing basic will change.

However, I won't and cannot deny the possibility that we will have to change mind about some things where we currently have not really a concept about, just some untested theories and ideas. For instance how gravitation or any other of the fundamental forces work. Or how life began.


Well, religion will always be there to fill in the gaps for science.I think, basically, religion is ought to give hope in bad times and science is ought to have answers during good times. Also, religion shows how we live together and science where we live together. Religion is static and science is underlying a permanent change.


Even if God was proven and presented before me, and I was looking directly at Her in heaven or on earth or whatever or knew 100% that She existed I still wouldn't join any of the religions personally. I might be a lot more spiritual than I am now, but I believe God just wants us to be spiritual, not religious. To not confuse dogma for spirituality and just live life to the best we can.If I would ever be presented to a god, and if it really turns out that she participated in creating the universe I would thank her for three things: raspberry-buttermilk ice cream, LEGO and the process of creating offspring. No really.

Observation: When science does actually manage to disprove a bit of dogma(such as the old belief that God lived above the clouds), dogma just changes in such a way as to make the assertions impossible to prove or disprove with current technology.

pardon the non-sequitur.

You're forgetting one very important facet here. There's a general rule that if one's religion interfere's with their humanity, then there's something wrong with their religion. Example? Condemning homosexuals. Not quite, it's the condemnation of homosexual activity. Witches, not just condemning Harry Potter but wanting to burn those who declare themselves witches at the stake. It says that we are meant to follow the law, and murdering someone who is supposed to be a witch is against the law. This is the stumbling block abortion clinic bombers, plane hijackers, ect, stumble over.

Uh... huh? I've looked at that through every perspective I can think of, but to put it bluntly you're blatantly contradicting yourself and only making my previous statement about religion inhibiting morality more true.

Okay, look at it this way then. There's a story of a group of monks who were religious, the visual clues indicate they were Christian. Now they had taken in a man people believed to be a demon and treated him as their own. But one of them couldn't stand by and allow the evil to infiltrate his temple, so he went to the village who feared the man and told the villagers where he was. They try and hunt down the man, unsuccessfully, and all that they achieve is part of the temple being burnt down. Most telling is when this monk confronts the man he had set the villagers on and the man has the chance to kill him, but doesn't, saying it is not his place to judge. This story illustrates that we shouldn't cast judgement on others, and the danger of taking your religion too far.

This story illustrates that we shouldn't cast judgement on others, and the danger of taking your religion too far.
Ah but what constitutes as taking it too far? Evangelizing because it is written that His disciples should spread the word? Or is it something like the insurgents killing the infidels in the name of Allah?

The world, including the Muslim world, sees the latter as certainly going too far. Not only do such acts condemn their religion it's meant to be not allowed according to the Quran. I'm not sure if it's a specific passage or if such acts contradict what is written, I know that suicide (suicide bombings, hijacking and dying in the plane crash) is against Islam. The Bible says the law overrides religion, except when the law has us sin. Now that could go off into a whole other topic on whether not killing infidels is a sin but I think if murder is a sin then it sort of cancels it out. However some would think preaching religion is going too far, it's something that should be outlawed, and there are those who go further than that, those who have it in for religion and outright condemn it. I'm not talking about Atheism, it goes further than that, those who stir and stir and push and push in the hopes of making the other party give up their beliefs or provoke a negative reaction which they can then use to portray religion in a negative light.

Okay, look at it this way then. There's a story of a group of monks who were religious,

I honestly don't see what this story proves apart from that religious superstition (belief in demons in this case) can lead to the destruction of property.

Okay, look at it this way then. There's a story of a group of monks who were religious, the visual clues indicate they were Christian. ....

Problem with your allegory is that it doesn't say anything at all about the villagers being religious, and they're the ones who actually caused the damage. It does seem to speak to the "law of unforseen consequences", such that the monk probably didn't intend for 1/2 the monestary to be burnt to the ground. Also, for people of religious faith, specifically Christians, I think there's the admonition "judge not, lest ye be judged", though somehow I don't believe that speaks to the question of law and order so much as to us thinking we're really better than anyone else in the eyes of God. The other popular one is "let he w/o sin cast the first stone". That one, no doubt, is often cited by the opponents of capital punishment. But really, whether it's religion or any -ism, there's always the danger that carried to an extreme, there will be ugly consequences.

Did I mention that the 'demon' was in fact religious, probably even more devoted than the people he was with? Could the fact he spared the one who wanted him killed have something to do with how devoted he was to his religion? How about reversing the story, have a man who is believed to be religious taken in by Atheists. One of them doesn't want the lies to possibly affect them and takes action. Could it be said that Atheist superstition of the effect religion may have on people would cause similar events? To push the idea further could it be argued that because Atheists do not believe in religion they can bestow themselves as being more moral than someone who does?

I just found this link for a debate (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard00.html) in 2003 between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Quentin Smith, and thought you all might find it interesting. Enjoy.

*shudders*

I can't say that I've read that particular debate, however I have white-knuckled my way though several of Dr. Craig's other debates and resources. As someone who is frequently guilty of heaping un-earned credibility upon those that hail from academia, I find it particularly distasteful that this man has a doctorate.

For instance, in this (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html) article, he offers several flimsy arguments for the existence of jesus, however fails to support any of them. Most frequent reason? "I don't have time to cover this now". As though someone was holding a gun to his head as he sat at the word processor.

Two doctorates, plus post-doc work.

Craig's BA in communications from Wheaton College, 2 MAs from Trinity University which is highly regarded, a doctorate from the University of Birmingham (England) and a second doctorate from the University of Munich, along with the further research at University of Louvain in Belgium disqualifies him how? Don't you think that if he was really unqualified, _somewhere_ along the line _someone_ would have said "Hey, you know, maybe we shouldn't give this guy his first doctorate, let alone a second...." I don't think he could have fooled that many profs if he really was a hack.

Whether you agree with him or not, he's earned those doctorates with a tremendous amount of hard work. I'm very familiar with Trinity in particular (I live fairly close to it and my brother-in-law struggled through a year of master's work there, and he's a very intelligent man) and the standards at that school are extremely high--it is not a cake walk to get a degree there, particularly graduate degrees. None of the other universities are breezes to get a degree from, either.

The article is just that--a short article of an excerpt from a larger book. There's more discussion in the book itself, obviously, and in this debate (http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf).

Context, Jae. I have three degrees (an AA, a BS, and a MA). Does that make me qualified to practice medicine? The answer to that question is most likely "no" unless my field of study was medicine.

What you defense of Craig failed to mention is that while his BA is in Communications, his other degrees are in philosophy of religion, church history, philosophy, and theology respectively.

I'm sure if he and I were to sit down for tea while debating the contributions of Kierkegaard, he would wipe the floor with me. Conversely, should the topic venture into business, I imagine that I would have the advantage.

Regardless, the fact remains that the man has either no exposure to critical thinking or little regard for it. All the doctorates in the world aren't going to save him for fallacious thinking unless he opts to employ them (as he so obviously does not in his publications).

I'm sure that he had to put forth a great deal of effort to earn his degrees, however they appear to have had little impact on his facility with logic. Considering that a great deal of his coursework deals with a field of study that specifically disregards logic, that is not surprising to me, however it does make it very difficult to take his doctorate seriously.

Unfortunately, his devotion to subject bereft of intellectual rigor shows in the work that he publishes on the internet. It saddens me to know that there are individuals who will see the "Dr." in front of his name and automatically assign his work credence that it does not deserve.

So to summarize (and hopefully answer your question if I've failed to do so above), the question is not whether or not he is "qualified", but whether or not his arguments are logically sound. Considering the volume of letters both before and after his name, I'm sure he's "qualified", although sadly that does not prevent him from displaying poor critical thinking skills. I hope that clarifies.

EDIT: LOL! While doing some additional digging, I found that Craig is also a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Any attempt to paint him as an intellectual giant just became 100-fold more difficult :D

You...I don't mean you directly, this is for everybody...you can have every PhD, doctorette, whatever under the sun. That means squat without a little common sense.

I fail to see how doctorates in theology and philosophy disqualify him from discussing theology and philosophy. The existence of God is both a theological and philosophical topic.

Just because he believes in God he's supposedly biased? Since when are atheists the only ones qualified to discuss theology? With your logic, atheists are just as disqualified in discussing religion, then, because of their anti-theistic bias.

Yes, Craig is a fellow in the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute, presumably because of his philosophical expertise in the existence of God. Since one of Craig's arguments has been that a universe of this complexity could not have been built up in defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics without a creator, this does not surprise me.

You likewise disqualified Dr. Metzger out of hand, a man who had a doctorate in theology from and taught at Princeton, as well as having been a visiting Fellow at both Cambridge and Oxford. The man was one of the leading experts in Bible translation and you'd throw away his entire body of work as worthless because he also was Christian. Having degrees in theology or Bible but yet actually believing in God disqualifies them for any kind of work in the field? That makes no sense to me. You can't brush aside their theological and philosophical contributions out of hand just because you don't like their beliefs. I don't like Dawkins' beliefs and it certainly biases his science and philosophy, but I'm not going to discount his work out of hand just because he's an anti-theist.

Physicists have degrees in physics because they love the subject and believe that their work in that field is important. You spent the time and financial commitment to get your degrees in business because you enjoy that subject (I hope!) and want to do well in the field. I have a doctor degree because I love doing medical work on people's eyes and think that helping them see well is important. I would likewise expect theological and Biblical scholars to actually love the field they're studying and believe that their work has importance for mankind in some way.

Why would anyone who hates God and the Bible first of all want to study the many years in the field to get a doctorate, much less spend an entire career on it, unless they have some kind of underlying agenda? It's those people I don't trust.

Why would anyone who hates God and the Bible first of all want to study the many years in the field to get a doctorate, much less spend an entire career on it, unless they have some kind of underlying agenda? It's those people I don't trust.

I think that's going a bit too far. I don't HATE religion, religious people, nor your or anyone else's god. I simply choose to not to believe in them.

I used to be EXTREMELY religious, a Southern Baptist, to be specific. However, I found myself having to stretch reason to its limit in order to justify a lot of specific beliefs, and that ultimately led me to question the merit of faith itself.

Of course, I think it is just as wrong for me to try and push my beliefs on others as it is for them to try and push their philosophies on me or anyone else.

You...I don't mean you directly, this is for everybody...you can have every PhD, doctorette, whatever under the sun. That means squat without a little common sense. For once, I find that you and I are in complete agreement :D

I fail to see how doctorates in theology and philosophy disqualify him from discussing theology and philosophy. The existence of God is both a theological and philosophical topic. I find it a little alarming that you are once again raising the "qualified" strawman, especially since I went to such lengths in my last message to rebuke it. "Qualified" has nothing to do with anything.

Just because he believes in God he's supposedly biased? Strawman. Who mentioned anything about bias?

Since when are atheists the only ones qualified to discuss theology? Strawman. Who made the claim that only atheists can discuss theology?

With your logic, atheists are just as disqualified in discussing religion, then, because of their anti-theistic bias. Strawman. This isn't even close to anything that I've said. Again, "qualified" was strawman introduced by you.

My statement was that all of his degrees have not helped his critical thinking skills. If you'd like to debate my point, it's right there.

Yes, Craig is a fellow in the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute, presumably because of his philosophical expertise in the existence of God. Please help me understand how this makes DI any less of a sham? I find it mildly offensive that this groups has associated the concept of "discovery" with their agenda of "let's try to find stuff that supports the dogmatic worldview that we've already adopted". Discovery is a noble endeavor. What this groups does is not discovery.

Since one of Craig's arguments has been that a universe of this complexity could not have been built up in defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics without a creator, this does not surprise me. How very arrogant of him to presume to know that the creation of the universe violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'd like to see what evidence he has to support the view that our universe is indeed a closed system. This is completely separate from the extreme arrogance that is necessary to suppose that one "could know the nature of" a being capable of producing such an event, assuming that his initial presumption is correct. Interestingly, you seem to feel as though he is a qualified expert in a very specialize field of science after pointing out that his specialization is in philosophy and theology (and we've both determined that he doesn't hold any degrees, advanced or otherwise, in a physical science).

You likewise disqualified Dr. Metzger out of hand, a man who had a doctorate in theology from and taught at Princeton, as well as having been a visiting Fellow at both Cambridge and Oxford. The man was one of the leading experts in Bible translation and you'd throw away his entire body of work as worthless because he also was Christian. Strawman, but I'll play.
I would tend to *dismiss* the academic contributions of Dr. Metzger out of hand, because his field of study is equivalent to that of imaginary friends. Should his work contain detailed accounts of how the birth and rise of Christianty have impacted western culture from a historical *AND* objective viewpoint, then I imagine I would find his work worthwhile and fascinating. However, if it is strictly theological, then it carries little more weight than telling me that he has post-graduate degree in Klingon and that he considers himself a "prominent linguist".

Having degrees in theology or Bible but yet actually believing in God disqualifies them for any kind of work in the field?Strawman.

That makes no sense to me. Me either. Since it's your statement and not mine, perhaps you'll be so kind as to expand on it for me?

You can't brush aside their theological and philosophical contributions out of hand just because you don't like their beliefs. Technically, I could, however I haven't. I *have* "brushed them aside" because they are logically unsound, which is a perfectly valid reason for not paying one's arguments any credence. "Liking" what they have to say has nothing to do with it. I imagine I would "like" it a great deal if it made any sense or any support or could bear the weight of any kind of logical scrutiny.

I don't like Dawkins' beliefs and it certainly biases his science and philosophy, but I'm not going to discount his work out of hand just because he's an anti-theist.

EDIT/CORRECTION: Re-reading some old posts, it seems that I had misunderstood a debate in which you had participated. I withdraw my comment that you are unfamiliar with Dawkins. I stand corrected, as it seems that you have been exposed to some of Dawkins' work.

Physicists have degrees in physics because they love the subject and believe that their work in that field is important. You spent the time and financial commitment to get your degrees in business because you enjoy that subject (I hope!) and want to do well in the field. I have a doctor degree because I love doing medical work on people's eyes and think that helping them see well is important. I would likewise expect theological and Biblical scholars to actually love the field they're studying and believe that their work has importance for mankind in some way. Yep, I'm sure that they do. However such an observation does very little to address the fact that theology and biblical study (I'm using the broad, sweeping language that I generally try to avoid here) do not promote logic or critical thinking and require suspentions of both in order to exist.

Case in point: Compare this (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=177505) post with this (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html) article. Sit down with the logical fallacy link in my signature and tally how many fallacies I used in my argument and then compare that to the number in Dr. Craig's. Compare the use of facts in my post and the contrast that with the "just trust me" lines in his. This man has 4 more degrees than I do, however his article falls very short of the intellectual rigor that one should expect from someone with 2 doctorates.

Why would anyone who hates God and the Bible first of all want to study the many years in the field to get a doctorate, much less spend an entire career on it, unless they have some kind of underlying agenda? It's those people I don't trust. I'm not sure what this has to do with what we were discussing. Since we're on the subject though, do you happen to have any examples of people that have doctorate degrees in the theology that advocate against theism or is this simply a hypothetical exercise?

Thanks for your response.

You...I don't mean you directly, this is for everybody...you can have every PhD, doctorette, whatever under the sun. That means squat without a little common sense.

Common sense is so overrated. When you study something far too much, you end up having beliefs that would easily prove common sense wrong.

Example:Some idiot in Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) believed that the Earth was revolving around the Sun, and that Stars was far, far away, and not as close as people believed. Obivously, that was stupid. Common sense said that the Earth was in the center of the universe, and that stars are close by. Good thing common sense prevailed over the idiots.

The "knowledge" of the earth as centre of the universe was not entirely idiocy. In fact, it was for a long time (and as long as it could not be testified) the best explanation humans had for the movement of the sun. Try to find a better solution when you have no telescope or anything helpful regarding that.

The "knowledge" of the earth as centre of the universe was not entirely idiocy. In fact, it was for a long time (and as long as it could not be testified) the best explanation humans had for the movement of the sun. Try to find a better solution when you have no telescope or anything helpful regarding that.

Exactly, I know that it's not really idiotic. In fact, I really do consider the guy who believed the Sun was in the center of the universe was an idiot, considering he went against the grain.

The fact that he was proven right however just shows irony. Just because common sense dictates that A is true doesn't really mean that A is true.

I found this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html) article the other day and it reminded me of Jae's comment in post #228. I'm not sure if this gentleman's situation is what she was referring to, but it did remind me that there are examples of people the devote their lives to studying religion and then lose their faith and use their knowledge to help others. Acknowledging this, I felt it prudent to share the link and admit that I should soften my stance with regards to my last comment in post #230.

Thanks for reading.

This is a continuation of a conversation found in this this (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2356232) thread.

How so? I could say the same about faith vs. reason. Reason may win, but that doesn't make it right. It just means that the fight is between chalk and cheese. I guess I would need an example of how reason would win but not be right before I could respond intelligently. Also, we probably also need to operationally define "right" and "win". If "right" is arriving at a predetermined conclusion and "winning" is feeling good about it, it's completely different process then when "right" means finding the best answer supported by the facts and "winning" is having the truth.

Faith (in a religious context) and Reason don't mix. Religious faith requires the suspension of reason. The more faithful one is, the more dogmatically they reject reason. In fact, one's faith is measured by their ability to believe in the face of reason. How one can speak of being "right" with this as a foundation is a puzzle to me.

Even following the biblical canon, this doesn't add up. Allegedly, god made us in his image. Which means that he obviously would have the ability to reason and wanted us to have it as well. Yet we are then given a set of rules which promote blind obedience and a suspension of reason. That is an example of an argument that is hypocritical and unable to support its own weight.

Could you extrapolate? See above.

IIRC, I was originally trying to prove that your position required an input of faith/alternative synonym. Which position? Also, it would probably help to clarify if we could agree on a definition of faith.

This is a response to a post from this (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2356692) thread.

Yeah, I think that is a logical enough premise. Then why is it that modern people with their unprecedented access to knowledge and information choose the path of religious faith?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was generally of the thought that Science, is basically a hypothesis that stands because it can't be disproved. e.g. With reguards gravity no stone has ever fallen to the ground ergo the hypthesis is correct. In otherwods science disproves a theory. Comparing hypothesis and theories is like comparing catepillars and butterflies. Here's some info that might be helpful:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
...and...
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct. I hope that helps, although I'm sure there's just enough jargon there to ensure that it doesn't :(

I feel I may be making a post in the evolution thread. Strictly speaking I am completely sat on the fence, I am unsure currently of how life has changed on earth. All I know is; the earth is 6Billion years old; there is alot of animals who are related in various ways which inhabbit the earth. etc etc A vast majority of people are scientifically illiterate. That many people are confused about evolution is understandable and that many people don't even truly understand the basis of the theory is to be expected. What I can't wrap my head around is how people that claim to be rational will then go on to say that they reject it. It would seem to me that one should at least understand something before accepting or rejecting it.

I say all that because I'm glad to hear that you're willing to admit that you don't know and that you're also willing to learn more before you make up your mind one way or the other.

Not all religious people do that, it is dangerous to group all who believe one thing to group them all to behaving and thinking in the same way. Maybe. I will argue that I've never encountered a theist that doesn't do that to some extent, but I acknowledge that my statement was sweeping and apologize.

If the God hypothesis is unnecessary. ;) I'll tell you what; you provide your reasons for why you think it isn't and I'll supply my arguments for why I think it is. Hopefully one or both of us will learn something and neither of us has to abandon our positions if we don't want to :)

This is a response to a post from this (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2356692) thread.

Then why is it that modern people with their unprecedented access to knowledge and information choose the path of religious faith?

Most people are sheep, whatever the truth is doesn't matter most people follow the rest of the herd. From my perspective their is a spiritual side to man which is why you see so many religions around the world as man seeks to fill that need. The athiest world view of course has a different explanation for this; irrationality. Back to people and sheep; Zimbardo has done some facinating work within the area... have you read his latest book? President Bush would do well to read it, but then it has words longer than 5 letters so I doubt he could.

Comparing hypothesis and theories is like comparing catepillars and butterflies. Here's some info that might be helpful:
...and...
I hope that helps, although I'm sure there's just enough jargon there to ensure that it doesn't :(

I think I've got the gist of it :)

A vast majority of people are scientifically illiterate.

Agreed I come across alot of people who think they know something about science I am always greatly concerned by people who clearly don't even understand the basic concepts of which they are trying to argue. Most people don't really consider the grander side of life; is their a creator? Or are we a product of chance? People are too bothered with mundane things like who is Brad Pitt sleeping with? (I've never understood the fascination myself). Still as I'm doing so well at recall quotes of great philosophers today (I wonder how accurate I'm being) here's one of Socrates; "The unexamined life is not worth living."

That many people are confused about evolution is understandable and that many people don't even truly understand the basis of the theory is to be expected. What I can't wrap my head around is how people that claim to be rational will then go on to say that they reject it. It would seem to me that one should at least understand something before accepting or rejecting it.

I say all that because I'm glad to hear that you're willing to admit that you don't know and that you're also willing to learn more before you make up your mind one way or the other.

The great Greek also said; "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing". The more I understand of the universe the more I understand how little I truly know, the answer to one question causes me only to ask 2 more questions in its wake. No matter how much knowledge we ever accquire in an given field we can always learn more. I don't confess to having a full understanding of evolution, I have what are points/questions/problems which at this moment in time I cannot see a solution for; perhaps they will be answered perhaps not... we shall see. :)

Maybe. I will argue that I've never encountered a theist that doesn't do that to some extent, but I acknowledge that my statement was sweeping and apologize.

Perhaps I don't think I have ever done that. I'm a big one for questioning everything, I get very turned off by people of any religious background that ever say to an awkward question 'you should just belief' as I always think saying that is a sign of a cult. However being a Christian is undoubtly a part of who I am, and as Qui-Gon says; "Your focus determines your reality".

I'll tell you what; you provide your reasons for why you think it isn't and I'll supply my arguments for why I think it is. Hopefully one or both of us will learn something and neither of us has to abandon our positions if we don't want to :)

Hehe, I am happy to do that; your forget my favourite philospher is Nietzsche so I am well acquianted with the other side of the philosophical argument. I will get around to doing that tommorrow or on saturday :)

The athiest world view of course has a different explanation for this; irrationality. There is nothing irrational about our spiritual nature. However attributing the source of it to an invisible man in the sky is highly irrational.

There is nothing irrational about our spiritual nature. However attributing the source of it to an invisible man in the sky is highly irrational.

Hehe, what would be your explanation of this spiritual side then? Man being frightened of his own finiteness or an explanation for a primitive mind of the reason for exsistance?

Physiological response. Evolutionary mutation of the brain that provided a benefit to early hominids and, as such, was genetically beneficial and therefore passed down.

Atheists talk about the evil of religion and religious acts, whether it be god ordained killing or the Crusades or Islamists answering the call to Jihad. Given such a negative portrayal one would expect that the church would not like all their holy texts being exposed as a lie, which is what some are trying to achieve. And yet to the best of my knowledge nothing had been done in response to it despite the efforts to convince followers to no longer be duped by religious leaders. If religion is half as bad as some claim why haven't religious leaders taken action?

Given such a negative portrayal one would expect that the church would not like all their holy texts being exposed as a lie, which is what some are trying to achieve. I would contend that there are lots of reasons that religious people (and religious leaders specifically) don't like having their beliefs held up to scrutiny. For the evangelists that purposely deceive others for personal gain, there's the fear of exposure and accountability. For others it might be a fear of loss of status. If I had to take an educated guess, I would say that the biggest factor is the fear of being wrong, or more specifically, the fear of being seen as stupid.

It seems to me the people question their faith from time-to-time. To suddenly admit that religion just doesn't add up might be more of a blow to the ego than some people can take (especially if they have status within their community or have been dogmatic in the past).

And yet to the best of my knowledge nothing had been done in response to it despite the efforts to convince followers to no longer be duped by religious leaders. I'm not sure I follow. Could you please clarify your point?

If religion is half as bad as some claim why haven't religious leaders taken action? Well I'm sure the reasons vary. If we were to talk specifically about those that manipulate others for personal gain; why would they want to take steps to add transparency if the lack of transparency is what they are counting on? That would seem kinda self-defeating to me.

To suddenly admit that religion just doesn't add up might be more of a blow to the ego than some people can take (especially if they have status within their community or have been dogmatic in the past).

Ah. This is a very valid point to make. In terms of atheists, antitheists, however you like to label them, who do their level best to do just that, to make theists see that religion doesn't add up, it might be well worthwhile for them to keep in mind that such exposure could be moreof a blow to theists than they can take.

Just on that I question religion all the time, when something doesn't make sense. Classic example, who does god order killing? I think the answer is to uphold the law of the time, something of people asking his stance on what action to take if the law says this and he says not to kill (murder). Or in the case of the Crusades it was to prevent Islam from taking over Europe, the atrocities that were committed thousands of years ago are still thought to be relevent to militent Muslims today and the society we live in would have taken a drastic change, for the worse it's felt, had action not been taken.

I'm not sure I follow. Could you please clarify your point?

The church hadn't tried to silence those who are exposing the truth on religion, from an atheist standpoint, being a pack of lies, not to put too fine a point on it.

Ah. This is a very valid point to make. In terms of atheists, antitheists, however you like to label them, who do their level best to do just that, to make theists see that religion doesn't add up, it might be well worthwhile for them to keep in mind that such exposure could be moreof a blow to theists than they can take. Worthwhile how?

Just on that I question religion all the time, when something doesn't make sense. Classic example, who does god order killing? I think the answer is to uphold the law of the time, something of people asking his stance on what action to take if the law says this and he says not to kill (murder). You lost me again.

Or in the case of the Crusades it was to prevent Islam from taking over Europe, the atrocities that were committed thousands of years ago are still thought to be relevent to militent Muslims today and the society we live in would have taken a drastic change, for the worse it's felt, had action not been taken. Interesting that you think militant muslims are upset about the Crusades and not the perceived meddling that western powers have participated in over the past 150 years. ;)

The church hadn't tried to silence those who are exposing the truth on religion, from an atheist standpoint, being a pack of lies, not to put too fine a point on it. Expose how? To whom? Like when Falwell and his ilk demonize atheists perhaps?

You know, God is bigger than any of us, Nancy, including atheists, theists, and everyone in between.

And yes, I would agree most of us question faith from time to time.

Worthwhile how?

If people, atheists, antitheists, whoever are trying to expose religion as a lie and they know how much their efforts might harm some people then they might want to stop for a moment and ponder if they should go ahead. To attack religion, knowing how much harm attacking religion can cause, is probably a low class act carried out by those whose desire is to ruin lives.

You lost me again.

I'll try and explain this as simply as I can. People in Biblical times would be following the word of god, including the command not to kill that god spelt out to Moses and he delivered to his people. Now the laws at the time were very diffierent to the laws we have today, with death being dealt out to those who broke laws aside from the ones of murder or pedophilia. Rape for example. Now someone is guilty of a crime that by law states that the perpetrator be put to death. But the word of god is not to kill (murder). My take on this part of the bible is that god said that such a person is to be put to death, we are assuming it is a physical death as opposed to a spiritual death (going to hell), because people are also to uphold the law and by killing this person it is not murder (hence changing kill to murder) as it is judecial. So why isn't this carried out today? In a few select places it still is, and we are to follow the law of the land. Because we do not kill people for rape anymore means that by rights we are not to. Perhaps we should but that's neither here nor there. A similar example was in paying taxes to Ceaser, even though it was unpopular and unethical it was the law, and Jesus stated that the law is to be upheld.

Interesting that you think militant muslims are upset about the Crusades and not the perceived meddling that western powers have participated in over the past 150 years. ;)

To be fair however religion is not the sole accountability for it. On both sides of the conflict blame can be placed on occupation and efforts to stop criminal (drugs, bodgey products) and terrorist operations, as well as percieved infidelity not always stemming from religion, for example the fact women are not forced to wear abayas, are allowed to drive, go about unescorted, ect.

Expose how? To whom? Like when Falwell and his ilk demonize atheists perhaps?

How can I put this in a civil way? When Jerry Falwell died I said that I would have celebrated, based on a number of his controversial thoughts. I feel that he did religion a lot of disservice. What he did, not just to atheists but to a great many people, is very much what people criticize atheists of doing.

You know, God is bigger than any of us, Nancy, including atheists, theists, and everyone in between.

Quite right. Given the enormity of god in any form people choose to look at him as, and given how it is stated that we cannot comprehend god, it would be only natural to not understand and seek answers.

Well, I think there needs to be some Separation between Theism, Religion, Religious Tradition, holybooks and priests.

My point being, these things are NOT one and the same. Being a Theist does not mean he have to be religious(he can choose to not get into religious activities and still considered Theist) and does not mean he has to follow some unwritten tradition of a sect. Hack he might choose to only believe in none/parts of a holy book collection, since we all know that these "canon collection" of books are defined by a bunch of priests and may vary from sect to sect. Priests are just professional(usually) humans trained with the skill set to deal with activities regarding a Religion.

I agree with everything there except the first sentence. I'm not sure what we hope to accomplish by having "Separation".

Also, just a reminder that many of the points made in the 2nd part of your post are obvious and true from a rational perspective but are utterly false from a religious perspective.

I bit off the current stream, but as some of you likely know there was not long called Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off. (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1) The members of the Rational Response Squad (atheism side) squared off with Christians Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (theism side) about the existence of God. The debate was moderated by Martin Bashir.

Just for those interested...

Meh...rational response squad. I liked it better when when Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins were our evil leaders.

Thanks for the clip, Prime. Unfortunately I could only stomach about 90 seconds of Ray Comfort's "argument" before I had to turn it off.