[Codo]

Wayne, I really loved your last sentence.

A reason why religion is discussed with more different views and more "spirit" then racism or politics: In our world, we are allow to follow different views in the religion area. But no sane people will discuss the "Advantages" of the white/black/yellow/red race here, or why it should be right to own a slave. But sane people may disagree about God and even if they agree that there is one, they may disagree about the way to serve him.
And you do not need facts to discuss religions. Okay most people do not have facts while discussing about politics, but these discussion are normally quite fruitless. Religion is a way where you never have facts. Much easier to discuss, you just need some believes.

From my postings here you know, that I have a religgious background and I "brainwash" my kids to my belief. They are younger then yours, but I have high hopes that they will be stable and thinking adults in some years. So an atheists education is not the only way to raise "normal" kids to wonderful grown ups.

If you think that religion should be banned, just tell me why. There are millions of people who do good to others in the name of their church. They build hospitals, churches, schools, help the poor and ill. There is no reason to stop these people.
There are some (many) who do bad things in the name of religion. But do you really believe that bin Laden will stop fighting when we are all atheists?
Or that Iran will be a peaceful country? Or Iraque maybe? Stop dreaming. Religions are abused for tactical reasons over and over again. But if you cannot abuse religion anymore, they can and will abuse races/social status/IQ/lies. Name it.

Of course the rules of any given church are influenced by the cuture where they developed and /or by the founder(s). But what is funny about this? There is something which all big churches have in common and these are more or less the ten commitments. ISn´t it funny that all great religions have these same themes together?

Of course it is a scandal when a priest has sex with a teenager. In your opinion, god must stop this "in his own house". I don´t understand your logic. If HE is there to stop any crime in his house, why shouldn´t he stop it everywhere?

I don´t believe in the concept, that God uses his abilitites to make us all follow the ten commitments and are all loveful people, living together in harmony. And if he doesn´t do this, he could not be there.

Why should he solve our own problems for us? This is our job.
It is our responsibility to do the right thing. And abusing kids is in our society simply wrong.

My father is not interessted in religion, my mother had no strong opinion about the church. When I studied, I had some trouble with the lutherian church, it was too much easy going, not serious enough. So I search for other ways, namely catholicsm, scienotogy, buddism and mormons. Then I understood my own religion better and became a believer in the way they thaught me. So yes, I had a choice, more then one.

There are narrowminded people everywhere, actually I think that this is true for more then 80% of all people. But I do not see that the percentage is higher between religious people. Actually I think it is the other way round. But maybe this is just my personal view.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".

are your questions/comments answers to my question?

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

I live in a mainly christian country, where there appears to be a huge (hidden, I doubt other countries are any different) problem with male priests and young underage boys.  I find it difficult comprehend why if there is a GOD he allows this sort of thing to go on under his own roof ( I would love to hear the explanation for this justification)

what would you have God do about this?

[sceptic]

Quote

But do you really believe that bin Laden will stop fighting when we are all atheists?

Quite the opposite actually we stop fighting when we are all muslims

Quote

what would you have God do about this?

tell me how to get hold of him and I will tell him personally my views

[Codo]

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

Quote

But do you really believe that bin Laden will stop fighting when we are all atheists?

Quite the opposite actually we stop fighting when we are all muslims

Maybe you need a new news channel.
Most terror from "muslims" nowadays hits muslims. And this is not close.

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

Quote

what would you have God do about this?

tell me how to get hold of him and I will tell him personally my views

well you're the one who said you'd "love" to hear something on this, so i was just trying to learn your views before proceeding.. but on how to get hold of him, just sincerely call on him

[Al_U_Card]

Logic depends on its precepts.

Bridge logic depends on what is used as the basis for the decision making process. Higher cards win tricks. 13 cards in a suit. Suit rank etc.

The same goes for philosophical considerations. Is there a higher power? Higher than what? What you want or what you need? Ultimately, whatever approach you use, we all sense the hierarchical nature of existence and recognize its inherent logic.

How we interpret where we stand within that hierarchy is altogether another issue.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".

are your questions/comments answers to my question?

You answered your own question, with the very phrase directly prior to it.

Quote

this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

In other words "I can't prove it but it's still logical." Ergo my comment, which it's now your turn to answer.

[h2osmom]

My husband is Jewish, I was raised primarily without religion, then when I was 13 my parents suddenly decided I needed indoctrination into religion, Lutheranism. I attended classes and went to church for about 5 years, and then I was able to stop, which I did. I don't think I got anything out of the experience. We did the minimum amount of Jewish, not enough to satisfy, but to keep my husband's family off our back. When my son was 12 or so, he told me that all the kids he knew, who were the type of people I would want him to be friends with, came from families that were religious. He said there were plenty of religious people who weren't the type I would choose as his friends, but all the ones I would be likely to choose, were religious. And, he said, I am that kind of person too, and we aren't religious. What I want to know, is, what is it about religion that most people need, and we don't? My answer was that some set of values is necessary, but that doesn't necessarily have to be attached to a religion. It satisfied him at the time. Since then, he has visited Israel, and been exposed to more, and he says he wishes he had learned about the religion when he was a kid. He feels that he missed something by not being taught the basics about any religion. I think religion has far more negative to it than positive. I think overall it's a bad force in the world. That being said, I also think it's such a basic core in the US that not to teach it is to take quite a view. But it's hard to teach it without also teaching to believe it. That was and is a quandary for me. Parents have to teach kids their values; they aren't born socialized, and the world isn't a forgiving place for someone who doesn't follow society's rules. And you can't teach what you don't believe yourself. Kids can tell if you are trying to teach something you don't believe, and they won't accept that lesson, ie when a parent is trying to justify something for another parent or grandparent etc, the kids sense that the message isn't sincere. At this point, both of my adult kids share my beliefs that religion is not a positive force in the world, that treating others well is important, and that we need to do what is right because it is right for now, not for some reward in the afterlife, and whether or not there is a God is irrelevant. So, without active teaching or preaching, they have adopted most of my attitudes, which I think is pretty common. I can't imagine raising a chold without teaching my beliefs.

[barmar]

luke warm, on Jan 1 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

I didn't mean to equate logic and the scientific method, I intended them as two non-faith-based ways to arrive at conclusions.

I'm not sure precisely how to describe stubborn belief in fairy tales that are inconsistent with any natural processes we know of. In children it's cute -- it's "precious" when they write letters to Santa Claus or leave their tooth under the pillow for the Tooth Fairy. In adults, if it's not illogical, then maybe it's a symptom of psychosis; it's just not common to describe it this way, because these beliefs are so widely held that they're considered "normal".

[PassedOut]

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

Religion should in my humble opinion be banned...

Although I don't believe in god or religion (though I grew up in a religious home), I know some religious people who do fine things for others -- and they do so because of their religious beliefs. And clearly many folks also find comfort in the thought of an afterlife. I can truly understand the comfort of that belief.

So I certainly don't think that religions should be banned, any more than should political organizations. But religious beliefs should never be enforced by the power of the state.

The separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of the US government. Those who work to put their beliefs into US law are, in my opinion, traitors to our way of life.

26 years ago I settled down with a nice atheist girl and we raised three sons. We taught our sons to respect other beliefs and we explained, when questioned, why people would accept implausible propositions as true:

To a large extent, the reasons are social. People like to identify with a group, so they accept (or claim to accept) the beliefs of the others in the group. Some people like to be told what to believe, and they have no problem finding authority figures who will perform that role -- for a fee, of course. Indeed, whenever I hear a person say that god provides the only reason for refusing to murder and steal, I'm happy that the person does believe in god!

Our sons (the youngest is now 20, the eldest 25) have all turned into fine young men: accomplished, ambitious, and tolerant.

[barmar]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".

are your questions/comments answers to my question?

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

I live in a mainly christian country, where there appears to be a huge (hidden, I doubt other countries are any different) problem with male priests and young underage boys.  I find it difficult comprehend why if there is a GOD he allows this sort of thing to go on under his own roof ( I would love to hear the explanation for this justification)

what would you have God do about this?

God is supposedly omnipotent, couldn't he just remove the urge in the first place? Or if morality comes from God, he could have put child molestation in the DO list rather than the DON'T list, and designed our psychology so that we wouldn't be traumatized by it.

Of course, one of the things that religious people have a hard time explaining in general is why God allows so much evil in the world in the first place -- pedophile priests are just one example that happens to be very obvious because the perpetrators are so closely associated with religion and expected to be moral role models. They'll just say things like "God gave us free will", "evil exists so that we'll appreciate good", or the wishy-washy "God works in mysterious ways."

Yet they still claim that this is a god worthy of worshiping: "God is love".

[luke warm]

[quote name='jdonn' date='Jan 2 2008, 11:34 AM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 2 2008, 08:53 AM'][quote name='jdonn' date='Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM']So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?[/quote]
[quote name='Hannie' date='Jan 1 2008, 10:42 PM']His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".[/quote]
are your questions/comments answers to my question?[/quote]
You answered your own question, with the very phrase directly prior to it.

[quote]this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?[/quote]
In other words "I can't prove it but it's still logical." Ergo my comment, which it's now your turn to answer.[/quote]
you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method" it is by definition illogical (i assume this is what you're saying, let me know if my understanding is in error)... i gave an example of a belief of mine that can't be proved by that method and asked in what way it is illogical... now you say i answered my own question, presumably by stating my belief... are you in fact asserting that any belief i (or you) hold that is untestable is illogical?

if so you are in essence saying

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

to believe that, it seems to me that one must also believe that hidden things will remain hidden... do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe? would such a belief be illogical, by your definition? do you believe that all life on earth, in all its present forms, evolved from one organism (molecule, cell, whatever)? is such a belief illogical?

i'm just trying to find out exactly what you are asserting
[quote name='barmar' date='Jan 2 2008, 12:41 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 1 2008, 11:30 PM'] [quote name='barmar' date='Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM'] ~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method. [/quote]
you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical? [/quote]
I didn't mean to equate logic and the scientific method, I intended them as two non-faith-based ways to arrive at conclusions.[/quote]
ok, we agree that they can be but aren't necessarily the same
[quote]I'm not sure precisely how to describe stubborn belief in fairy tales that are inconsistent with any natural processes we know of.  In children it's cute -- it's "precious" when they write letters to Santa Claus or leave their tooth under the pillow for the Tooth Fairy.  In adults, if it's not illogical, then maybe it's a symptom of psychosis; it's just not common to describe it this way, because these beliefs are so widely held that they're considered "normal".[/quote]
i do, of course, object to being perceived as psychotic (although my objection isn't proof that i'm not )... are any of your (untestable but logical) beliefs also signs of psychosis?
[quote name='PassedOut' date='Jan 2 2008, 12:43 PM']26 years ago I settled down with a nice atheist girl and we raised three sons. We taught our sons to respect other beliefs and we explained, when questioned, why people would accept implausible propositions as true~~[/quote]
as long as you (also) aren't equating "implausible" with illogical or psychotic
[quote name='barmar' date='Jan 2 2008, 12:56 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 2 2008, 09:53 AM'] [quote name='jdonn' date='Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM']So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?[/quote]
[quote name='Hannie' date='Jan 1 2008, 10:42 PM']His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".[/quote]
are your questions/comments answers to my question?
[quote name='sceptic' date='Jan 2 2008, 05:43 AM']I live in a mainly christian country, where there appears to be a huge (hidden, I doubt other countries are any different) problem with male priests and young underage boys.  I find it difficult comprehend why if there is a GOD he allows this sort of thing to go on under his own roof ( I would love to hear the explanation for this justification)[/quote]
what would you have God do about this? [/quote]
~~Of course, one of the things that religious people have a hard time explaining in general is why God allows so much evil in the world in the first place -- pedophile priests are just one example that happens to be very obvious because the perpetrators are so closely associated with religion and expected to be moral role models. They'll just say things like "God gave us free will", "evil exists so that we'll appreciate good", or the wishy-washy "God works in mysterious ways."

Yet they still claim that this is a god worthy of worshiping: "God is love".[/quote]
i don't know any christian (and i do separate "religious person(s)" in general from the discussion because i'm barely qualified to speak of my own beliefs) who has trouble with explaining evil... you said
[quote] God is supposedly omnipotent, couldn't he just remove the urge in the first place? Or if morality comes from God, he could have put child molestation in the DO list rather than the DON'T list, and designed our psychology so that we wouldn't be traumatized by it.[/quote]
my question to you is, why stop with child molestation? why not murder? lying? cheating on one's spouse? cursing when one stubs a toe? why not ALL evil?

and whose definition of evil would you have God remove? yours? mine? everyone's?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 2 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

26 years ago I settled down with a nice atheist girl and we raised three sons. We taught our sons to respect other beliefs and we explained, when questioned, why people would accept implausible propositions as true~~

as long as you (also) aren't equating "implausible" with illogical or psychotic

Certainly not psychotic! And, to me, logic is a formal set of rules that do not apply in this context.

[han]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe?

Great analogy.

It doesn't make much sense to me to believe that there is other sentient life, and it also doesn't make much sense to believe that there is not. I think I would have a hard time believing in one or the other even if I wanted to. It seems that I am missing some gullibility skills.

Still, this question makes a lot more sense than asking about god. It is better defined and we can try to find an answer. Certainly it is conceivable that one day we obtain evidence that there is other sentient life. It is even possible that some day we can say with some confindence that there is not.

Until then, I won't spent much time thinking about it.

[helene_t]

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Religion should in my humble opinion be banned,

I'm a strong believer in free speech so I have to disagree with this one. Then again, I think a lot of religious activities are allowed only because they are labeled as religious, and in that sense religion should be banned IMHO. For example, if a the penalty code of some country bans "Mein Kampf" and similar books for promoting hatred etc. then the same criteria should apply to religious texts.

Han said:

It doesn't make much sense to me to believe that there is other sentient life, and it also doesn't make much sense to believe that there is not. I think I would have a hard time believing in one or the other even if I wanted to. It seems that I am missing some gullibility skills.

Ditto. Except that I would be thrilled if we were to make contact with, or at least confirm the existence of, ETs during my lifetime. Assuming we do not, I don't care if they exist.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnnnn let's see....

Bridge = Religion?

Takes up a lot of time

Requires a large set of rules

Engenders belief in the abilities of others

Gives you hope for what comes next

Causes heated "discussions" at times over very fine points

Develops fervent followings of a specific creed or practice

Encourages the formation of stable "partnerships"

Yup, they are the same.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method"  it is by definition illogical (i assume this is what you're saying, let me know if my understanding is in error)... i gave an example of a belief of mine that can't be proved by that method and asked in what way it is illogical... now you say i answered my own question, presumably by stating my belief... are you in fact asserting that any belief i (or you) hold that is untestable is illogical?

if so you are in essence saying

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

to believe that, it seems to me that one must also believe that hidden things will remain hidden... do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe? would such a belief be illogical, by your definition? do you believe that all life on earth, in all its present forms, evolved from one organism (molecule, cell, whatever)? is such a belief illogical?

i'm just trying to find out exactly what you are asserting

Let's try something else. Why do you believe that what you referred to is logical? Perhaps I am having trouble forming an argument for a claim that I don't see has really been explained yet.

[sceptic]

Quote

you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method" it is by definition illogical

I think this statement is odd as usual a common arguement

Prove I own a car

1/. I have on eon the drive, I have a log book in my name, I have a reciept


Nothing scientific about that

prove I have an apple tree in my garden

2/. invite you round to see it,m show you a photo, get a written statemnet from a policeman or someone of noteable standing


Prove there is a God

3/. I am waiting?

[Al_U_Card]

Define "God".

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Jan 2 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe?

Great analogy.

It doesn't make much sense to me to believe that there is other sentient life, and it also doesn't make much sense to believe that there is not. I think I would have a hard time believing in one or the other even if I wanted to. It seems that I am missing some gullibility skills.

Still, this question makes a lot more sense than asking about god. It is better defined and we can try to find an answer. Certainly it is conceivable that one day we obtain evidence that there is other sentient life. It is even possible that some day we can say with some confindence that there is not.

Until then, I won't spent much time thinking about it.

that's fine, han, but do you think either believing or not believing that sentient life exists in other parts of the universe is inherently illogical? i don't, fwiw

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method"  it is by definition illogical (i assume this is what you're saying, let me know if my understanding is in error)... i gave an example of a belief of mine that can't be proved by that method and asked in what way it is illogical... now you say i answered my own question, presumably by stating my belief... are you in fact asserting that any belief i (or you) hold that is untestable is illogical?

if so you are in essence saying

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

to believe that, it seems to me that one must also believe that hidden things will remain hidden... do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe? would such a belief be illogical, by your definition? do you believe that all life on earth, in all its present forms, evolved from one organism (molecule, cell, whatever)? is such a belief illogical?

i'm just trying to find out exactly what you are asserting

Let's try something else. Why do you believe that what you referred to is logical? Perhaps I am having trouble forming an argument for a claim that I don't see has really been explained yet.

the only claim i made was that the "scientific method" and logic aren't of necessity mutually exclusive... i then gave an example of a belief i hold and asked why that belief, even though it can't be proved by that method, is considered illogical... i asked so that the answer could enlighten me, so that i could see where (if) i am wrong... so far nobody has answered that question... if you would address my questions to you i think you'll come to the same conclusion

are you in fact saying:

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

Quote

you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method" it is by definition illogical

I think this statement is odd as usual a common arguement

Prove I own a car

1/. I have on eon the drive, I have a log book in my name, I have a reciept


Nothing scientific about that

prove I have an apple tree in my garden

2/. invite you round to see it,m show you a photo, get a written statemnet from a policeman or someone of noteable standing


Prove there is a God

3/. I am waiting?

huh? actually whether or not you own a car can be determined by the "scientific method" ... the same for the apple tree... it's possible that one of us is confused