Would The President of C.O.P.E. Please Stand Up?

[oxmixmudd]

And once again, this is wrong.

I know as a believer, it's hard to wrap your mind around this, but:

"I don't believe in God"
and
"I believe there is (are) no Gods"

Are two entirely different statements.

Hi wally - I managed to muddle up my first attempt at addressing this, so I started over.

Just how different are these two?

Consider: "I do not run in the house" and "I run in the not house".

Where is the difference. Statement 1 does not imply one does any running anywhere. Whereas in statement two running is done, just not in the house.

So your point then is, "I don't believe in God" does not necessarily imply some believing about God one way or the other, though it might, relative to "I believe there is (are) no Gods" does imply believing.

But is this in fact the case with Phank? Not even a little bit. Phank is on a mission to declare that there are in fact no gods or God. Phank in fact believes there is no God. fervently. And with great zeal.

If one does not believe in a God or gods, how often does that in fact not become a belief there is no God or gods? I would say one test would be the offense the atheist shows at anothers belief there is in fact a God or gods. If one in fact simply does not believe in a God or gods, but it does not become belief there is not a God or gods, one can have no reason to be offended/annoyed etc. at the opposite.

It is my contention, based on the general offense I often see at belief in God taken by atheists, that your distinction is fairly regularly not made, and that for at least a significant percentage of atheists (and the majority if not the totality of those out there railing AGAINST belief in God or gods), "I do not believe in God (or gods)" is in fact equivalent to "I believe there is not a God (or gods)"


Jim

[phank]

Jorge, what is done in the public schools is to attempt to avoid any religious reference unless the class topic explicitly deals with the subject of religion. As for how this is implemented, you'll get no argument from me that it is in fact absurd. There are people who actively campaign to rid all reference to the cultural roots of our nation or religion from it's public schools - much in line with Phank's view that religion is somehow an indicator of a fundamental cognitive flaw.

Pshaw! The law is very carefully explicit. The government is in no way prohibited from mentioning religion, and any decent American History course would be hopelessly misleading without serious emphasis on the religious nature of much of that history. Nobody is trying to rid all reference to our religious roots. What the government IS prohibited from doing is presenting ANY religious faith as "truth". The government can not take a religious position. It can talk about religious beliefs all day long. It can't conduct prayers.

If you are right that works of art and music are prohibited, then I will join you in the protests. The government is not taking a religious position in permitting a Dali crucifixion painting or a mass by Bach from being shown. The line between presenting a work of art AS ART, and using art as part of an Official Faith, is not that hard to draw. What upsets Jorge is that in permitting religious art or music, the government is expressly NOT taking a religious position or promulgating a state religion. Jorge wants a state religion, provided it's his. I want no state religion, but I LOVE Bach's Mass in B Minor.

I would strongly protest that working to prevent an Official State Religion "has ruined a lot in this country" - even if it's YOUR religion.

[phank]

But is this in fact the case with Phank? Not even a little bit. Phank is on a mission to declare that there are in fact no gods or God. Phank in fact believes there is no God. fervently. And with great zeal.

I've noticed that among religious people SAYING something is true MAKES it true. Saying it over and over must make it truer and truer. But once again, this is not my position. I'm saying that the "no gods" position is the default and that there has never been a shred of compelling evidence to override that default. I suppose you could say I devoutly believe that what has been mislabeled "evidence" is either no such thing, or creatively interpreted beyond reason.

If one does not believe in a God or gods, how often does that in fact not become a belief there is no God or gods? I would say one test would be the offense the atheist shows at anothers belief there is in fact a God or gods. If one in fact simply does not believe in a God or gods, but it does not become belief there is not a God or gods, one can have no reason to be offended/annoyed etc. at the opposite.

A nice simple litmus test. If superstition offends you, IGNORE IT. Ignore the influence it has on your neighbors, on public policy, on public education, on the national budget, on taxation. If we all agree to ignore all these things (which work in favor of superstition without exception), then we pass the litmus test.

It is my contention, based on the general offense I often see at belief in God taken by atheists, that your distinction is fairly regularly not made, and that for at least a significant percentage of atheists (and the majority if not the totality of those out there railing AGAINST belief in God or gods), "I do not believe in God (or gods)" is in fact equivalent to "I believe there is not a God (or gods)"

The crux, once again, is compelling evidence (which means NOT subjective convictions). "I do not believe in any gods" is equivalent to "I'll believe gods don't exist until some intersubjective, verifiable, objective indication is found to the contrary". And the same applies to pink unicorns or the FSM.

Now, if your default is that YOUR god (but not the gods of others) are considered to exist until someone can prove they do not, you're sure to be offended by a request for positive evidence. Kind of like the intellgent design folks, whose entire support consists of "I believe this, prove me wrong."

But still, you raise a good point. If religious belief had no indirect influence on my life (through everything from missionaries at my door to public policies inspired by religion that I oppose, to campaigns to get creationists onto school boards and in schools as science teachers, etc.), I wonder if I'd feel as strongly. If I can't buy beer on Sunday or marry the partner of my choice because my neighbor thinks it's a sin, it's hard to be so benignly indifferent.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I'm not sure how to approach this. Civics, as I learned it, referred ultimately to politics, which is as empirical as it gets. I suppose you could say that the study of the rights and duties of citizens to each other within a polity isn't purely empirical, unless you include things like game theory as empirical. But in any case, my understanding is that the theory here is a proposed explanation of how people behave under given sets of constraints and rewards, why they act that way. I'd also argue that, at least to some extent, religion and philosophy deal with human behavior. Perhaps formal logic does not.

I'd hardly call politics a study in empiricism. Do CBO and BLS data serve as pillars of budget debates or merely as subjects of partisan spin? The point is that there are many worthwhile endeavors and disciplines in life that do not deal purely (or even primarily) in empirical terms.

Are you disputing this? Again, the reason nearly all if not all human societies ever known have some version of the Golden Rule at their core, is because this is what works, and how people think. There's a strong argument that as a gregarious species, this orientation evolved into us (those who didn't follow the golden rule, didn't breed much). The problem with the formulation you give is, the common good and the moral codes of various religions are certainly not mutually exclusive; there's a huge amount of overlap. You can even see religions as operationalizations of the common good, or attempts at it.

No, I'm on the side of societies crafting laws founded on common good and prevention of harm.

And it's a mistake to equate religion with morality. Atheists are probably WAY underrepresented in prisons for a good reason. One certainly need not believe in gods or the supernatural or silly miracles to be a moral person with a firm sense of right and wrong. Conversely, I've seen plenty of religious people who want a community majority decision as to preaching religion in science class when they're in the majority, yet arguing for strict separation of church and state if the community has a majority religion not theirs.

Good thing I didn't equate religion with morality, eh?

I wonder if you have read what Dawkins has to say, more than I have read what Confucius wrote.

I don't know how much Confucius you've read, so I couldn't answer the question . . . well, I couldn't answer if it were posed as a question, at least. For my part, I've read two Dawkins books, numerous essays/articles, watched a debate and a round table, listened to several of his talks (including the entire "Beyond Belief" conference!). So that's that.

Broad brush there. Objective, to me, means how something really is, irrespective of our perception of it. SOME of that reality can be empirically verified, certainly not all. So I would insist that what is empirically verifiable is a proper subset of what is objectively true. "Objectivism" I'm familiar with only in the Ayn Rand sense, which I regard as simplistic at best. I don't really know what you mean by "subjectivism"; maybe this refers to the distinction between what IS, and how we perceive it? I know that science tries as hard as possible to achieve "intersubjective validity", on the grounds that if people with many different backgrounds, experiences and worldviews all agree, then what's agreed on is probably well formulated and possibly even objectively true. But I know there are also cultures that take mind-altering drugs to deliberately distort their perceptions, and regard these distortions as "superior" in some ways important to them.

"Lacking objective measure, religion becomes only hand-waving." That's an argument that necessitates religious claims be empirically verifiable before they can considered objectively (or even subjectively!) true. So you confuse empirically verifiable with objectivism and confuse objective claims to be superior to subjective claims. But making objective claims about subjective subjects doesn't necessary make those claims true.

When we're dealing with how people interact, and attempting (as most cultures do) to minimize conflict, it's very helpful to understand WHY people behave the way they do, and also helpful that there IS a human nature, which means there's a pattern to those behaviors, which means they can be predicted and managed. And some religions work, much like political dictatorships work, because of the ubiquity of the authoritarian mindset.

You lost me. But that's OK because . . .

It works, it works! That is, certainty is not easy for me to project. The more I learn the less certain I become about things. About religion it's easy for me to be certain, because I don't know the formal theology and I don't share the belief in magic.

Because, hopefully, projecting that attitude provokes informative responses. How people defend their religious faith tells me a lot about how that faith works with them, how they see it. I really think that if Jim, for example, managed to drop the Christ schtick, he could be entirely happy with Spinoza's god. Jim's god is one of personal comfort and reassurance, the parental image instead of the drill sergeant image or the king image or the policeman image. Jorge, at least from my perspective, seems to worship an evil hypnotist. I'm not sure if polite discussions of science would bring this out.

because you're trolling. And it doesn't make any difference whether you're trolling for a purpose or trolling for fun. But lest we really think that you're trolling for a cause, let's deflate this right now: you make no attempt to develop or demonstrate an understanding of the topics that you criticize so either that ignorance is part of the act or you are just getting a reaction so that you can judge people by your pre-determined and irrational criteria — you want to see how well other people dance to the music. Whatever effort you're putting into your persona, you could have better utilized in reading, understanding the claims made by theists and developing a relationship of serious discussion.

Now you've outed yourself as a troll and I, for one, am going to have a very difficult time treating much of anything you write as sincere and earnest. I'm disappointed. Now you compare unfavorably to Jorge and Magellan. I could almost believe that you're Mag's sock puppet now!

—Sam

[Tiggy]

Now you've outed yourself as a troll and I, for one, am going to have a very difficult time treating much of anything you write as sincere and earnest. I'm disappointed. Now you compare unfavorably to Jorge and Magellan. I could almost believe that you're Mag's sock puppet now!

—Sam

I've caught myself thinking more than once that phank was really an anti-poe, a radical Fundy Christian doing his best to make atheists look like raving slobbering lunatics.

Nothing in the last two days has done anything to dispel that notion....

- T

[Ansgar Seraph]

I've caught myself thinking more than once that phank was really an anti-poe, a radical Fundy Christian doing his best to make atheists look like raving slobbering lunatics.

Nothing in the last two days has done anything to dispel that notion....

- T

That settles it. Everyone put your IP addresses on the table!

[oxmixmudd]

That settles it. Everyone put your IP addresses on the table!

Usually it's the bathroom off the master bedroom ...






Jim

[Jorge]

Jorge, what is done in the public schools is to attempt to avoid any religious
reference unless the class topic explicitly deals with the subject of religion.
Jim

******************************************

I don't blame your ignorance - you are merely a product of society.
I do blame your failure to listen because I have tried (and tried and
tried and tried) to pull you out of your ignorance. I am convinced,
after many years of reading your posts, that you are blissfully and
willingly wallowing in that ignorance.

Let me try again - for the 173rd time .........

There is NO WAY for the schools to avoid a religious reference.

Did you get that? The bold and color was to help grab your attention.

The sad part is that 'Christians' like yourself are the biggest part of the problem
because you ought to be the "salt of the Earth" yet, instead, you just blend right
in there with the militant Humanists / Materialists / Atheists. I encourage you
to pray and seek guidance on this matter. As things stand, you are so wrong
that you actually believe you're right.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

... you just blend right in there with the militant Humanists / Materialists / Atheists. ...

You mean, you are incapable of seeing that Jim is a deeply committed Christian?

An atheists has to tell you this????

No wonder you sincerely believe on one site that the Barringer Crater is probably not of impact origin while on another site you believe that it probably is of impact origin.

Clearly you are one confused kid, Jorge.

Would you like me, an atheist, to tell you how I know that Jim is very different to me with regards to Christianity, in his belief, in his profession of that belief, and in the fruit he bears?

Based on what many fundies tell we atheists about ourselves, you are much, much more like me. Have you eaten any babies lately?

[Jorge]

You mean, you are incapable of seeing that Jim is a deeply committed Christian?

An atheists has to tell you this????

No wonder you sincerely believe on one site that the Barringer Crater is probably not of impact origin while on another site you believe that it probably is of impact origin.

Clearly you are one confused kid, Jorge.

Would you like me, an atheist, to tell you how I know that Jim is very different to me with regards to Christianity, in his belief, in his profession of that belief, and in the fruit he bears?

Based on what many fundies tell we atheists about ourselves, you are much, much more like me. Have you eaten any babies lately?

************************************************************************

I do not question Jim's intentions. But you know what they say
about the road to Hell - "it is a road paved with good intentions".
I am sure that many Theistic Evolutionists have good 'intentions'.
In the final analysis, that ain't gon'na cut it. God will say to those
people, "My WORD was clear enough - you are WITHOUT EXCUSE!"
Hmmm ... kind'a sounds like the title of a book that I know about.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

************************************************************************

I do not question Jim's intentions. But you know what they say
about the road to Hell - "it is a road paved with good intentions".
I am sure that many Theistic Evolutionists have good 'intentions'.
In the final analysis, that ain't gon'na cut it. God will say to those
people, "My WORD was clear enough - you are WITHOUT EXCUSE!"
Hmmm ... kind'a sounds like the title of a book that I know about.

Jorge

I see. For those not aware, Jorge references in a not so subtle way Matthew 25:31-46 where Christ speaks of God gathering all the nations together for the judgement. He then separates the sheep (this who enter into life) from the goats (those who enter into eternal judgement). In the course of that scene, the sheep are awarded for deeds they were not aware they had done, and the goats (more to the point) are punished in spite of the fact they thought they were doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Jorge is effectively saying that people like me that accept God used an evolutionary process as part of His creative act are members of the goats, though he hasn't actually said that (preserving his claim he does not personally pass judgement). He is in fact strongly implying I (and others like me) are not a 'true believers' in Christ based on this one issue, ignoring all other far more critical elements of faith in Christ - most notably those elements the scriptures themselves define as critical.


Jim

[Jorge]

I see. For those not aware, Jorge references in a not so subtle way Matthew 25:31-46 where Christ speaks of God gathering all the nations together for the judgement. He then separates the sheep (this who enter into life) from the goats (those who enter into eternal judgement). In the course of that scene, the sheep are awarded for deeds they were not aware they had done, and the goats (more to the point) are punished in spite of the fact they thought they were doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Jorge is effectively saying that people like me that accept God used an evolutionary process as part of His creative act are members of the goats, though he hasn't actually said that (preserving his claim he does not personally pass judgement). He is in fact strongly implying I (and others like me) are not a 'true believers' in Christ based on this one issue, ignoring all other far more critical elements of faith in Christ - most notably those elements the scriptures themselves define as critical.

Jim

****************************************************

Maybe you "see", maybe you don't.

Never forget that I am perfectly aware of the fact that is is NOT I who
makes these determinations or judgments -- that authority belongs
to God and to Him alone.

That said, you continue to make the same mistake over and over and
over again. I'm referring to the mistake of 'compartmentalization',
namely, separating the message of salvation from the rest of His
Holy Word. God told us what He told us for a reason. Let me give
one illustration : People have said that if God did in fact create the
universe in six literal days then He is a "deceiver" because there is
a clear appearance of age ("billions of years"). Yet, how can God
be a "deceiver" when He TOLD US what He did and how long it took
Him? But then, people professing to be wise have essentially
taken what God said and reinterpreted so as to have it say what
THEY have decided is the 'truth' instead of what God has stated in
clear language. End of illustration. Like I said, you really need
to pray and ask guidance about these things. I do not judge you
but Judged you shall indeed be -- as we all will be.

Jorge

[rogue06]

****************************************************

Maybe you "see", maybe you don't.

Never forget that I am perfectly aware of the fact that is is NOT I who
makes these determinations or judgments -- that authority belongs
to God and to Him alone.

That said, you continue to make the same mistake over and over and
over again. I'm referring to the mistake of 'compartmentalization',
namely, separating the message of salvation from the rest of His
Holy Word. God told us what He told us for a reason. Let me give
one illustration : People have said that if God did in fact create the
universe in six literal days then He is a "deceiver" because there is
a clear appearance of age ("billions of years"). Yet, how can God
be a "deceiver" when He TOLD US what He did and how long it took
Him? But then, people professing to be wise have essentially
taken what God said and reinterpreted so as to have it say what
THEY have decided is the 'truth' instead of what God has stated in
clear language. End of illustration. Like I said, you really need
to pray and ask guidance about these things. I do not judge you
but Judged you shall indeed be -- as we all will be.

Jorge

No Jorge. God does not tell us it took six literal days. That is an interpretation. In fact Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8 suggest otherwise.

God does not tell us the world is between 6 to 10,000 years old. That is based upon calculations largely based upon genealogies among other things in spite of Paul's apparent warning against doing things like that (1 Timothy 4:1; Titus 3:9).

Nowhere does Scripture state or even imply our salvation hinges upon how we read the opening of Genesis. There has been considerable disagreement as how to understand the nature of the creation since the first decades of Christianity without any talk of declaring one view the orthodox one and all others wrong.

Instead, it makes it pretty clear what is important. When Paul states in 1 Cor 15:12-14 that and "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" he does not add "oh and if you don't believe that the world and surrounding universe were created in six literal sequential days a couple thousand years ago, your faith is in vain."

[Tiggy]

.

Never forget that I am perfectly aware of the fact that is is NOT I who
makes these determinations or judgments -- that authority belongs
to God and to Him alone.

Jorge

Actually Jorge, on this site it is you and you alone making these personal judgments. We all know how you think you're the only TRUE SPOKESMAN^tm for God, but all you're speaking for is your own bloated ego.

Now when will you be providing that way to test the hypothesis of Biblical Special Creation?

- T

[Cerebrum123]

No Jorge. God does not tell us it took six literal days. That is an interpretation. In fact Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8 suggest otherwise.

God does not tell us the world is between 6 to 10,000 years old. That is based upon calculations largely based upon genealogies among other things in spite of Paul's apparent warning against doing things like that (1 Timothy 4:1; Titus 3:9).

Nowhere does Scripture state or even imply our salvation hinges upon how we read the opening of Genesis. There has been considerable disagreement as how to understand the nature of the creation since the first decades of Christianity without any talk of declaring one view the orthodox one and all others wrong.

Instead, it makes it pretty clear what is important. When Paul states in 1 Cor 15:12-14 that and "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" he does not add "oh and if you don't believe that the world and surrounding universe were created in six literal sequential days a couple thousand years ago, your faith is in vain."

I highly doubt those verses mean what you think they mean(I also have no idea why you used 1 Timothy 4:1, because it says nothing about genealogies, but about people following doctrines of demons.). First we have Pslam 90, which says that a day is like a thousand years OR a watch in the night. This has NOTHING to do with how long the days of Genesis are, but that God is not limited by time, the same goes for 2 Peter. As for Titus, it's dealing with legalism basically. They don't want people going into problems that circumcision cause in the early church, and other issues that could fit there(there is nothing in there about using the knowledge we DO have, to dispel false doctrines, and on of the most important things in dispelling the Gnostic heresy was referring back to Genesis, and other early Christians had to use Genesis to support the Gospel as well). I highly doubt that it is saying that we are to completely ignore parts of Scripture(that highly ridiculous, but that's what your argument leads to). Also, there are many reasons why we SHOULD take the days in Genesis as 24 hours periods. One issue is the comparison in Exodus, where God basically says for them to follow what He Himself did, and it's quite literal there. Also, the language and grammar support 24 hour periods, and no other interpretation takes these things into consideration(at least not that I have seen).