btlzu2's Journal: i figured out this whole religion thing with me

i was IM-ing with RevMike yesterday and we talked about our educations. I went to a Lutheran grade school and high school. I never heard the word evolution once. RevMike learned all about, prior to high school even IIRC. I had biology for 3 years in high school and evolution was never mentioned. i find that reprehensible.

people who haven't had this happen to them most likely can't understand what it's like coming out from under that indoctrination that you always doubted in the back of your mind. it's very 1984-esque, except, I no longer agree that 2+2=5--so it's a happy ending. I'm glad I didn't believe that The Beatles worshiped the devil as had been taught to me for the first 15 years of my life.

if you hadn't been indoctrinated, were allowed to think freely, and hadn't experienced the almost "middle ages" demonization of atheists and other religions, you can't quite know why it's so important to promote intellectual honesty and not accept laziness in thinking of important matters. i suppose everyone has a cause that is important to them in fundamental ways. for me, the TRUTH is the most important.

i have no use for religion and i never really did because it seemed as far-fetched as santa claus--however, people don't kill in the name of santa or believe we should "nuke the hell outta them santa-less arab bastards". there is no point in speculating about a god because there is no evidence in its existence whatsoever. you can always ask the question, "what about before the big bang?" i say, "i don't know". it's intellectually honest to do so. saying it was "god" is a very weak hypothesis at best. you could just as easily say it was my left ear that had superpowers, but rescinded them once it spawned the big bang.

intellectual honesty is very important to me. i've got a long way to go to stick to it myself, but i'm trying as best i can. i will continuously question and think as critically as possible.

so, that's why i get pretty passionate about this topic. when you all moan when you see old btlzu2 bitching about religion again, maybe you can understand it better. :) i see it as the challenge of this century to break the bonds of religion and to allow people to learn the true wonders of the world and the universe. i'll discuss it with whoever wants to listen.

yeah

[stoolpigeon]

our upbringing has a huge impact on who we become. i think genetics impact a lot of things but i think environment is quite a big deal too.

i'm not much of an apologist, but i do think that there is some evidence that God exists. the thing is that you would not agree on it being evidence. i don't think that it necessarily means that one can't be rational and accept it as evidence. i think the existence of the universe is evidence. you don't. but i'm not sure on what basis either of us can disca

Re:

[btlzu2]

...how anyone can get really adamant about what someone else believes.

consider one thing. what if you were in a world where most people insisted that santa claus is the reason they have anything because he gives them all they need on christmas eve? what would you do? join the throngs or try to get them to see reality? just a thought-experiment there.

i would never consider being adamant about someone's taste in music or how they choose to live as long as they weren't hurting anyone. i am adamant about n

Re:

[nizo]

...consider one thing. what if you were in a world where most people insisted that santa claus is the reason they have anything because he gives them all they need on christmas eve? what would you do? join the throngs or try to get them to see reality? just a thought-experiment there.

I think it is everyone's santa-given right to believe in him, or a different santa who dresses all in green and steals little children, or even hold the belief that there is no santa. Hell I can't even make up my own mind abou

Re:

[btlzu2]

on what grounds do you base that belief though? "personal experience"? if so, i had a personal experience when i was 15 that heather locklear jumped my bones, but that doesn't make it true. :)

Re:

[Mantorp]

...but that doesn't make it true. :)

Well, don't be so sure, now that you wrote it down. In the future, btlzu2 followers everywhere will point to this passage as proof.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Ah well that's another leader I won't be following. While I have no doubt [imdb.com] btlzu2's personal experience was very hot, if he'd said it was with Heather [imdb.com] Graham [imdb.com] I'd convert today.

Re:

[nizo]

Nope, no personal experience, or proof one way or the other. I would be the first to acknowledge that it could all just be a load of superstitious crapola; a holdover from people trying to explain things they didn't understand.

However, I like to think there is more to existance than what we can see with our eyes, or hear with our ears; something beyond the simple senses of this physical existance. It could very well be wishful thinking, but I am not naive enough to think that we have anything beyond a basic

Re:

[btlzu2]

well what you're describing sounds like curiosity and wonder to me. i have that myself and you described it really well! :) it doesn't make me believe there's a god behind it though. i'm fascinated by the quantum world and by what's out there in the universe. i think we're now discovering things that just over 100 years ago people didn't even dream of yet.

Re:

[Shadow Wrought]

there is some driving force that created the Universe; wether that force is sentient and actively involved in things or not is certainly debatable, but whatever it is, it could certainly be called Santa, or God, or whatever label you want to stick on it.

Its called d20, and be very Thankful that it didn't come up as a 17. ;-)

Re:

[nizo]

We at the church of the d20 ask that everyone have a good holiday. All hail the mighty d20!

Where do the d4, d6, d10, and d12 fit in here? And I have heard stories of a d100..........

Re:

[Shadow Wrought]

Dare not speak of d100 in the open! It will bring the coming of the d4. An evil thing, quartered into the personification of Death, War, Famine, and Pestilince. Not even the glorious d20's Archangel of Divine Divisibility, d12, can ever fully beat it. The neutral d6 of Elements, Air, Fire, Water, Earth, Life, and Death, can not aid it, nor can the d8 of Direction, North, Northwest, West, Southwest, South, Southeast, East, and Northeast. Only the d10 of Hotness (no explanation needed;-) can hope to help

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

like i said, i'm not much good at this stuff, so apologies if i say anything stupid, but my point is i guess, that there is the possibility of being religious and being completely rational. i don't think one must check their mind at the door to believe in God.

i fully advocate people trying to share their view and even to speak in a persuasive manner. that is a part of what i do for a living (i'm not the actual spokesperson but support others). i enjoy dialogue and think it should be encouraged.

Re:

[btlzu2]

i think you're close to what i would agree with, but you may not like my modification. :)

i'd re-word your view as: "...there is the possibility of being religious, but rational in all other facets of life." i think ethelred will kill me if he reads this, but i am of the firm position that somewhere along the line of reasoning, if you used reason to establish your faith, you made a mistake if you think your belief in god is purely based on rationality. in my years of studying, there seems to be consensus t

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

ethelred says a lot of things i totally agree with and a lot better than i can say them.

there isn't an infinite regress problem with God - because by definition he has no creator. He's the unmoved mover. This doesn't work out too well in the human brain because everything we know has a beginning.

i think my belief is completely rational - so yeah, i guess i disagree on that point. i don't know what else it could be. if there is a dysfunction, it is one that causes me to be unaware of its

Re:

[Mantorp]

But if you had been brought up moslem or hindu or buddhist or whatever you'd believe in whatever you happened to be brought up with. The religion doesn't pick you, it's mostly based on where you are born. Sure, a few people convert or just stop believing but I think the huge regional differences point to that people invented gods not the other way around.

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

it's an interesting aspect to think about. i think it holds true from one perspective. but i think there is another perspective that is completely impossible to measure. whatever you've been raised with, at some point you have to make it your own, or not. a lot of people who identify with a certain religion may not really believe it at all, it is just a label that is a part of their culture. but some people move beyond that.

on a side note, working at the headquarters of a world missions organiza

Re:

[Mantorp]

I think the numbers increasing and where they're coming from is mostly a function of what group spends the most money and I know I'm not supporting any atheist missionaries (maybe my WIRED subscription qualifies as a charitable contribution?).

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

i never thought about it from that perspective. i guess i see it more as a correlation but not necessarily causation. you have to spend money to get the message out. the more you spend (if you are spending it well) the larger the group who hears your message. most of the work my organization does, doesn't really provide a motive to go along with our program that is tied to a benefit that would be seen as financial. we are getting into more aid type work, and i guess there might be some who would think

Re:

[Tet]

i do think that there is some evidence that God exists. the thing is that you would not agree on it being evidence. i don't think that it necessarily means that one can't be rational and accept it as evidence.

Actually, it does. The problem is that science has quite a strict definition of the word "evidence". If evidence A is to support hypothesis B, then plausible alternative explanations for A must be disproven. In this case, the existence of god would be one explanation for the existence of the univers

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

then plausible alternative explanations for A must be disproven.
but that's what i mean. there is a lot of stuff about the origin of the universe where we have no idea -- which btlzu says is fine with him. it's fine with me too. but no one has disproven anything there.

now to move beyond deism and into something narrower, i believe, the life of Christ provides more evidence. and we have the same issue again. i think the historical record supports certain facts. other people don't. i have not s

Whoa whoa whoa...

[ellem]

You're suggesting we DON'T kill everyone who doesn't believe in SANTA?

ALL WHO ARE SANTALESS MUST DIE!!!!

SANTA AKBAR!

Paths through life

[johndiii]

I had kind of always figured that that was the genesis of your view of religion. Perhaps I should have said something? ;-) Seriously, though, we all walk different paths through life. A compassionate person, raised in the environment that you were raised in, could not help but reject the indoctrination and everything that it represented. I see you as a good person. The fact that you don't believe in God seems less important. And I'm not about to hector you about it - because that would be somewhat cou

Re:

[nizo]

I'm not about to hector you about it...

Mind if I heckle you for typing hector instead of heckle? :-)

Seriously, though, we all walk different paths through life.

This is indeed the key thing I wish everyone realized.

Re:

[johndiii]

Well, I suppose that you could heckle me for using an obscure verb [yourdictionary.com], but I didn't mistype it. :-)

Re:

[nizo]

Hehe well hell I stand corrected. Hector, famed nemesis of Ajax, was the only meaning I was aware of :-) Who says Slashdot isn't educational!

Intellectual honesty

[Ethelred Unraed]

Well, for starters, I'd argue that the only truly intellectually honest answer to the religion vs. no religion debate is...none of the above. To each their own. YMMV, you have been warned, and hey, let's be careful out there.

To insist that all religion is inherently wrong and evil is just as dogmatic (and likely wrong) a statement as insisting that only My God(TM) is the right one and all else is false. Reductionism, as Dawkins (and apparently you) practice it, sounds good in theory, but tends to be a bit

Re:

[Mantorp]

but if you truly believe in your God, don't you automatically assume that all that don't are wrong? Otherwise is your God lying to you? Or are you doubting that you're right? How do you reconcile your faith that you're right without trampling on others' faith?

I grew up in the atheist Mecca of Sweden so religion was never big among my friends and certainly not in school coming to the US certainly changed my views on this.

Re:

[btlzu2]

*drool* sweeeeeden. sensible people. snow. pancakes. lingonberries. i like it! :)

Re:

[RevMike]

but if you truly believe in your God, don't you automatically assume that all that don't are wrong? Otherwise is your God lying to you? Or are you doubting that you're right? How do you reconcile your faith that you're right without trampling on others' faith?

Well, first of all, Episcopalian is wrong. Pretty close, but wrong. Not sure if God is going to give partial credit.

The fact that we may believe that others are "wrong" does not mean that we feel empowered to discriminate against them.

There is

Re:

[Mantorp]

Since we're talking about this sort of stuff, how do you decide what to believe in the bible. There's a lot of nonsense in there for sure concerning treatment of women, killing people left and right for various sins. How do you choose what's clearly insane and what's this is what I live by? Dawkins (who I don't think I'd ever heard of before btlzu2 pointed him out) dislikes moderate christians more than the fundies on this because at least the fundies are consistent.

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

i'm not sure exactly what makes somebody a 'fundie' because i used to think i was one- but then i see it identified with some things that i don't buy into -- but i'll give you a little taste of my take on this. i'm going to throw out some labels - but it's the only way to keep this short.

i think the Bible is inspired and inherent in the autographs. i think what we have is so close to the autographs that we're good. i also think that how God deals with humanity is broken up into different economie

Re:

[Mantorp]

Couple of things, centuries ago before we understood much about the world miracles were a way of explaining things that weren't understood. Nowadays, we know pretty much how this place is put together, and other places too that aren't ever mentioned in the bible. Don't you find that there's less of a need for a god to fill in the blanks?

Also, people in the US laugh at scientology because it was just made up by an average sci fi writer not very long ago and some of the claims he makes are just as strange as

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

Don't you find that there's less of a need for a god to fill in the blanks?

Whether or not there is a perceived need is irrelevant. The only question that matters is, "is God there or not?". God exists or doesn't and all my desires don't change that.

The Bible was not written by people just like Hubbard, unless you just mean that they were human beings like he was a human being. As far as character, motive and lifestyle I would think there is a strong case that there are huge differences.

Re:

[Mantorp]

Yeah, my point was that it was written by people.

Another example, people used to literally believe that man was created fully finished in god's image, now most people agree that we evolved from other life forms but christians now hold that god is prodding the process along or at least is responsible for the green slime that first formed in some ocean billions of years ago that has now evolved to us. It must have been a lot easier to believe that we were created by some other entity before we found neandert

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

There's a lot of nonsense in there for sure concerning treatment of women, killing people left and right for various sins.

The Bible's not really like that if you place it in its historical context. Sure, if you read about any events that took place in 4000 years ago, you're going to find them shocking no matter where you read about them, but the Bible tends to be rather more progressive about these things -- if you keep things in context. That includes carefully examining the origins of the texts as well

Re:

[btlzu2]

if an all-powerful god wants to go through so much hoop-jumping in his message to humanity, i'm pretty much on the side of the fence that says he doesn't deserve any attention, much less praise. :)

i'd think a message lacking from the start in misogyny, slavery, racism, judgment full stop would help indicate an intelligent being called a god. i don't care *what* context that's in. if god is such a superior being, why did he EVER condone slavery or murdering your wife for adultery? it doesn't matter WHAT c

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

The simple answer is that you're thinking in your own timescale and your own frame of reference.

Let's say we agree that God could and should create a perfect Universe in an "instant". Well, how long's an instant? Maybe we're in that "instant" right now. As the cliché says, for an eternal God, all human history is the blink of an eye.

Look at it from the point of view of a parent and a small child as well. A child may think that the things a parent does -- no matter how loving or caring that parent i

Re:

[btlzu2]

weren't you the fella who once used Occam's Razor against me in a discussion? :) there's a whole lotta what ifs there that surely could be considered, but once considered, i suppose you find satisfaction with them and i don't. what makes a whole lot more sense to me is that there was a big bang and although highly improbably, but not in the context of the size of the universe, the right chemicals were formed on a planet in this solar system and you know that point on.

no plans are obvious there. just the

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

weren't you the fella who once used Occam's Razor against me in a discussion? :) there's a whole lotta what ifs there that surely could be considered, but once considered, i suppose you find satisfaction with them and i don't.

Well, Occam meant his razor to choose the "simpler" answer as being the one that was more likely to be correct. The funny thing is that anti-religionists like to say religionists believe in God because it's simpler to do so. The implied contradiction needs no further comment, I thi

Re:

[btlzu2]

in regard to the contradiction, i actually think there are two types of things you hear. one from fundies and one from moderates. the fundies can't understand science, so they immediately attribute it to god. then, you hear from moderates who have a brain cell or two and they jump through these amazing sets of hoops to justify the flaws with the bible as it is. so, i think my application of occam's is ok in this case. :)

you're missing a big point with dawkins. if you have no what-ifs, you have no hypot

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

What frustrates me about reductionists like Dawkins is that they insist there can be no what-ifs. That strikes me as being a remarkably stunted, unimaginative and extreme way of thinking

Provided we can agree on a definition of God, then there either is a God, or there isn't. Certainly in our lifetimes we'll presumably never Know for sure, but it is a true or false question with the right definition.

Example 1: Is there or is there not a chinchilla sitting on my monitor as I type this?
Answer: False.

Example

Re:

[pudge]

You give science way too much credit. It is not a "weak hypothesis" to say God created the universe. Indeed, it is by far the most likely answer, from what we know. It is not a scientific answer, but it is based largely on science (e.g. the Big Bang). But who said it must be a scientific answer? Science cannot solve every problem, answer every question. Science cannot even tell you why science is useful: only philosophy can do that. The scientific method itself is based on philosophy, not science. S

Re:

[btlzu2]

i know there is absolutely no point in responding to you.

but...

As to Dawkins, he says that actual rape of a child is not as bad as raising that child to believe in hell.

BULLSHIT. Stop spreading lies.

Re:

[pudge]

As to Dawkins, he says that actual rape of a child is not as bad as raising that child to believe in hell.

BULLSHIT. Stop spreading lies.

No lies. Read for yourself. [richarddawkins.net] Says he:

Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.

He even found the time to write this nonsensical statement:

just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are

A pedophile assault is by definition violent. But hey, if that's what it takes to make religion look bad -- diminish the inherent viole

Re:

[btlzu2]

ok, my apologies. he was making a case for that. i don't agree with him on diminishing the action of any pedophile whatsoever.

he went too far to make a point how religion can ruin lives. that premise, that indoctrination and brainwashing to believe in fairy tales, however, i do agree with since it happened to me. i suffer the consequences of that to this day.

i can't come close to equivocating what i've experienced to what the victim of a pedophile experienced.

Re:

[pudge]

Thanks.

And I hear ya. I was not so indoctrinated. I was raised a Christian (and remain one), but I was also encouraged to think and examine, and I was not told things (by my parents, anyway) that were blatantly untrue or hateful. But I know many people who were. I guess all I have to say about that is a. it sucks, and b. it does not reflect on all of what religion is, but only on the unfortunate experiences of some. It's like judging the FOSS movement by experiences with Richard Stallman or Eric Raymon

Re:

[jamie]

Thanks for making it clear that you lied, pudge.

Re:

[btlzu2]

how so? he was basically right in this instance. his choice of "rape" was a bit over the top compared to what Dawkins was saying, but still. i'm not so sure the argument that pedophilia is almost excusable compare to religious indoctrination is worth a whole lot.

Re:

[Mantorp]

It is not a "weak hypothesis" to say God created the universe. Indeed, it is by far the most likely answer, from what we know.

People used to believe that God created the earth, then when science was able to figure out how planets are formed, God made the solar system, then more solar systems were found and they are not uncommon, so God made the universe, then when the big bang theory became generally accepted, God made what existed before the big bang. If you follow where I'm going God isn't doing much mor

Re:

[pudge]

Thanks for making it clear that you lied, pudge.

I didn't. But thanks for making it clear that you can't read.

Re:

[pudge]

People used to believe that God created the earth

They still do, of course. And why wouldn't they?

then when science was able to figure out how planets are formed

What's that got to do with thinking God created the earth?

God made the solar system, then more solar systems were found and they are not uncommon, so God made the universe, then when the big bang theory became generally accepted, God made what existed before the big bang. If you follow where I'm going God isn't doing much more than watching.

No, I don't follow where you're going, because it makes no logical sense. You appear to think that science has even come close to showing that God did not make the Earth, or the solar system, or the universe. It hasn't.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Try looking more closely at quantum mechanics. The apparent "randomness" of quantum mechanics opens up enormous room for a very active God to be present, if you consider that what appears to us to be random may not be random at all -- just that we are unable to see the pattern clearly.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[Mantorp]

It was just an example but the point is that people used to believe the earth was created out of nothing just like that, poof, here's an earth. Funny, wasn't here yesterday. Unless you're one of those earth is 6000 years old people you don't really believe that any longer so god has been pushed back a step. Instead of being god creator of this planet out of thin air in no time flat, he is now god creator of planet forming processing over billions of human years. Don't you find that the more we learn of how

Re:

[btlzu2]

Ethelred, isn't that exactly what we've done in the past when we didn't fully understand something? OOOOoooh, *there's* god's work! we don't understand, so there must be some god i n that!

been there, done that. better answer: "let's figure this out--maybe *then* ethelred will agree the unified theory of physics is a religion killer." :)

Re:

[pudge]

Unless you're one of those earth is 6000 years old people you don't really believe that any longer so god has been pushed back a step.

False. People who used to be Young Earth creationists, who now believe in the Big Bang, have not "pushed God back a step." They've merely modified their understanding of how God operates. It's not about "pushing back" anything, because there's still plenty of room even in our fullest scientific understanding to believe that God was directly involved with the creation of th

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Ethelred, isn't that exactly what we've done in the past when we didn't fully understand something? OOOOoooh, *there's* god's work! we don't understand, so there must be some god i n that!

I didn't say we don't understand quantum mechanics. I pointed out that something intrinsic to quantum mechanics -- perceived randomness -- opens up all sorts of possibilities for the existence not only of God, but of a highly active God. The point being that even if there was a grand unified theory of physics, so long a

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Ethelread's quantum mechanics statement sort of helps my argument here, it's a new and not fully understood phenomenon so he points to god fiddling around on that level, perhaps in another generation we'll figure out exactly how it works on that level too and then you will say god is working on a level more detailed than quantum theory.

You misunderstood my statement -- or misunderstood quantum theory. Randomness in quantum theory is perfectly well understood. It is intrinsic to quantum theory itself. Th

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

The problem is that Dawkins is not only increasingly uninterested in looking at any 'evidence', he has gone over into questioning the very sanity and motives of those he disagrees with by claiming they aid and abet crimes. He has thus let his own emotional response to the threats to him get the better of him, while pretending to be cooly rational about it.

It's fine to be skeptical. I invite you to be so. It's not fine to deduce that those who are less skeptical are stupid, uninformed, superstitious, or wo

Re:

[btlzu2]

i am skeptical of dawkins myself and have even stated a point on which i disagree with him in this JE. although, through my skepticism i agree with a large majority of what he says. he says the things he does because of the experiences i laid out for you before about more and more people disregarding fact for fiction. sure, you're a great counterexample, but there are so many others that completely reject fact that it's scary.

out of curiosity, have you ever read a book of his like the blind watchmaker or

Re:

[nizo]

Of course, one though that springs to mind is the fact that people wrote the bible, and then other people translated it, and so on. Of course, all of these people had their own agendas.....for all we know, it was a great, coherent text that was ultimately ruined by people :-) And of course people get around this by saying, "well, the translators hands were moved by God, so everything was translated as it should be". Ok.....

If only God had carved his words directly into a mountain somewhere, preferably in m

Re:

[RevMike]

Dawkins (who I don't think I'd ever heard of before btlzu2 pointed him out) dislikes moderate christians more than the fundies on this because at least the fundies are consistent.

HAHAHAHA

Dawkins is just being a jackass. The fundies aren't being consistent in the slightest. They are more than happy to talk about stoning faggots because of leviticus, but they eat pork.

Since we're talking about this sort of stuff, how do you decide what to believe in the bible. .... How do you choose what's clearly i

Re:

[btlzu2]

no, there's more to dawkins' argument than you would think. i'm still considering that view, which has become much more prevalent since 9/11. the view is that otherwise sensible moderates unwittingly validate loonies by saying, "everyone has a right to believe what they want when it comes to religion." moderates put a rational face on religion--they're "enablers"--a very real psychological effect. that's the idea anyway and it is not without merit IMO.

i'm not going around angry at moderates--if i were,

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Ah, but there Dawkins is indeed being a jackass. :-)

Y'see, I also condemn fundamentalists, and go to great lengths to reproach them just as I do Dawkins for his (quite frankly) lazy thinking and ideological hatred of religion. People like me, who argue for true tolerance (which is "everyone leaves each other alone, no exceptions"), are his best defense from being lynched or burned at the stake or what have you.

That's why I go out of my way, for example, to stand up for moderate Muslims (to use a recent

Re:

[btlzu2]

Ah, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! :) I think it's a very rational viewpoint that he's promoting that really isn't all that new. He came by it honestly.

a) write a book about evolution that drastically enhances everyone's viewpoints on DNA, evolution, and genetics. (The Selfish Gene)
b) receive death threats from religious types for writing about that "evil" evolution.
c) consider why this keeps happening? people are capable of growth and understanding, why can't they understand th

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Logic is a tool. But logic is also an exceedingly tricky mistress, particularly when human beings are involved. Extremists tend to run with the logic and argument, and lose sight of what it was they were trying to do in the first place.

Osama bin Laden and Co. also had a chain of seemingly straightforward arguments that led to 3,000 people dying (or many more, if you count the deaths of those in Afghanistan and Iraq that came in retaliation). For that matter, the Nazis had arguments whereby they justified

Re:

[btlzu2]

ahh good points. perhaps a little extremism on the "godless" side is what's needed to yank this country out of its insanity towards the opposite side.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Given Osama's assumptions, it's possible his terrorism IS logical within its framework. Are his assumptions logical? Probably not. Kant or Nietzsche have similar flaws in their foundations.

I agree with Dawkins' assumptions because of the evidence and logic tying them together. His logic grows from that foundation.

As far as enabling extremists, perhaps it's comparable to the Muslim community in the USA. Moderate Muslim groups have been critisized for not speaking out more against Islamic extremists. Ju

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Nope. The antidote to extremism is not more extremism. It is to expose the flaws of the extremists and to call everyone to common sense.

Keep in mind that extremists do not operate on a simple spectrum. It's more like a blob with people pulling in all sorts of directions. If you pull with your extremism, you're only going to budge the overall mass a tiny bit, if at all -- and damage the whole thing in the process far in excess of any change you may effect.

Sorry, my dear Smooch, but you're tilting at wind

Re:

[Mantorp]

Ethelred, just admit that part of the reason you believe in God is just to piss btlzu2 off.

Re:

[btlzu2]

Sorry, my dear Smooch, but you're tilting at windmills. :-)

Discouragement rejected. :)

i'm not so sure. i've discussed religion in real life with a lot of people now, many of which had found immense satisfaction that someone was saying what they always thought, but were afraid to discuss. there are stories ALL OVER THE PLACE about religious dissatisfaction and a rising tide [the-brights.net] of those [geocities.com] who are [godisimaginary.com] fed up [exchristian.net] with it.

in my new job alone, i've met a great deal of people in various parts of the country that have said t

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Ssshhhhhhhhh!

*giggle*

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[btlzu2]

you're my favorite person to speak with about this! i just worry that i'm pissing you off somewhere. you got pretty mad at me a while back and i didn't want that at all. you're views are much more interesting than a fundie. fundies are too easy--even though they never capitulate.

i don't get mad when i know i'm right anyway. :P

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

but if you truly believe in your God, don't you automatically assume that all that don't are wrong?

Not really. For one thing, "right" and "wrong", even in religion, aren't necessarily black and white things (unless you're a fundamentalist, which I certainly am not); and for another, because of the way I separate "proof" from "belief", I have to admit that there is a possibility I'm wrong, either partially or entirely. I still try to reason out what to believe, and why, as best as I can with the informat

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

So maybe the Hindus are getting water laced with hallucinogens, or maybe they got the good water, and the JudeoChristIslamo-world didn't.

Seriously, if just drinking the water is so important, but there's so much variation between the big three monotheistic religions and their denominations, probably just a belief in God and doing good works is what really counts. After all, followers of all the big three claim they've felt divine connections or guidance straight from the the Almighty. Even though there's

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Seriously, if just drinking the water is so important, but there's so much variation between the big three monotheistic religions and their denominations, probably just a belief in God and doing good works is what really counts.

And believe it or not, you're getting very close to what I think.

Even though there's some pretty huge differences between them.

And then you drop the ball. ;-)

There is a particular tenet of catholic (note the small "c") Christianity: Conciliarity, or the idea that only the

Re:

[btlzu2]

as i ponder the ultimate message of your post, re: compartmentalizing proof from belief...

why does religion deserve your ability to do that when, i would say, most other areas of endeavor do not? do you compartmentalize proof from belief in all areas of your life? when bush said there are WMDs in Iraq, were you skeptical or did you also separate proof from belief there? if not, why not?

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

why does religion deserve your ability to do that when, i would say, most other areas of endeavor do not?

I'm not sure I follow your question. Nothing inherently "deserves" my ability, save that which I find useful and worthwhile. Like I said, YMMV.

do you compartmentalize proof from belief in all areas of your life?

As much as I can, certainly. I think most rational people do it to one extent or another. See johndiii's response for an example.

when bush said there are WMDs in Iraq, were you skept

Re:

[btlzu2]

whew. i totally didn't make my point clearly. the questions where rhetorical in nature. sorry and i take the blame for that! i was trying to ask some leading questions to see if you'd agree that what you said about compartmentalizing belief and proof and what a lot of people say about religion is, basically, "yeah there's no proof, but religion is special, so i'll give it the benefit of the doubt."

my main question is "why does religion get all the slack when it comes to proof and believing in outlandish

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

my main question is "why does religion get all the slack when it comes to proof and believing in outlandish things?"

Ahhh, OK. Now I follow you.

Well, let me turn the tables on you a little. Why is it so easy to believe what scientists say? Certainly scientists can be in error; in fact they have been in error many times in the past, and may well be in serious error now (just that no one has noticed yet).

Science is not an absolute. It is a path, presumably leading to truth, and it has a generally good

Re:

[btlzu2]

"Why is it so easy to believe what scientists say?"
Peer review. Scientific method. Intellectual rigor. Pursuit of truth and understanding. Those are empty ideals in theology IMO. I might be in error about God, but there better fucking well be better evidence than there is now for one. Scientific endeavors don't claim perfection, but when people can make predictions based on theories like evolution and those theories hit the mark DIRECTLY (say, like Lucy) it's pretty easily believable. You can review f

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Peer review. Scientific method. Intellectual rigor. Pursuit of truth and understanding. Those are empty ideals in theology IMO.

Then you should get to know more theologists. ;-)

"Scientific endeavors don't claim perfection", that much is true, but some scientists, such as Dawkins, are trying to do just that. They seek a form of purity that is ultimately unattainable with us imperfect human beings. Utopia is a deadly goal.

Science has done a far sight more for our growth than has religion. I don't thin

Re:

[btlzu2]

this part of the conversation is more interesting. :)

well, einstein certainly wasn't religious in the traditional sense whatsoever. newton was, but that was a sign of the times if anything and we hadn't made enough progress to explain a lot of what prompted people to create religion in the first place--to "explain" the world. most scientists didn't have enough logical basis to be an atheist until darwin hammered the wooden stake into the heart of religion. from that point on, there was very little left t

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

well, einstein certainly wasn't religious in the traditional sense whatsoever.

In a sense, neither am I. But both Newton and Einstein were quite happy with the idea of God, which is really the point, since you've staked out a position where not even basic deism is permissible.

By the way, Jefferson was also devout and was convinced there is a God. However he, like Einstein, had little patience with organized religion. He once called the Bible a dungheap, that is true -- but his answer was not to throw i

Re:

[btlzu2]

Darwin did no such thing. It certainly changed the views of a lot of religious people to accommodate his theories, but to claim that evolution theory is the death knell of religion is simply untrue. I accept evolution, yet am religious, and see no inherent conflict between the two.

The exception proves the rule eh? :) (i actually dislike that statement, but it still seemed apropos) I think I'll never understand how you can say the things you do. A rabid fundamentalist is easier to understand! Maybe if I g

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

I'm really intrigued in how you describe your faith while accepting all the things that pretty much defeats reasons for faith.

Probably because my faith doesn't do either of those things. ;-)

Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of its history (such as with Galileo), now fully accepts evolution and modern science, and actually goes to some length to accommodate science as well. For example, claims of miracles are now tested by scientists to see if they can provide alternate plausible exp

Re:

[btlzu2]

ok, i think the core issue is that i cannot interpret the bible the way you do. i know you claim it's a rational process and you can excuse/intepret what i consider to be horrific tales and inconsistencies.

all of humanity's claims based on their beliefs throughout time based on their interpretations of the bible have been shot down. but...if you REALLY REALLY think about it, there *is* actual meaning in the bible and enough to cause people to believe in it with no evidence whatsoever.

even when the bible w

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

ok, i think the core issue is that i cannot interpret the bible the way you do.

I honestly don't know why. Historical-critical interpretation of the Bible is hardly that unusual.

all of humanity's claims based on their beliefs throughout time based on their interpretations of the bible have been shot down.

My goodness, but that's quite the blanket statement.

even when the bible was supposed to mean what it said about slavery, ruling over your wife, genocide, homophobia, etc. scientific discovery w

Re:

[btlzu2]

sorry if you interpret that as a chip on my shoulder which you often point out. i just have to be honest. i don't feel like my honesty is coming from an unhealthy place. as someone who's been working in therapy for over 5 years, i really believe i'm pretty aware of my emotional issues, so when it becomes "about me" i really think about it honestly and give you my honest view. i'd be the first to admit if i'm wrong or i felt like i was being dishonest about my views. furthermore, while feeling a bit of

hm

[SolemnDragon]

smooch, you know i believe in god, but you also know that the god i believe in bears about as much resemblance to the one you were brought up with as the circus does to a postbox. I'm just not there with the whole 'everything is part of god's conspiracy' meaning-to-the-universe bit.

Rather, i'm more of the everything-that-is camp, insisting that there is no part of this that is not divine, and that there is no divine father figure waiting for you to click your heels three times, say the name jesus, and be sa

Re:

[btlzu2]

i'm definitely taoistic. i don't practice it well yet, but it makes sense. i find that its metaphors and stories are much more consistent with reality.

i don't consider the tao a religion, but a philosophy. i know there is talk of "the way" and energy and all that, but i find there to be concrete analogs to those things which provide real value. then, i contrast that to the confusion of the bible which i can't even point to as a collection of good metaphorical lessons--because they're not--unless you do

What kind of Lutheran?

[Some Woman]

Some Guy is an atheist because he was raised Missouri-synod Lutheran. He thinks that he might have believed in God had he been raised Catholic.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Don't bet on it. Most atheists I know are lapsed Catholics.

Though I also have heard of a lot of former LCMS members who have also rejected God, much more than more moderate Lutherans anyway (such as ELCA).

If he's open to exploring that side of life, he might try looking into Tao or Buddhism. Both open up a way to a spiritual life without asking a lot of questions about specific forms of theism -- sort of a blurry area between religion and philosophy.

I would also suggest our flavor of Anglicanism or Ol

Re:

[RevMike]

I would also suggest our flavor of Anglicanism or Old Catholicism...

Just go with good old-fashioned Jesuit style Catholicism. If you are going to see a baseball game, wouldn't you go see the Yankees play at Yankee stadium, rather than some crappy minor league team?

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Dude. Don't start proving Beelzebub2's point for 'im, OK? :-P

(Word out to Smooch. The new version of yer nick was just too easy a cheap shot, so I had to take it.. :-) )

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[btlzu2]

yep--missouri synod. nutjobs. they pose as moderates, but they're really secretly fundies in my experience.

Re:

[Some Woman]

His mom searched all over for a Missouri-synod preschool for him, because the regular Lutheran church preschool wasn't acceptable. Luckily, they were cheap enough to send him to public school when it came time for that. :^)

Re:

[btlzu2]

weird...that's where the church was--south suburbs. it did have a steep roof.

Re:

[btlzu2]

holy crap! :) that was the second one i went to in 8th grade. heh. sauk trail...

Re:

[btlzu2]

Zion sounds familiar (isn't Zion used everywhere in lutheran church and the matrix?). I went to Immanuel Lutheran. We might have played you in soccer. :)

Re:

[btlzu2]

i don't know where this comes from, but i thought it was funny when this quote was on slashdot under your comment: "When some people discover the truth, they just can't understand why everybody isn't eager to hear it."

i'm not preaching--at least that's how i think of it. i'm trying to get people to discuss this because there is so much ignorance about it and i was deep in the heart of that ignorance. if i had met someone like me who was eager to talk about it and share what i was through, i would've hopef