The Anti-theist Thread

[Earniel]

Yikes! You live in a scary place indeed, RE! Mirkwood doesn't even compare.

[Rána Eressëa]

I think I'm coming to the point where instead of me fearing everybody, it will be reversed to the other way around . . .

[Earniel]

Um, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa
I think I'm coming to the point where instead of me fearing everybody, it will be reversed to the other way around . . .

yes many fear the helf or elbit

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Um, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

A good, good thing.

I'm the Rogue Elf. Don't mess with me.

[afro-elf]

what is your exact term


you seem to be more hobbit than elf

1/4 elf correct

[Rána Eressëa]

3/4 Hobbit and 1/4 Elf is correct, yes.

[BeardofPants]

Wow. It's taken 38 pages, but I do believe we've finally gone off-topic.

[Rána Eressëa]

Noooo! Back on topic!

Religion equals bad feelings between people that eventually leads to wars.

Conclusion? Atheists rule! Mwa-hahaha!

*blinks*

Because there are no religious wars unless it's us saying it's all useless.

[mirrille]

Well, I don't think religion is inherently evil/violent/creating bad feelings.
I think most religions start out wanting to help people. It's just the people who are corrupt, and religion is just very susceptible to being turned into a form of control, which always causes problems. In addition, any situation where you get a difference of opinion or belief has the potential to turn to bloodshed if the people in question are bigoted enough. And you get bigots everywhere, not just religious ones.
It makes me sad because I think that, in general, excepting a few more violent cults and so on, if all religions really practiced what they preach, which often includes some message about respecting others and living in harmony and a general condemnation of all violence, there would be no wars. I don't really care if it's the big beard in the sky, or the pretty pink unicorn, or just your own conscience and sense of responsibility as a human being that's telling you not to kill people over stupid reasons. Just listen to it!

[Andúril]

My impression of the original reason for the existence of religion, is that of a scientific role - it may sound strange at first, but I have a feeling that religion was an early (very early) form of science.

What I mean by this is that science is a means of explaining things. Religion, in its beginning, was too a way of explaining things. Why was there lightning and thunder; what was it? Earthquakes, floods, all natural things were "magical" to our ancestors, and gradually these natural forces obtained personalities.

But obviously as the various regional beliefs obtained believers, and the groups became bigger, lessening the distance between neighboring ones, the nature of control reared its ugly head. And once there's someone in control of an organisation, that organisation very rarely loses it, and it most definitely becomes stronger. And ofcourse, the sronger the organisation is, the stronger the divine being(s) that is/are worshipped by that organisation.

Hence the conflict that has arisen. And continues to exist.

[EDIT]One could say that the real underlying reason for wanting to answer all those ancient uncertainties, was a result of fear, and the coping-mechanism used to dispell that fear...

[BeardofPants]

Interesting. I wouldn't call it a science, though. Humans, hominids et al, have long interacted with the environment, adapted to it, and within it, to ensure their survival. One of the ways, in which hominids did this was through ideology, which primarily arose possibly in early H. erectus (and definately H. sapiens sapiens) through Theory of Mind (language, symbolism, etc.).

ToM is the only thing that sets us apart from the other species in the taxonomical system. It is the way in which we try to perceive and understand the world. By this, I do not mean "miracles", but in that animals adapt to the environment, while we adapt the environment to suit us. Following this line of thought, we can thus say, that religion, and ideology, (and consequently ToM) is not so much a science, but a tool in which we have used to perceive the environment, and adapt it, to our best means of survival.

[afro-elf]

religion has a biological foundation

i erased a my files but do a search with



michael persinger


the neuro ( something) foundations for the belief in god ( or close to it

and dr. ramacharka ( that is kinda like it)


try looking for an article call the " god part of the brain"

[Andúril]

I remember coming across a very similar article (perhaps the same one?) - a very interesting read...

...just goes to show that the most intense of religious experiences can be attributed to the firing of neurons...

And it's the same with emotions...

[BeardofPants]

Hmmm.... we should try and track that article down, and post it here. I would be very interested to read it, and see if it ties into the ToM issue...

[Cirdan]

OK

Persinger Link

[BeardofPants]

Yay!!! Cirdan's back! Missed you, buddy.

[afro-elf]

Oh yeah

check out something called temperal lobe epilepsy


its something about it producing "religous experiences"

[Wayfarer]

Aelf-two things.

I know you're supposed to use a different paragraph for every idea-but do you have to use more returns than spaces?

It's getting harder and harder to make sense of your posts. That might have something to do with the lack of sleep I've been getting lately (I certainly hope so)

Frodofriend:

You are correct in saying the total energy stays the same. Energy moves from one form to another, and only some of these forms are useful. Entropy is the process of going from usable to unusable forms.

Ultimately, the story goes, the universe will run out of usable energy and stabalize at a temperature slighly above absolute zero. At this point, there would be no possibility of work at all.

Another interesting line of thought as regards nature:

If everything is the result of the Universe (or Omniverse, accepting that there may be multiple universes), then it would nescessarily mean that individual components (entmoot, for example) are caused by other events, there are some troubling implications.

For example, to take a subject that's already been broached: Our Brains. If, as you say, what we think and believe is a result of processes in our brains, and our brains are (as a requirement of this cosmology) a result of other causes, then it follows that, for example, your belief that thoughts arise from the brain is actually a result of your brain state and ultimately of a number of other causes. So, since all thoughts are equally a result of the universe, they are all equally valid. Our attempts at rational discussion are no better off than the things Nolondil says when he's Drunk.

[Wayfarer]

Anduril

Choice:

Since God (presumbly) has a determinate character, the issue of choice is somewhat odd. Being without change, he will presumably always choose the same thing in a given situation.

Time:

What you say is pretty reasonable. But there is a problem: You assume that an entity must reduce itself to the level of that which it is affecting-even though I can write on a (relatively) two dimensional sheet of paper without becoming two dimesnional myself.

A second point to notice is that God is continuously causing every event in the universe. He created it in our past, and will destroy it in our future, but in relation to himself both those events happen simultaneously.

Good:

First, you must understand that god did not create evil. Since evil is (by definition) contrary to his will, it would be self contradictory for him to create it. You might want to expand on that, but I'll just leave it as is.

What god created is the potential for evil-and also the potential for good. In creating man, he desired that we would of our own free will choose communion with him. Obviously, it wouldn't be an excercise of free will if there was no other choice.

Now, behaviors are habit forming. The entirity of human culture throughout history has gotten in the habit of evil-to the point we can't consistently do otherwise.

(Omni)benevolence;

God is good, not because evil is beyond his power but because it is outside his character. You seem to understand this, but you still confuse the issue.

As you said, the issue is not benevolence. Simple benevolence involves acting a certain way most of the time, He is omni-benovelent, which means he acts benovenently 100% of the time.

This does not mean that he cannot be omnipotent. By definition, omnipotence would allow a being to prefrom mutually contradictory actions. The next letter I type can be one of 26 english characters or a number of others. but it does not follow that because I can type any of these characters that I will. Indeed, once I have typed one character, I can no longer type another in that same instance. God is like that.

Perfection:

Perfection is not a measure of what God can do, it is a measure of what he does do. If God were to perform an imperfect action, he would cease top be perfect. But since god is Omnipotent, he has the ability to perform all acts perfectly (as opposed to humans, who can only reach different levels of imperfection).and thus he has no reason to do otherwise.

As far as desires- I would say that your argument is hardly relevent. Don't we all desire to perform actions perfectly?

Unnesscessary harm:

You do have an excellent point. However:

Humans, as a rule, die.
Once dead, a human attains what they desire in life-either communion with god or seperation from him.
So, humans who die sooner get what they want sooner.
Are humans who die sooner better or worse off than those who die later?

Harming Ones Self:

In the instance you cited, you would in fact be worse off than someone who had consistently sought God all their life. They would not have had the benefits throughout thier life. However, they would still be vastly better off than someone who never believed.

Evidence:

There is enough evidence to make belief in God reasonable. That's all that's needed.

Free will (revisited):

Actually, while there are numerous examples of God choosing someone, and them refusing to do his will. Even the first generation hebrews, who had seen god's power directly, were awfully rebellious.

Religion and sceince:

Your views on this subject approach mine. I believe that religion and science are both searches for truth. Science has taken it's rightful place in dealing with everyday things. But it cannot learn the truth about the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe. For this we must turn elsewhere.

On orginization and control, you're almost 100% correct.

Religion and Brain activities:

I can simply note that the grat majority of those people who are great examples of faith seem to have had very little in the way of religious experiences. Indeed, most of them seem to be exactly the opposite.