Replies

Fair enough.I will add that I find the concept of 'nothing' exploding being the origin of our universe unreasonable.
I don't think that scientists claim it was 'nothing' that exploded to create our universe. What they can say at least is that they don't really know how the universe looked like before the Planck Time (10^-43 s). One reason why high energy paricle colliders are build is to simulate the conditions in the early universe. We may never be able to simulate the conditions before the Planck Time but to say Goddidit is not an explanation at all and it is as good as saying that you don't know. The latter is just more honest (because you don't know whether God did it, you only assume it to be the case). If one accepts Goddidit as an answer further investigation on that particular issue don't make any sense. In the past there are many examples for this and only people who did not accept that answer were able to find out what really caused such phenomena (e.g. lightnings, earthquakes, floods, draughts, plagues, etc. were originally attributed to God).
"In science that's of course an other issue and it's done all the time because that's the way science works but concerning religions that's always a futile venture."
What I meant with that is that in science new theories are peer reviewed by other scientists, they try to find it's weak spots, if it's possible the theory or parts of it are revised but if the whole theory is FUBAR then it is discarded. In religion that never happens because religions are dogmatic. They claim to have The Truth (and that's not only the case for the Christian religion) and therefore you don't question them because dogma isn't subject to questioning by definition. In science theories are not dogmas, they are only "true" beyond reasonable doubt and they can always be revised or replaced by better ones.
"Well, man is selfish and therefore he is tempted to breake the rules mentioned above for his own advantage"..."and if you break one of those rules (you're a human after all)"
Where's your problem with that, after all man IS selfish. You cannot deny that. But he can also be altruistic, however he is never either the one or the other. For a society to be stable altruism is necessary. If a member of a society is too selfish he is punished or expelled OTH if he's to altruistic he is exploited by others. So you see it always boils down to the point to be as atruistic as necessary and as selfish as possible. If these traits are not balanced you have only disadvantages: either you're being exploited or you're no longer part of that society. (That's the way Capitalism works and also the reason Communism is not realizable [I mean the real Communism and not that failed experiment in the Soviet Union, China, etc.]).
"What's important here is that people believe all that. Whether these gods exist or not is secondary"
So folks should believe it regardless of wether it's true or not?
No, absolutely not, but it seems you have missed my point. What I wanted to say is that such a believe can be useful to keep the people obeying the rules without having to explain them the logic and reasoning behind those rules (most of them wouldn't understand that anyway). Therefore telling them to follow those rules because _____(fill in the gaps the name of your preferred prophet, deity or other supernatural entity) said so and if they don't obey they are punished by _____(fill in the gaps the name of your preferred deity or other supernatural entity) because he/she/it sees everything is more effective that explaining. (It's the same with little children and Santa Claus but I think I mentioned that before)
So you see that has nothing to do with that being the 'True Belief' (whatever that may be) in order to work as long as people believe it to be true. That's why Voltaire said: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". (He meant the concept of God here because in such a case you can only invent a concept)
I've always advocated that you should follow the rules of your society not because someone told you so and you fear punishment but because you understand and support them. But alas, for some people this is not the case and therefore you need an authority that 'tells' them what's allowed and what's not.
You counter that you find the concept of the supernatural unreasonable. I don't find the concept of the supernatural hard to believe at all.
That's the point why I think we can discuss this topic ad nauseam without being able to convince the other one.
I've yet to hear a scientist quantify,love,hate,trust,LIBERALISM (or is that simply chemical reactions and electrical impulses?)character,attitude,free will etc etc...they are NON-physical realities which work in us and through us on a daily basis...it's only the naturalistic minset that tries to reduce everything to chemical reactions and electrical impulses (1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually {something the naturalist simply says doesn't exist,in spite of what the real world points out}discerned.)
You really seem to be convinced that there is a 'ghost in the machine'(human body). But then what does this ghost do and what is the result of those electro-chemical reactions. Today we have methods to measure the activity of the brain. We can even map it in three dimensions . We can therefore see which parts are involved when that person talks, feels pain, anger, hatred, love, plays chess, etc. The functions of the different areas of the brain have been determined with people that sufferd head injuries: some were totally different persons, others showed no emotions or didn't recognize their relatives and thought they were strangers, and so on. In short their personality changed. If there is something immaterial in the brain how could that have been altered that way. We may still not know everything about our brain, which is the most complex structure we know, but I can say we know a lot about this organ and as far as I know there is nothing that points towards such an immaterial entity. Whether you like it or not our selfs are the results of these ominous electro-chemical reactions but that doesn't mean you're less valuable. (Here is an article that deals with this topic, very interesting IMO)
You really think the ten commandments are that hard to understand?
That's not the problem. I could go into lengthy details why I think the ten commandments are not an ethical principle to live life by. I don't want to evade your question but this post is already to long therefore I point you to this article which pretty much sums up my point of view and is better formulated than I ever could.
...when America was founded there didn't seem to be that much of a problem understanding what God wanted.
And I don't want to live in that time ;-) But now honestly, I don't think that that was the case. If that were the case why are there so many christian denominations that of course agree on many issues about God but also disagree on many. If there wasn't that much of a problem to understand what God wanted there'd be only one(1) denomination. Further the constition of the US is a secular one - it is neutral to religion.
Trying to argue against the atheistic world view is difficult...it is a hotch-potch of phantoms...thumping the pulpit when it comes to what supposedly happened in a primordial pond billions of years ago but strangely silent when it comes to present day reality concerning that which is most important...the human condition...preffering to hand-pass such trivialities as morals over to the relevent church authorities etc....it's hard to argue because it's hard to nail down.At least Biblical christianity has the cosmological balls to put it's complete world view on display for any or all to have a go at....and plenty better than you or I have tried...it still stands.
No, it's not because atheism only states that you don't believe in a god (or in the supernatural). To quote Charles Bradlaugh: The Atheist does not say "there is no god", but he says "I do not know what you mean by god; I am without the idea of god; the word god is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny god, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. Everything else is not part of "atheism", as your example of the primordial pond. That is abiogenesis. Religions on the other hand have changed over time. True, the Bible, Qu'ran, etc. are the same but their interpretation has changed a lot. There existed practices in the past (e.g. slavery, burning of witches or infidels, etc.) which are no longer acceptable today. Atheists were always those who did not believe in god(s).
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
Exactly what I'm trying to say. You can have no religion i.e. be an atheist and nonetheless show ethical behavior. And just because you are a naturalist doesn't mean you condone everything that can happen because it's natural; it only says that everything that happens has natural causes (not supernatural ones) regardless of whether it's good or bad. But that doesn't say anything about your ethical behaviour because naturalism makes no such claims. You can however be a humanist or objectivist, who are indeed ethical (and a lot of humanists and objectivists are atheists and/or naturalists).
As I said in an erlier post, I don't deny that there are passages in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc. that may be useful for our life in these days but I'm absolutely opposed to accept them unquestioned.
As I said before,we can argue this issue endlessly it seems.You have your reasons and I have mine.In the end history will have to show us which world view is the correct one.....as I believe it IS. We may not agree on very much but this I can accept without reservation.

Now I think that is enough for today.
So long