Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

It's finally time for me to put paid to the concept of the bible, Christianity or religion as a source of good. For too long now, our religious friends here on the forums have failed to bring up scriptures to support their bizarre idea that their beliefs are based on anything worthwhile. So, i'm going to do it myself. I'll begin by providing a link to a good article on bible atrocity. Read this carefully, and honestly, before you enter a debate.

By honestly, I mean ask yourself, "Should I really be defending this book, or this God? Have I truly thought about the implications of what I am reading?". And so on and so forth. Here is the link:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/atrocities.html (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/atrocities.html)

I have come to the firm conclusion that most Christians have not read the bible in any detail. It's contents come as a shock to those who read it, as they did to me when I did. No humane person could ever come to a different position.

If you insist on entering the debate to defend your religion:

1) Do not tell me "but I know Jesus loved me, and he died for me, and I'm sorry you don't see that" or anything remotely similar, unless you want to appear to have a simplistic mind.

2) Quote scriptures to back up your arguments, and if you somehow convince me that the bible is not a book of blood, you must then prove that it is historically accurate and divinely inspired.

3) You must finally refer to natural, cosmological, biological, political, geological etc arguments to show how your idea of a benevolent God fits in with reality.

To do all the above is a tall order, and no-one has yet ever succeeded to do this in previous threads. If nobody responds with counter arguments, I will start to quote scriptures that you may never have seen before to prove to the world just how awful your fictional God is. I certainly hope he's not up there.

Alas, it is too bad that I agree with the above statements... otherwise I would gladly debate (Darn it Doc! Why can't anybody else create a debate thread with something I disagree with  :crybaby:)

This is a good point Dom  B)

Don't worry, somehow I suspect this will be the last major thread like this I produce. I'll just refer people back to the correct thread (and by correct I mean in more ways than one).
Posted on: November 12, 2007, 12:01:16 am

---

Hmmm, thread read 20 times.  :shifty:

All atheists or agnostics maybe? All guests? I'll wait a while, and then I'll start exposing the world's most widely distributed book for what it really is. Actually, it usually just collects dust on bookshelves, which is a good thing considering its content.

Actually, I am of the opinion that it is very good to read all these religious texts. I think that it gives us humans a very good mirror in which to see our true nature (but of course we could do that just by looking at the world surrounding us just as easily). Right when I am starting to become optimistic, I can open the "good" book and humble myself... or at least embarass myself for wearing the tag "homo sapiens sapiens".

It is interesting that there are so many people taking a gander at the page... maybe nobody wants to spend the effort or take the time?

I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of a peaceful atheist movement, but isn't this the 4th thread revolving around the "preaching" of atheism?

Bingo, it's probably been more than 4, and I make no apology for that. I take a different view of atheism/agnosticism, and with the fundamentalists and literalists putting so much effort into evangelising, I've got a lot of work to do.

I dislike division more than anyone else, but remember, this division was not put there by the atheists, it was put there by the religious folk. Religion was most likely a means of controlling people (and if you read history carefully, a means of conquest). Take away religion, and we all become equals, human beings. I'll do this until the last religious person on the planet sees sense. This thread is designed to drive home the message that the so-called good book is nothing of the sort, and even dangerous.

Fullphaser, your sentiment is one shared by the religious guys, one of "I'm fed up with this, can't we talk about something else?". That's either mental laziness, or some sort of burying your head in the sand. Just like in bible times, there are many people out there willing to kill in God's name. Have a read of the bible and you'll see why.

So, please, no more "What the heck is this, I'm sick of this" comments. Grow some spine and dive right in with your sleeves rolled up. The more you do it, the easier it becomes. Thinking makes you clever. You should try it some time.

The idea that people kill in god's name is quite simply an unrealisitic simplification of complex Geo-political dynamics.
The fact is any movement whether a freedom struggle like that of the US or India, or France's revolution have always necessitated unity. Unity of cause, unity for a greater "good" or greater welfare.

To achieve this unity certain public figures have quoted an ideology to which the masses identify.

In Germany it was Nationalism - calling on a nation's identity as a race or people. In Communist Russia and China the idea is again social good and nationalism. Sufficient to say that these 2 examples were atheists. Attila the hun was also an avid atheist.

The fact is, particular causes, Zionism included, have always necessitated a common unifying ideal to rally people. Religion is the most ubiquitous, and most simplistic to twist due to the inaccuracy of translation from Aramiac to Latin to English or Arabic to English etc.
But if once were to look at terrorism for example, it is from within the community that the idea is argued against, and debated. Why? Because of interpretation. Ironically, in the west and the east, the only way to dissuade one from violence in the name of religion, is through religion itself.
A wholisitc view of a religion, devoid of one's innate high-school urge to rebel, is the only platform from which the so-called "violence in the name of religion" can be repelled.

Historically, if we look at ancient Greece, Rome, Asia, Africa; and if we look at modern History including Colinialism, Racism, Nazism, and Imperialism, it is  atheism or the at the root of it - loyalty to the self as opposed to loyalty to morality that is responsible for blood shed. After all, is there truly colonialism in Christ? Or terrorism in Islam? or Zionism in Judaism? Gandhi may have spoken of peace - but the Hindu Bhagavadgita is a war epic replete with polygamy, polyandry, and bloodshed.

The fact is religion is used for geo-political reasons. The best example are the Crusades. Terrorism itself is geo-political, not religious in origin. Ironically, the first act of terrorism in the middle east was perpetrated by what is today the Likud party in the bombing of the King David Hotel. Is the IRA a terrorist group because they're christian. Are the LTTE terrorists because they are hindus. 

If there is any argument against terrorism or crusades or wars themselves, then it is in the religious texts themselves. After all, as an atheist, what would constrain you from using the same justification that is used by the madmen of today, if you were to find yourself in their situation.

But it is from religion itself that one can see acts of unbridled violence as abominable. On what premisse can an atheist say that? If an atheist speaks of the sanctity of human life, he is not speaking as an atheist, he is regurgitating the influence of religion in his upbringing. If not, then explain why as an atheist "violence is wrong"? Will you draw on the concept of "social contract"?
If one speaks of rule of law, one counter-argues what if one could evade it? If there is nothing to expect after death, why then curb one;s desires for the sake of Mr. A or Ms. C. Agreed some people may act magnanimous, and say that they will, but again, if a child were to ask an atheist why he or she should restrain hmself or herself from "release of desires" - regardless what it may be - why should they or what would prevent them from doing so; as an atheist.

If we were to try to generalise by quoting MrX. and Mrs Y, and then drawing half-cocked interpretations without understanding the true content of the texts, one would certainly not arrive at a just understanding- because one wants not to.

After all, if we speak of atheism, let's not fordet that Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Attila, Ghenghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Pol Pot, etc were all Atheists and Occultists. Can we then say that we see therefrom that all atheists will - given a loose string - emulate genocidal madmen. One would say - hey an atheist indulges his urges when he wants to, what would stop him from not indulging the most primal urge - to kill. We've seen it in the past.

If you found the last statement ludicrous, think how ludicrous people sound then then try to brand religions or communities simply based on a geo-political reactions.

Simplistically, atheism is merely a reflex of a disillusioned society. It offers the opportunity to indulge, and set down the bag of morality. It quotes the misdeeds of people to condemn a belief system, even the misdeeds are misdeeds by the standards of the beleif system itself.
I am not a right winger, but find atheists to be ridiculous when they try to grand-stand over religion.
Atheism is an ideology, a belief in the negative. It is just as blind as religion, and includes the same "short-comings" plus the leeway for more damage to society - look at the prison system - how many commit crimes because they believe and how many commit them because they just didn;t care?
Plus, as a last straw if an atheist quotes science, one would accept if science were all-seeing and knowing. But when science gets foxed at the discoveries of new planets that can float on oceans, the dicovery of black holes otherwise thought impossible; it is simple hubris that one would think that science as it now stands could disprove the existence of the divine. First let's decide on Pluto's status lol

Posted on: November 12, 2007, 05:29:05 pm

---

Lastly, before I forget.

Quoting excerpts of a text in itself is a betrayal of the fact that the quoter is lacking in understanding.

It is easy to quote out of context.

Simple. "If my aunty has balls she would be my uncle".
If you quote and tell me that I am confessing that I am confused whether my aunty is my uncle, you betray that you yourself are unable or unwilling to understand what I am saying.

Such quotations are nice for propangada. Hitler - another Atheist used it well to justify genocide, citing from the old testament for pre-emptive genocide against the Jews.
Stalin did same.

But to quote after undertanding a text, after clarifying what it means, then one can stand by such quotations. Otherwise, one is simply quoting like Bin Laden, or the slave drivers of Europe - half-cocked and dim-witted; extracting just to pull at straws that fall apart as soon as the entire text and context is properly understood.

Can we get a Lock on this thread? I'm not a big fan of someone bashing beliefs no matter what the subject matter. It's annoying to see people yelling over their opinions. I have read the Bible and I've studied it (theology major here*) There's a lot of things is it that don't make sense to us. Simply because it was written for the time it was in. If you went back there and said "What's up?" No one would know you mean "Hi" it's all taken form the times. It was meant to be understood within the time frame it was made. Don't judge unless you truly understand. This is all I have to say. My beliefs are my own if you have an issue with it that's your problem not mine. Good day and I hope they lock this meaningless thread.

Don't worry TanEdos, deep breaths, count to ten, cup of tea and you'll be fine.

As a matter of fact I'm a big fan of bashing people's beliefs when they involve absurdity and nonesense.

I mean, TanEdos I don't give a damn that you are a theology graduate or whatever you are. The bible is plain to understand, there's nothing complex there. If you want complexity go read a quantum physics book. When God commands in the bible to murder without showing compassion, what's not to understand? You really need to wake up.

Two more things:

1) Trying to get threads locked smacks of information control, just like Putin's russia or communist China.

2) This stuff about "not bashing beliefs" is politically correct garbage, and makes me howl with laughter. Those people have no right to believe anything that's harmful. Even freedom of speech is not absolute if it is hateful. Rights are even less absolute.

There's nothing meaningless about this thread. The meaningless nonesense is going on inside your head friend.

And one more thing. The next person to declare that "This is my belief, and if you don't like it that's your problem" will get figurative hot porridge poured over them.

Don't you think it's deeply sad (and very, very worrying) that a THEOLOGIAN cannot see the plain malevolence in the bible?


Posted on: November 12, 2007, 05:56:06 pm

---

And about the quoting out of context thing, that's a pile of manure that argument. When God commands rape and murder, in what context does that become acceptable (and TanEdos, what's not to understand)?

I'm sick of the argument from context, the muslims do the same thing, context this context that. Context can, on occasion, be important, but usually it is not.

Serpicus, you're doing it again, trying to over complicate matters so that you feel better about apologising for religion. Try giving your speech to 9-11 victims' families whose loved ones died because of someone quoting one of these delightful holy books.

Finally, short of the mods closing the thread, I will not ever be forced to stop speaking out. Those of you that have tried (and FAILED) are naive, and simple minded.
Posted on: November 12, 2007, 06:03:22 pm

---

I've just noticed that the closer I get to the heart of the issue, the more jumpy you religious people get. You're all getting very, very nervous because what I'm saying about the bible makes sense (shock!!).

So in other words, by trying to get the thread locked, or rambling on about history, you're attempting a cover up job. Very clever. Just nowhere near clever enough  :thumbsup:

Mental Laziness? I think not, I've just been here done that, I just find this sort of talk useless, you are literally competing with an ingrained idea. I find it insulting to call me mentally lazy.

well it's not a big issue to be a major in the Bible or to criticize it.
the fact is the Bible is not the word of Christ - even theologians say that.
It is made up of the Gospel of Paul, Luke, and a set of so-called Johannine texts to which there is no confirmed authorship.
Fact is Paul never met christ. So when we see that the Bible quotes Christ as saying x and y, it is more heresay as opposed to apostolic witness.
Secondly, translation from Aramaic to koine greek to Latin and then to English has left most of the content missing in translation.
Thirdly, the brand of christianity as adopted by the Roman catholic church and the later morph of Protestantism, is simply a result of Gnostic apologeticism building Greek philosophy as propounded by plato and his triad with a strong perseus/bellarophon son of god base onto initial monotheistic precepts.

But the shortcomings og modern Christianity aside, one would need to ask what the criticism against the death penalty is. Many would argue, especially the atheists in favour of Euthanesia that death is at times more merciful than a life of pain and suffering. When compared to life in prison for certain crimes, where prisoners become Bubba's ass bitch, or get exposed to more degrading lifestyles including violence, in prison-murder, one would ask if the death penalty in fact would be a more merciful penalty especially when dealing with cases when the penalt needs to match the crime.

And if in Leviticus, the death penalty is prescribed for murder, adultery, sodomy, or rape, one would ask the "atheist" who finds fault there, to actually substantiate "why"?
Ranting about it as an assumed flaw does not tackle the problem.

The penalty needs to fit the crime. One would ask why one would feel that the "crime" of rape would not befit the death penalty. If one hides behind the cliched addage "2 wrongs do not make a right", one asks what exactly qualifies as a "wrong". After all, is it not "wrong" to deprive a man of his dignity by locking him away like an animal. From that perspective prison itself is a violation of basic human rights.

The reduction of such semantic details to a ridiculous rant of "atheism" vs "religion" "who has the high ground" is pitifully shallow. so much for criticising "god" on grounds of brutality lol.



Posted on: November 12, 2007, 09:29:55 pm

---

and of course, there is no question of apologizing for religion..lol

But I said exactly what you now demonstrate. You do not actually criticise religion because you understand anything in it. your criticism is all for the sake of defending your own atheism.
Ironic as it is, atheism accuses religion of being apologetic, but in actuality atheism is in fact the apology of a person who wants to indulge.

After all, every criticism leivied by atheism on religion, is enabled, promulgated and in fact solicited by the very premisse of atheism - the loyalty to oneself.

After all, the 911 you mentioned was just that. An act carried out by people who had a "self-motivated" idea of geo-political motivation, which needed to be apologized for. And like an atheist, they insisted - out of context - on their point of view without understanding the main core of their beliefs, and the contradictions of their actions. Funny how people criticise the very thing they resemble.
Posted on: November 12, 2007, 09:35:33 pm

---

and lastly, directly  to your statement about complicating things - you will find that a simplistic view of things dehumanises the realities of life. The world is a complex place.
It is unfortunate that the civilized world, in spite of its technology, is reductionist to the level of stupidity.
Channels like Fox and sky news cater to this reductionist mentality, and look for the simple answer that is always nestled between misconception and lack of information.

modern events and past events are more complex than one would like to think.

One therefore does need to have a larger, more wholistic approach. If you feel that such an approach is too complex, and you would instead prefer the "simplistic" and "inaccurate" view - no wonder you;re an atheist.

If one were to understand or at least try to understand the complexities of the world we live in, atheism would appear as nothing more than a child's tantrum, "small words from a small being trying to attack what it does not understand  :borg:".

After all, what is evolution? What causes it? Why do some species living in the same environment having come from the same primordial soup develop differently? Why is genetic inheritance at an evolutionary level selective such that some creatures retain certain traits while others discard them?

The point is, when science itself falls short of the answers, and as an atheist one needs a cock-sure demonstration, why accept one vagary over the other. Perhaps it is this uncertainty in one's own beleifs that makes one eager to attack the "other side". We see it in evangelicals. we see it in fanatical terrorists. We see it in paranoid Zionists. So it comes as no surprise when we see it in self-conscious, uncertain atheists. A normal animal reaction - attack when under pressure (self imposed or otherwise lol)

The mentally lazy guy didn't write much so that settles that one.

Serpicus, you've misunderstood where I'm coming from, and I agree on many, many of your points, perhaps most.

Key point: I'm not a strict atheist, or even a moderate one, in any sense of the word. I believe in the strong possibilty of a higher being or beings up there. However, I still think the atheist position is the stronger one, not because of its content (KEY POINT HERE), but because of the intellectual method used to reach that position. I've been over this before, but allow me to explain.

The religious guys have formed a conclusion (God exists, bible is inspired), and they then search for supporting evidence. This leads to belief in what you want to believe.

On the other hand, the atheists/agnostics in gereral, and scientists in particular, do things from the opposite direction. I've been trying to get this point across in every, single thread i've made, yet you all cover your ears. To reiterate, I campaign against methodology, not belief in itself. and if you can't see where I'm coming from we'll keep going around in circles. Your claims that my "rant" is ridiculous is unfounded. I'm capable of a rant but I'm not capable of the ridiculous. Choos your words more carefully.

About science, I most certainly do not hold it up as the be-all and end-all, far from it. But it is the best form of reasoning and learning we have, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.


1) I understand religion, I was a Christian for twenty years, I lived it and breathed it, don't make presumptions.

2) I repeat, I'm not truly an atheist, so don't use terms such as "my atheism", thankyou.

Serpicus, you and I should not be enemies, we are allies and you don't even realise it. You've just responded emotionally, as illustrated by your childish "lol" entries. Let's become friends beofre we confuse further the already confused thread readers.

a.) Strike 2, never assume a lack of words for a lack of thought or intellect, sometimes the most complex of messages can be delivered in the simplest of methods.

b.) Atheism is not neccesarly science, rather Atheism - the classification given by religious people to the non religious in an attempt to explain their lack of belief in the supernatural beings they choose to worship. This by no means implies that an atheist is predestined to follow science more than anything else. For this reason an atheist is no more likely to follow the big bang theory or evolution, it is nothing more than a label...

c.) Was catholic for all of maybe 6 years, before I outwitted the religion teacher and figured out that it was all one huge joke, don't lump me with religous folks.

Generally speaking, I agree with you, but I've noticed that in the online world, you have to write more to make sure you are properly understood. That's why I often produce big posts. You're hardly going to demonstrate thought or intellect with a passing word. Einstein said that things should be as simple as possible, but not too simple.


Once again I agree, and as a postgrad science student I prefer the classification "scientist" to anything else, and as I pointed out before, I prefer not to be called an atheist. I promote reason above all things, and I go wherever it leads. If that leads to God, so be it. It hasn't so far, and if it ever does, that  being will most likely be far more powerful, and far less human-like, than the weak, vengeful God of the bible.

I really wish people would try to understand where I'm coming from before they attack. Maybe it's because people have limited time, but it seems that nobody reads posts anymore. I'm not really an atheist, and I despise labels, as I'm sure you do Fullphaser. The amazing thing is, I have more in common with you guys (Fullphaser and Serpicus) than I do with the heavy religious guys, yet you have been the most hostile. How nice.

Hostility tends to occur when your post are determined not only to insult my intelligence, but degrade a religion as a whole. Regardless of any hypocrisy that happens to have weeded itself into a religion, it is not my place to attempt to tear apart their faith, nor is it yours. The fact is that we don't win this war by preforming the same door to door salesmanship, we win this war by going allowing logic to take its course, you can't shake someones religious foundations, they must do that themselves.

Once again I agree to a large extent, and in fact I unravelled religion the same way, and the same way as you it seems, by letting logic take its course. It's usually futile to attempt evangelist atheism or anosticism, and in my old religion they would have become so fearful and defensive that i woudn't have got a word in edgeways.

But it's not always futile. If there's even a chance I can help a person to think clearly, then that's a good enough reason to go for an all-out Dawkins style rant. We are not born with critical thinking skills (probably why religion takes such a grip so early on in life), but it can be learned, and so it can also be taught. This is my goal, not to give a man a fish, but to teach them how to fish. This is not a worthless goal.

Exposing the violence in the bible is a mere precursor, a way of warming up the neurons, and preparing the mind for the fact that there might be (in other words is) another truth out there.

I agree completely with you Lazarus, but what I find interesting is that you pose atheism as a logical postulation. But you will find that logic must be based on fact.

But our facts are based on empiricity. Ironically, Darwin's... rather Anaximander's theory of evolution too relies on empiricity. However, when asked to explain the reason of "Transmutation of species", science comes to a halt and relies deus ex machina on "chance". What is chance?

You will surely concur that that which is empirical is so only because we can sense it, see it and then prove it. What is so duplicitous in this "atheist" logic, is that the very accusers of Galileo said the very same thing to "prove" that the Earth was flat.

They could not "see" any evidence that the world was round, it was illogical to say otherwise - and there were many so-called "sciences" that were quoted to discredit Galileo.

Today, when an atheist quotes yet again, something that is "more logical", one asks "more logical" to whom? And based on what?

What is our logic based on? For our logic and mathematics the universe was unlimited. Now science calculates that it is more like a soccer ball.
Dark matter was unknown till a few years ago.
We still can't reconcile quantum dynamics and relativity.

So what is more logical? To directly discard Theism without even knowing what lies outside our Galaxy, not seeing what exists in the remaining 7 dimensions of physics as calculated by Einstein?

If we look at all religions that have a tracable history - unfortunately, the Natives of the americas, and the South-Pacific islands do not have much of their heritage left (many thanks to the Europeans) - but Hinduism, Sumerianism, the Egyptian pantheon, Zoroastrianism etc we see that although the civilizations developed a strong polytheistic myth base, at their heart is alway the monotheistic One - El, Brahma, Anu, Ra, Ahuramazda etc. Why? Coincidence or is there something deeper? What is more logical here? You don't know, and nor do I.

But why does JHWH say in the old testament - I am El. Is it simple poetry or is it truly an indication of the immutable essence that exists in all religions.
Why is there a flood mentioned in all religions - Hinduism, Sumerianism (Gilgamesh), the athrasis epic, Incan, Mayan, even China has myths of floods. Maybe all people settled around rivers, and naturally all rivers overflow at some point. But why are all these flood myths also always associated with creation myths.
Maybe it simply a percolation and regurgitation of a common source of information. But what is that common source? Is that Noah?
Modern science has proven (the recent Gene distribution theory) that humans have all originated from Africa. In evolution there is always that one creature that takes the first step; is that our Adam?

Science and Religion always seem to meet at some obscure corner of logical evaluation. Are we absolutely sure of our facts - at least in this debate - to go one way or the other?

Point is, "more logical", "fact" and the rest of the blah blah is nothing more than fodder for argument. An argument designed by many just to stand out, and try to show that they are different.
In reality neither side can actually even call oneself more or less logical, since logic is demonstrated by a line of thought that itself is necessarily derived from fact.
Unfortunately, there is not much fact to go on. Archaeology comes upon relics that are left from the waning cycles of civilizations, leaving no trace of the original religion or culture of that civilization, just the innovated end result - much like what modern Christianity is to the original words of Christ. King Tut was considered murdered for 80 years, until only recently being proven otherwise.
Science is grappling with reconciling known physics, with new discoveries of planets that revolve in 12 hours, and new intensities of super novae.

What fact do we really truly cock-sure have? From where then, do we get our logic to be "more logical"?
See it to believe it? Then those who have not visited Tokyo should immediately call it myth. Maybe for you it does not exist since it does not matter in your day to day life.
Perhaps. But that does not mute its existence. And things are only irrelevant in spite of existing, so long  as you do not experience them. Once you do, irrelevance quickly turns to absolute necessity. Logical is to be prudent as opposed to arrogant. Logical is to be understanding as opposed to opinionated.

After all logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end. ;)

I apologize ahead of time... as I only have a few minutes to address issues.
Serpicus, you state "However, when asked to explain the reason of "Transmutation of species", science comes to a halt and relies deus ex machina on "chance". What is chance?"
I must disagree fundamentally with this statement. Speciation has nothing to do with "chance" as "luck" per se (this is what it seems you imply). If "chance" did not exist, your computer light would cease to function, you would cease to exist (think entropy, and how electrons are lost and gained and why they are destabilized). That said (I can clarify at another occasion; too busy at the moment), it is possible for DNA polymerase or ligase or any of the other proteins involved in replication to misplace an amino acid or excise one, or improperly "glue" it in. This is hardly Deus ex Machina. This is essentially the origin of mutations: not so much chance, but inevitability as a consequence of laws which hold for every aspect of our life. We can witness mutations and can accelerate or slow down how often mutations occur by altering environmental factors ad nauseum. This again is not Deus ex Machina, as we can experiment and witness these effects. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning at its best. However, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, could you define what you mean by "Transmutation of species"?
By the way "the Earth is flat" argument is mute, based on the actuality that the Chinese and Egyptians determined the Earth's roundness many centuries before based on actual empirical measurements.

I stated this in a previous thread... but the difference between science and religion is that religion is immutable. The ideas can be "reinterpreted" to a certain degree, by the doctrine is laid down. It gives birth to no new ideas unless a "new" religion is invented. Science however is always evolving: new data equals new possibilities. Hypothesis's are revised as are theories, but certain aspects are now considered laws because they are so solid as to be considered truth. This is not to say that these theories cannot be proven wrong (scientists do try to disprove or expand upon these ideas), but they are fundamental.

Perhaps look at religion as an extension of the human self to figure out why we always create relgions with a "One", an "I" in effect. We humans are very self-centered. Our religions reflect this. The selfish deity, the spiteful god, the benevolent god (who dispenses justice readily nonetheless). Religions are our reflected nature and what we wish to be. IMHO of course  :lol:

I'd like to point out first that I've not really put forward atheism as a logical postulation. Unlike the religious guys, I have not reached any solid conclusions, mainly because our knowledge of reality is incomplete. The logical, critical method leads to many possibilities, such as a malevolent God, an non-omnipotent God, multiple Gods, non-personal God etc. (The last seems most likely, as per Spinoza's God). Let's not become guilty of the same dogmatism that both religion and militant atheism are responsible for.

I agree with Dom that speciation does not rely on chance. All trained biologists know that natural selection is a non-random process, and this non-randomness is imposed by the environment as a selection pressure. There are many books which describe probability that you might find interesting.

I wonder if you are somehow trying to disprove evolution. It's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. It's even been demonstrated using the most powerful computers that evolution occurs if you put the correct parameters into the system. Yes, this could represent a controlling force, and this raises an interesting possibility. However, only the most stubborn literalist Christians believe in Genesis-based creation. By trying to promote their weak arguments, you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you attempt anything else such as entropy arguments, I'll rebuke them. Alternatively, have a look at one of the other threads I've posted on in the past.

Each time you post Serpicus, you make the case for Christianity being not based on Jesus Christ, which is of course true, but this hardly vindicates Christianity. Some psychologists believe that Jesus fits the description of a narccicist perfectly. It's not difficult to see why. Once again, an honest read of the bible can only lead to the same conclusion. What is more, the few "wise" things he said were hardly ingenious, by anyone's standards, and they had been said before by other "wise men". He also encouraged division from the world, and most insidiously, from the family.

Be careful about trying to defend something that's not worth defending. If you think about it (and people rarely think here), the religious guys are giving credit to a "God" who doesn't deserve it, and doesn't seem to care. This is not to say there is no "God" however.

When you look at the universe, it is horribly inhospitable to life, and mainly consists of icy cold vacuum and burning hot entities, not to mention blackholes. What if, when God Junior was doing his high school project, life was a mere side affect on this tiny planet in an insignificant corner of this galaxy? Might that awsomely powerful being not even be aware of our existence? This would explain a lot, whilst showing that "God" is not omnipotent, although considerably more powerful than the weak biblical God. If one person opens their mind to these possibilties, I will have suceeded in my aims.

ok.

1. Since you have not put forward atheism as a logical postulation then it is no different from the illogic of religion. In effect you know accept the same thing that I've been saying, atheism is a belief in the negative; but a belief nonetheless. To preconise it and downplay any other religion is no different from the right wingers who castigate anything they do not believe in. apparently here, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

2. Again, as you said it yourself, "books that describe probability". Probability, if you sit through any math class - and being a science major, I think you've sat through plenty - is another word for chance. It deals with the permutations and combinations possible in a given set of factors. There is no conclusive explanation as to why a dealer of a pack of cards would pick an Ace of spades as opposed to a king of hearts. In short, again, you accept exactly the same thing I said - science calls the inexplicable cause of "natural selection" - "probability" or "chance". If once assigns an unperceivable intellect to it, it becomes God.
Same difference: potayto, potaato.

3. It's been proven by computers that evolution occurs if you input the correct parameters. Ok. In nature where does the input of parameters come from? Chance?
The unfortunate fact is, the more you try to attack Genesis - not as 6 days and in God's image - that's crap; but as there being a Divine creator or intellect behind "selection"- a manipulator of nature of sorts, you end up at the same logical dead end with science, as yuo would with religion. The reason is simply that science is as factually blank and perforated as religion. It's not science's fault, it's just the limitation of human perception that limits empiricity. As I said, inputting calculations of the recent supernovae of a few weeks ago, or the gas giant a few months ago, as per the scientific community itself, baffled their logic and the programmed calculations of their computers. So quoting 21st century infantile science in order to prove or disprove something that science itself cannot reach or confidently postulate is quite frankly Hubris. Again, we see such hubris only from Right-wingers.

4. Your last point is very interesting. You now have a quasi acquiescence to there being a God, but deem him not worth worshipping. An interest shift from your initial post.
Nonetheless, it appears then that here you concede what I was saying all along - you cannot prove "God" nor disprove him, but raise an argument to catharcise whatever feelings you seem to have against him. As I said earlier, using this debate simply to self-apologize for one's internal conflict.
However, if you do acknowledge there is a God Junior or god senior or whatever you accept as being "out there", given that you beleive that he is brutal, you sort of prove the case for "not pissing hiom off" - by your logic now, I would then need to be more devout for fear of his wrath. Narcissistic or not, if as per your own statement, this God is brutal and vengeful, you would want to watch your ass all the more - lol.
Gests aside, you do go one step further to agree with me, that the Bible is not the word of Christ - in that case why accuse God, or his messiah, or the previous Prophets, and the final Prophet of anything that is based on the Book, that you and I know is "not the word of Christ, and hence not a viable revelation of the word of God". It seems here you seem to hit an impasse or Catch 22.

Interesting....

Lack of belief is not a belief. I don't believe in Pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters either, but there's no use aruing against those, because no-one seriously believes in them. That would be ludicrous. The fact that I do not have a complete picture of reality does not indicate that my method is "illogical" as you put it, in fact it's a sure sign that my method is sound.


That's a fine decription of what probability is, but that changes nothing. Scientists can easily recognise whether a pattern in nature could have occured merely by chance. If this did not occur (as in evolution), we should not immediately conclude that "God did it". A process does not need a guiding hand to be non-random, although it may require an initiator. We can't just slap the God label onto everything we do not understand, this is fallacious.


Science is not (believe it or not) principally about the facts and figures, but about how we obtain them. I'm tired of repeating this. My greatest support is for the scientific method. I do not possess the "Hubris" you think I do. I'm quite aware that science is in an infantile state, and that it wil no doubt throw up wonders we can barely imagine, but its method has never failed. When simulations are incorrect, it is not the scientific method that is in error, it is the assumptions of the programmers. Science is better described as incomplete than "factually blank and perforated". Are you an anti-intellectual? I thought not but I'm now starting to wonder.


There has been no shift from my original post. The purpose of this thread is to discredit the bible. I said nothing about the possibilty of a creator actually existing. I'm not worried about "pissing him off" in your delightful language, because I'm thoroughly convinced that the brutal God of the bible doesn't exist at all. Any God up there is doubtless very different. Don't try to pull the Pascal's wager thing on me Serpicus, I won't be threatened in to believing in your biblical God, and frankly if he did exist (which he doesn't), I'd rather he struck me down dead than worship him.

I "accuse" God, his prophets, his messiah etc of many things, such as absence, allowing suffering, etc, my criticism of the bible is merely one aspect. My point is,  no matter which may you look at it, it is found wanting, whether you look at Christ, or those who claimed to follow him. I'm in no catch 22. There's nothing to trip me up so that I'm forced to admit that either Christ is worthy, Paul is worthy, God is worthy, Christians are worthy or any combination of the above. You're clutching at straws now.
Posted on: November 13, 2007, 04:35:47 pm

---

It's interesting how you guys have tried to distract me from starting my bible quotes. It never ceases to amaze me how nobody, ever, tackes the issues I raise. There's a common pattern:

1) I create a thread, raise an issue
2) Someone moans about the fact that thy're tired of "belief bashing", playing the victim
3) A hot debate ensues with all sorts of twists and turns
4) The original issue never gets raised.

I have my doubts whether anyone even read the link I posted. They're so sure in their "conclusion" that they don't even bother. Now that's "Hubris".

Given a window of opportunity I will start to quote scriptures. And then I'll show how it's far from difficult to understand (although our theologian seems to find it difficult), and also that "context" is irrelevant. Notice also how when I raised these points, I was ignored. That's because I'm correct. So, enough of your attempts at distraction and cover up.

1. Not having a belief is something different. As an atheist you "beleive" that there is no God. That is a belief lol. As i said - a belief in the negative. God, as you stated in your previous post is not a pink unicorn, because you yourself equated it to a plausibility - not sure if you believe that pink unicorns are a possibility. If you don;t then, the analogy is incorrect, and frankly misleading to the general reader.

2. It may be fallacious to "slap" the God label on something we do not understand. But in the true spirit of practicality, and "science", it would be equally fallacious to slap the label of "random phenomenon" on something we do not understand, before being able to decisively able to explain otherwise. Science by its own nature has this achilles heel as it were. In religion you said it yourself as part of your critique, the unexplained is all too conveniently labelled "God's miracle". But, science cannot by what it inherently evokes, simply slap on "chance and probability" or more tactfully "randomisation" as a deus ex machina rationalization in areas where science's own infancy leaves it logically wanting of a final answer.
If a "scientist" resorts to "randomization" and "probable causes" as explanation, without explanation, it becomes just as ambiguous as religion. Probability is simply, as we have seen through our entire discussion, the scientist's deglorification of "God concept". May be a disillusioning label, but in context and application, inherently the same.

3. It appears that the computer argument is falling apart. You assumed in the initial statement that computers are for simulations. I did not introduce user error. But, what I was referring to was the recent discovery of the galactic colission that left scientists baffled. The big bang theory itself is not yet explained by conventional science. Stephen Hawkings himself discounts the most popular "soda-bottle" effect. What I was saying was simply that given the lack of evidence, or explanation inherent in modern science, using it to prove Atheism is incorrect.
I am not a detractor of science, nor a detractor of rational thought. I am a detractor who talk of rationality, and science to justify or advocate an ideology that is just as improvable by the invocation of science or rationalism, as religion is by the same thread of logic.
As I said at the outset, in spite of all the hooplah around the wonders of modern science, it is still no way near explaining the true nature of our universe. and as it steps closer to seeing the true nature of the universe, it morphs to include more gray areas - logical and empirical - that neither human logic, nor empiricity can conclusively prove or disprove.
In this void, lies the reconciliation between science and religion. The missing link as it were, that answers science's miracle of "chance and randomized probability" and religion's "miracles". Until this "neutral zone" has been mapped and explored, trying to espouse your "belief in Divine non-existence" becomes reminiscent of the very arrogance demonstrated by evangelical right wingers. Hence, my reference to Hubris. Unfortunate that I actually had to spell out why I used the word to refer to you. I was not directly calling you arrogant.
But, you did demonstrate here how easily the written word can be misconstrued. Maybe it is this misunderstanding of the written word that pushes you to want to "quote the bible". Go ahead, I am not a Christian. But please, I would hope you understand the underlying meaning of the translated (rather mistranslated) verses better than you understood why I used the word "hubris".

4. Well glad to see that now, you openly accept that there is a God. Not necessarily the Biblical Trinity - ok. But I got you that far ;). so the thread changes to exclusive Bible bashing. Have fun.

Don't forget to include documentary hypothesis when dealing with the old Testament.

I am not an atheist. Comprehend? Good.

In fact, Pink unicorns are a distinct possibilty. Just highly improbable. Either way, i'm, not concerned until the idea of a higher being is testable, until then it's not science.


I do not slap random phenomenon on what I do not understand, and either way, evolution is not a random phenomenon. Chance is not even relevant in this case, it's never been about throwing dice and you know it. Just what are you trying to prove? Where do you stand?



My arguments do not fall apart, son, they are iron-like and strong. You could mention any baffling simulation in the world, and you would not disprove the scientific method. You are not capable of doing that. I do not use science to justify any "ideology", I merely promote its method. Must I keep repeating this? Is this so hard to understand?

Your weak arguments about mistranslation are making me laugh, and I've heard that a thousand times before. Under what translation does mass murder become acceptable, etc etc. If you're not a Christian, why do you defend their holy book so vehemently? If it cannot be literaly interpreted, then what is it's value? Are you a poet or something, defending an ancient poetry book? Why are you so afraid of me "bashing" it? Why are you guys so weak and politically correct that you keep bringing up the "bashing" argument?


I did nothing of the sort, don't put words in my mouth friend. You got me nowhere, you don't have that power over me, nobody does  :lol:. The thread has not "changed" exclusively to bible bashing, that's what it always was, comprehend? You either don't read posts, or you really are quite dim.

One more thing. Stop this "I hope you have fun" crap. What are you, a child? I'm sick of people saying that. This is not about fun, it's about truth. If you think I find this fun, you're sadly mistaken. I won't hold back just because you have a bizarre fixation with a holy book that you do not even believe in.

My original post still stands. This becomes boring and repetitive. Circles are run within this debate. Believe what you will is all I can say. And I'll do the same. I'm not angry, I never get upset I just don't feel there needs to be a harsh judgment on other's beliefs. We're all people with free will and all sorts of different minds. It's really pointless to argue the point. It's all I have to say. Don't knock it till you try it.

Don't knock it till you've tried it, hmmm, I did try it, for an exceedingly long time, it sucks and it's utterly fake. Some people's actions even demonstrate that it's harmful. We shouldn't just let everyone believe what they want to believe when that leads them to believe harmful things.

You're right, sometimes it goes round in circles, this time because the other guy thinks I'm a strict atheist, and when I do mention that, he pushes it back in my face as though it (somehow) invalidates my arguments about bible atrocity. It does nothing of the sort.

Interesting that you view your original post as "still standing". So you still think the bible is difficult to understand? I'll tell you what, I'll quote you a scripture where God orders merciless, bone-chilling murder, and you can tell me why it's difficult to understand, in full view of everyone.

I suspect you'll decline. I wonder whether you truly find it boring, after all, you studied "theology" for several years. This stuff's right up your street. I wonder whether in reality you're afraid of facing the truth of what's written in that book. I also wonder exactly what you studied for those years. No, seriously I do. I'm not being hostile here, I prefer things out in the open. This seems to be where we differ, as you're more intent on covering your ears.

so much for passively promoting science as a higher alternative. Aggressive aggressive is your new tone.
Amazing, when people get locked in their own contradictions they get angry lol

In any case.

You accept you're not an atheist.
You only advocate the scientific method. Question. to do what?

Verify something that you now claim plausible, yet unprovable by the method you advocate. contradictory.
Why then start this whole thread to being with? Rant against the Bible... such a noble cause.

1. You are not concerned until the existence of the higher being is testable. ok. So we have come this far that you accept that there is a possible Higher being - you just want to accept that it is not the monotheistic one. Interesting in that you now choose to invent a possible God that would appeal to you.
As I said, this whole argument is you catharsis for self-apology, trying to convince yourself that whatever you do in your life to satisfy your "urges" need not be constrained by moral laws or commandments.
Nothing revolutionary here. This is the very basic human desire to indulge without guilt.
Introducing possibilities and excuses to dodge the"commandments" is basically the core of your argument. Empiricity and Science are  being used here like a whore. Quoted to suit your true reason, and then discarded when you choose to "believe" that there is a "God" or evade the catch 22 of your own arguments.

2. If you say that evolution is not a random phenomenon, then you need to clarify with the scientific community as to why they themselves call "Transmutation", "selective inheritance", and "gene memory" random. lol. Now you're contradicting science to prove yourself right... do we really need to sidestep ourselves just to have the last word.. lol.

3. I'm not defending Christianity nor the bible in any way. As I said, whether defended or not, after our discussion, quoting "rape" and "murder" as a regurgitated critique does not say much.
I just found it amusing that you cam on so strong about Religion in general.
Enjoy yourself with Christianity. Btw - calling me "son" in that post-pubescent high school/sopphmore tone does not impress. Instead the change of your tone indicates clearly to all who read, that I have hit a nerve.
The fact that you now side-step and contradict yourself shows that you've started to come unraveled.
Even, your cut and paste has become as convoluted as your shifting stance. lol

I did not want to offend you, just you did not want to offend the "Christians". Strange why you took offence. After all, I shared your passion for letting the "truth" be known.
The only question after our discussion is - "which truth?".

Oh. lastly, before I forget, since you mentioned that you do believe in a God. What does he want of you. All revelations of religion, as you put it, are rubbish. So if your view of the Divine were to be taken at face value, then why has your divine mentioned nothing of himself. The idea then that there is a "God" leaves open the question why he plays cloak and dagger with you.
The One as revered in the 3 monotheistic religions has explained something. But what is your Monad saying.
Regardless of whether we consider God to be a Monad or Demiurge, the fact is you are ranting here about the fallacies of belief systems without actually having a counter-point. You have accepted that science falls short in certain aspects, due to its primitiveness, you have also been quite vociferous on religion, but you still offer nothing as an alternative.
The rant of "humanism" and "spinoza's God concept" does not offer a counter-point. Both ironically draw on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, and then make amendments to suit their view of "morality".
But what morality. This is the initial semantic I was asking you about.
You say that the Bible for example advocates rape and murder, ok. Then if it is advocated by God - as per what you say -  then why is it "immoral". This seems to be your final rebuttal to religion, so let's deal with it head on.
I for one have not seen any religion explicitly saying "Thou shalt rape". I hope you did not misread that one like you did all my posts - lol.  :innocent: :whistling:

There's no contradiction. The scientific method can tell us interesting things about what an God would be like. Look at nature. how do you reconcile parasites, predators and the like with the kind God of the bible?

You are sadly, sadly mistaken. I actually do want to believe in the montheistic God. This has nver been about what I want. The world is very different from what I want. The world is uncomfortable, dangerous and disappointing, and our knowledge of reality is incomplete. I do not like this, and I never will. Don't make presumptions, you do that a lot.

In fact, "bashing" the bible is most certainly a noble cause, as any exposure of badness is, don't twist things.

Stop saying "lol" like a child, and above all, tell me your position. You say you're not defending the bible, so what are you doing? Arguing for arguing sake? At least I have a purpose, to discredit the bible. What are you doing?

I don't know what God wants of me, if indeed he's there at all. I really wish I knew, but he's so thoroughly disinterested that determining his will is exceptionally difficult. All I know is that the answers are not in that book.

I suggest you spell out exactly why you despise me before you carry on, as I'm uncertain where you stand. Try to be concise about it. One or two sentences.

I hope with your response to Tandos' post, you're not appointing yourself the moral police of Fleetops.
LOL.

I've heard your first line to his response repeated by Pat Robertson, Billy graham, the Rabbis, the VHP, the Saudi moral police, and the Taliban.

The more things change, the more they the same.

I think you;'ve proven without a shadow of a doubt who the extremist here is.
It also proves that no ideology is actually "wrong" or "harmful".

Exrtremism is. Whether you're on the left or the right.
Thinking oneself to believe in the "absolute right" thing, after all we have discussed, and after you yourself have accepted the ambiguity of your own beliefs, is - and I'll say it again - Hubris. To declare one's beliefs to be perfect, and those of others to be harmful is sheer Pat Robertson. lol

Plus, from what we have all seen, all the posters to this debate have been relatively stable, in spite of their harmful beliefs.
But you, in trying to clear us of "harmful beliefs", have actually stooped to getting personal. lol. So much for calling everyone else harmful..

Stop saying "lol"

And explain why you despise me thus. I have never held my belief up to perfect, but it is far more sound than those who try to defend religion.

Well Im not interested in the Bible as I said.

But, if we do look at parasites and pests, they have their own part to play in the natural cycle. Nietzche said it best - that which does not kill us only makes us stronger. Since life after death is "eternal" in the monotheistic faiths, nothing actually kills us. So even pestilence and calamity serves as a strengthening factor. It is unfortunate that Western Civilization has grown so accustomed to the comforts afforded by pillaged wealth and land, that their descendants are no longer able to cope with adversity, and seek to blame God for every calamity that comes upon them.
Even the so called pastors and rabbis speak of calamity as a curse- maybe that is because they do not understand their own religions - after all it is not theirs to begin with (I won't go too deep here, that's a completely different thread).

you have repeated "murder" several times, having now dropped the rape.. ok...
If you;re referring to capital punishment, then we can discuss that too.

Posted on: November 13, 2007, 08:10:13 pm

---

ok. I won't laugh at you.

you keep claiming that your points stand louder than those trying to defecd religion, yet when we got into the semantics of it all, all your postulations came to the same logical gridlock as that of the religious.
So, is yours better or simply old wine in a new bottle - with a twist of non-accountability.

That's all I'm saying. :)

Finally some clarity. Unsurprisingly this occurs when you confront an issue head on.

I truly can see where you're coming from on this one, I really can. However, it rests on the prior assumption that there is more after death. What if there is not? There's no real evidence of this, and the bible hardly qualifies as evidence. Neither does intuition. It could well be that there is life after death, in fact I view it as quite likely.

But if there's even a small chance that this is all there is, then human life is then far more valuable. It's small comfort to, say, victims of liver flukes, to say it's part of the "natural cycle", without some genuine assurance that they will live forever. None of us have that assurance. Now do you see where I'm coming from?

As regards murder and rape, I'm really not sure where you're coming from. They're both in the bible, they're both vile. This does not alter my arguments.

Then if there is no life after death, we have no God to blame.
So blaming God to prove he does not exist or is cruel does not stand in that line of argument.

Human life is indeed valuable, but ironically that value is one that itself comes from religion.

As i said, I am not interested in the Bible.

If there is murder or rape - not concerned with that book.

But I have seen many accusations levied against my Book, by people citing murder adn rape, when in fact they only misquote to "bash".

I was therefore talking about your statemtn that religion has "murder and rape". Whether the bible has it in the exact sense as you put it, quite frankly "ist mir Scheiss egal".

All I was saying, is once we accept the probability that there is a God, logically the probability that he has revealed himself to his creation in some way also becomes highly probable.
In that vein, when we are disgruntled with Christianity or an existing religion, before becoming absolutely disenchanted, one should look to all avenues and clarify one's accusations.
Would make more sense to first evaluate if the avenue for which you are opting is truly different.

Otherwise it's out of the frying pan and into the fire.  :sweatdrop:
Posted on: November 13, 2007, 08:27:44 pm

---

no pun intended with the last line.  :lol:

To me it's the other way around, if there is no God, then there is no afterlife. I cannot possibly blame anyone because I have nobody to direct that blame to. Although I must say, someone deserves blame for one thing: keeping us in the dark.

The argument that human life only has value and morals only exist due to religion is not a strong one. It's debated all over the web, and there are some naturalistic explanations for altruism. You'll find fine arguments against that all over the place so I won't go into it now. All I know is that when I look at statisitcs, the countries with the least crime in the Western world are very, very atheist, and the inverse is also true. This demands explanation.

I don't recall making a statement that "religion has murder and rape", when I mentioned those things it was with reference to the bible, although certainly these things have been commited in the name of theism and atheism.

I agree that if God is probable, then he would likely have revealed himself in some way. So far, I see no evidence of that. Should I conclude that the evidence is there to be found somewhere, or should I conclude that the probability of God being there is lower than I thought? The latter is scientific, the former is not. Scientists do keep an open mind however. This is not the same as following Pascal's wager, and I'd be making a hideous mistake by aligning myself with any particular world religion. I suspect that any God up there would reward morality and thinking ability.

Well, not exactly keeping us in the dark. People ask questions, but for the most part when receiving an answer that they do not like, they just ignore it, or claim that it is not good enough.
After all the Bible is not the only book out there. So no one is kept in the dark, except the he who wants to stay in it.

As regards altruism, the human gene has a propensity towards altruism as well as good, just as it has a propensity towards hate, violence, and war. Just as there is a genetic disposition to negative emotions, there is a genetic predisposition towards positive ones.

What is missed by these so-called arguments about the altruistic gene, is what actually makes us call one predisposition malevolent and the other benevolent. Ironically, religion itself says that man is capable of good and bad; it is this predisposition for both that according to religion makes man a worthy creation; simply according to one monotheistic faith - "it is easier to be pure and stay pure, but valuable in the eyes of the Creator is that which is dirty but strives to clean itself for the sake of the Divine".

In any case, the gene predisposition, does not answer why we consider some genetic traits in a favourable light and the others in a negative light.
You said so yourself - murder is abhorrent. Yet we do have a genetic predisposition for that too. What makes us demarcate.
This is where the gene altruism falls flat.

True I can be good as i am genetically predisposed to it. True I cna be "bad" because I am predisposed to that as well.
But why would I choose one over the other? Why would I value alturism over selfishness?
This is what I meant by religion being the root of morals.

On a more complex note - A money lender would charge 500% interest and milk his indentured farmers for life. Would any altrusitic gene need to be valued over the greedy gene? If so, why prefer one over the other? That is the gray area of the semantics of genetic altruism, and it is in response to these questions that plain altruism for altruism's sake is weak.
Why be altruistic when I can be rich?
No God, no heaven - why would I have to sacrifice my pleasure for someone who is a potential rival in the natural selection process?

I do agree that any God up there would reward morality and thinking ability. But the big question is "What is morality"? Genetic altruism too fell short in answering some crucial questions here. So where next?
Posted on: November 13, 2007, 10:38:09 pm

---

Religion is assumed to be that bridge over the gap.
The criteria for understanding what morality means. After all, western morality is quite different from Eastern or Middle eastern morality.
So what is the creator's view of what is moral?
If we say we do not know, simply because we want to disregard world religions, then one is not truly seeking an answer to one;s own question. Rather seeking an excuse to pursue one's own "pursuits"

Whatever it is, careful consideration is in order. Sometimes when the superficially abhorrent is analyzed in depth, it turns out to be the only feasible solution to an implacable question.

On the altruism point, fair enough, that's a strong argument and I'm a big enough person to admit that. Perhaps some greater being (beings?) put it there to begin with. I can accept that from a purely genetic perspective, it is arbitrary which tendency is considered the ideal one. This is a rare capitulation from me, mainly because strong arguments are also very rare.

I'm still convinced, though, that the explanation for who (and what) that higher being is does not lie in any of the Abrahamic holy books, and since we could conclude that, in fact, there is a basis for our morality, then that morality also condemns the bible.

I'm curious, you mentioned earlier "my book". I don't want to accidentally flame your book as well, but i suspect it's not the Koran or anything remotely similar. After all, all the same arguments apply to the Koran as they do to the bible. Something else?

If you are arguing that there is no such thing as genetic altruism, Serpicus, you must argue this in all contexts: i.e. not just humans. We are animals; and apes and even "lesser" social organisms such as spiders  (for example Delena cancarides ) display altruistic behaviors. I suggest reading "the selfish gene" and perhaps coming to an understanding that what is good for your genes defines what you should do. If it means sacrificing yourself in order that most of your genes survive, than by all means. Altruism is by NO means limited to humans; so by your reasoning we should infer that this god also favors other animals (perhaps even more so?). "Why be altruistic when I can be rich?": this is an incomplete argument. You must define rich. Perhaps the statement is better epitomized by "what can I do to get what I want?". In this case you clearly can see that SOME people want to be rich, others want to make others happy, etc. We are all selfish according to this. We are all striving for something we want, and if "altruism" is the way to get it, than so be it. I think you are defining terms too narrowly, as altruism is really in the "eye of the beholder". Sorry if I left anything out in my rush. Perhaps Dr. Lazarus would be interested in this pessimistic view...?

We're getting to the heart of one of the common criticisms of atheism, and as a student of science, I do warm to the anything by way of a naturalistic explanation, simply because that's the default position (i.e. being careful not to assign every unknown to God).

As a matter of fact. The Selfish Gene is on my list of books to read, so I'll get back to you when I've read it  :D. The last chapter is called Nice Guys Finish First (I think), sounds interesting.

Well sacrificing oneself for the survival of the species is not in dispute here.

The point is, if you argue that spiders sacrifice themselves for the greater good, there are also the same spiders that cannibalise in order to survive.

My question is why one over the other as a point of "good" or "bad". What would you call a person like Jeffrey Dahmer or The Manson Family. After all in their gene structure, altruism is out-weighed by the urge - again primal as you put it - to kill.
Chimps are also cannibalistic especially when the offspring is from a rival clan.

Would you then argue that a human that displays this tendency is also simply answering his "selfish gene" as opposed to another that displays his "altruistic gene".

you didnt get my initial point in this regard.

My question was simple, when both behavioural traits are inherent in the "animal" gene structure, why is it that the same animals - u and I - are taught to value altruism and castigate selfishness. After all, by your own admission, they are part of the same genetic tendency. Why call one "noble" and the other "abhorrent".
Where do you get the distinction? That's all I was asking.

Why would you call for example euthenesia or mercy killing good, but a life in the torment of prison better than the swiftness of capital punishment.

Is this all genetic?

If it is genetic only, then the idea that one trend of thought is more noble than another is in itself contradictory.
If it is genetic to sacrifice, it is also a basic animal urge to be selfish; or to pull out all the stops to become the alpha male. Where do we draw the line if everything is genetic. How will you explain that killing a rival is wrong, but having mercy is? If both are 2 sides of the same genetic attributes, why do we prefer one over the other.

To prefer one over the other is like an atheist saying he prefers to marry, as compared to another atheist who likes free hippie sex. Can one really claim to be more noble than the other? On what criteria or criterion?
If there is none, then what does the altruistic gene theory prove?
Nothing.
It simply states that animals have a propensity to do good, and bad. It is not in the position to actually call one behaviour "good", and the other "bad".

Ironically, it was felt in Barbarian Rome that feeding prisoners to lions was perfectly moral. Where is the altruistic gene there. And if it were not dominant, can we truly say that feeding another person to lions is "abhorrent"? Based on what?

These are the sematics that are left as logical loopholes in these theories. It is nice to read things on the net. But when does not have the proper questions to pose when weighing the theory, it becomes fallacious to accept it blindly simply because it sounds "new and rebellious".

When we say "nice guys finish last or first" (your pick), what makes a nice guy nice, and not just stupid? Think about it. Is he passing up an opportunity, or is he nice?
Again, how does Gene theory state which is which?

It's interesting that you guys mention these theories just because they are popular on the blogs. But shouldn't such theories be subjected to just as critical an evaluation as religion?
If you fail to do so, that too says simply what I have been saying all along, people pick the "anit-religion" stance not so much because the "scientific" views for atheism provide anything better or deeper. It's just a lighter load to carry.
Posted on: November 14, 2007, 04:01:46 pm

---

That was for Dominus.

Now to what you said Laz.

We are now at the point that the Abrahamic god is not the one we look at, instead there is another.

Fair enough.

But to go there, we then would have to ask ourselves if the Abrahamic God is uniquely isolated to the 3 monotheistic books, while other religions exoteric or esoteric provide another answer.

Before we look at God concepts from across the civilized world, we need to look at the origin of civilizations.

If we look at the oldest known settlements - we have Hinduism, Sumerianism, Egyptianism, and the Phoenicean/Myceneans. In the West we have the Incan and Aztec civilizations.
I'm not going to go into detail for all these, as these will encompass a whole thread; but all these religions have in their books more or less the same concepts of the Abrahamic religions down to circumcision and polygamy. Buddhism is a branch of Hinduosm and Buddha/Siddhartha Gauthama never in his life declared himself to bring a divine message. Nor did he exhort people to worship him. He stated that all he brought was a philosophy that was an expansion on Hinduism.
The Incans and Aztecs included human sacrifice to their Gods.

If we look at Greek philosophy, not mythology, we see that Plato and Pythagoras expanded on a form of gnosticism that was adopted by Greek philosophers during the period of trade with Egypt and India.
The idea of Atlantis that is the backbone of Gnostic - Blavatsky and Steiner etc - belief was again borrowed from Egypt. The description is no different from the Abrahamic description of Noah's people. Ironically, the oldest known civilizations are in the mediterranean belt - North West India, Sumeria/Mesopotamia, Egypt and Mycenae.
There is much in common as a linking essence in all religions, and philosophies.
One would ask why.
If there are several Gods, or at least more than 1, why the uniformity instead of absolute contradiction.
Don;t get me wrong. There is much contradiction. But how much is man-made, and how much is actually message based.
If you look at the last of the Abrahamic faiths, it does not discount any religion. It calls them all a continuing line in a process of gradual revelation - one built upon the other. Unfortunately, the conflict between the followers of the 3 faiths comes primarily from xenophobia, the "I'm right and you're wrong" approach, and of course let's not forget Imperialsit motive - even teh crusades were in actuality a call by Urban that was made at the behest of Constantinople; a call for help.
You will find, as I said at the outset, that religion is the most convenient rallying cry for people.
People who have a geo-political motive find it easiest to get help when crying foul in the name of religion.
So when you castigate the Abrahamic faiths, it is mostly what has been done and misinterpreted in order to be done in the name of that faith. But when taken in Reference to context and then applied to a circumstance you will see that much of the "blame" shifts to the people.
I for one do not subscribe to the existentialist "person is as person does" ideal.
No one is the same. Just because there is a minority in a community that is vociferous enough, and covered by the media enough to give one the impression that their extremist ideas are mainstream, does not in any way imply that it is necessarily the case.
As i said at the outset. a little more understanding adn patience, with a little less "jumping to superficial conclusions" will go a long way in promoting understanding.

"My question was simple, when both behavioural traits are inherent in the "animal" gene structure, why is it that the same animals - u and I - are taught to value altruism and castigate selfishness. After all, by your own admission, they are part of the same genetic tendency. Why call one "noble" and the other "abhorrent".
Where do you get the distinction? That's all I was asking."
Sorry Serpicus, but you completely missed my point. I admit I was unclear in my statements but there is no true "altruism". Everything is done for selfish reasons, it just so happens that some of us do not see the selfish reasoning in supposedly "selfless acts". Cannibalism is useful occasionally as is sacrificing oneself: sometimes to pass on your genes it becomes necessary to commit these acts. “Chimps are also cannibalistic especially when the offspring is from a rival clan”. Exactly: when the offspring is from a rival clan the genes are foreign and thus local chimpanzees do not want these alien offspring. We are not truly taught to value altruism and castigate selfishness; instead we are taught that we should display these qualities when it helps us. Not really true altruism, is it?

"Ironically, it was felt in Barbarian Rome that feeding prisoners to lions was perfectly moral. Where is the altruistic gene there. And if it were not dominant, can we truly say that feeding another person to lions is "abhorrent"? Based on what?".
Aside from the fact that this is a gross exaggeration and simplification of things... not everyone in this culture felt this way. Likewise this is out of context: Who was being fed and why? This is a difficult statement to deal with because our desire for pleasure/entertainment often seems to be illogical (although it really is a reflection of our true desires). We like to kill and maim if we can get away with it because it makes us feel powerful. Feeding prisoners to lions is a way of showing superiority, of satisfying the populace’s desire to be seen as powerful. Prisoners are caste-aways: not fit to be part of the society and as a consequence the “altruism” here is that Romans were unconsciously ridding Rome of its “trash” and keeping the gene pool “safe”.

“Is this all genetic? If it is genetic only, then the idea that one trend of thought is more noble than another is in itself contradictory. If it is genetic to sacrifice, it is also a basic animal urge to be selfish; or to pull out all the stops to become the alpha male. Where do we draw the line if everything is genetic. How will you explain that killing a rival is wrong, but having mercy is? If both are 2 sides of the same genetic attributes, why do we prefer one over the other.”
From what I have read and comprehended, it all has a genetic basis. However it is not contradictory. See first paragraph. For the phrases after the “contradictory” phrase see my previous post.

"When we say "nice guys finish last or first" (your pick), what makes a nice guy nice, and not just stupid? Think about it. Is he passing up an opportunity, or is he nice?"
I have thought about it, that is why addressed what this “altruism is”. Feel free to read "the selfish gene" and then you will understand what makes him "nice". This may come off as rough and demeaning (although it is not meant to), but I cannot debate this with someone who has not had the same exposure, because they will not understand…

I don't read blogs. I read books. A lot. And attend lectures. As often as possible. I believe these theories are argued quite a bit more than religion, and that is why they have become theories. ;-)
Please don't accuse me of being a sheep. I do not accept ideas blindly (at least I hope not), that is unfortunately what religion is for (IMHO). I do research and try to see both sides of the argument before accepting or rejecting an argument. Likewise, just because I accept a hypothesis/theory I do not close my mind to other options. I am afraid that you fear advancement based on your statement about the "new and rebelious": try to keep your mind open, even if the ideas are frightening.

I think the rome issue is where my point comes forward.

Simply put - your reaction showed that you do not find feeding people to animals for entertainment to be appealing.
My question is why?

Is it simply because of a gene?

As you said, it is in our nature to be aggressive.
Why do we find aggressiveness to be negative.
Also, why do we find kindness to be positive.

you said it yourself, we are all selfish. Hence we all do things non-altruistically, but selfishly.

Kant put is best when he said that there is not true altruism. If we get satisfaction from kindness then we are indeed doing it for selfish motives.
The ubiquitousness of this is challenged, because beleive it or not, many on the east do charity not to feel good, but because they feel it pleases God, hoping it will make him feel good. Regardless of how you dissect it, that culture is different. Their motivations are not always standardly ego-centric like the West; maybe Western modern thought tends to fall short in this regard, because they feel everyone in the world thinks as frankly "bastardly" as they do.. no offense meant.

However, to the point - da wir uns an einander vorbeireden.

I was concentrating on what makes an act abhorrent, and what makes it pleasing.
If we say that we are genetically geared to value some acts over others, we supercede here the mandate that is demonstrated by gene-based values.
By all examples cited by the "experts" that we like to read and quote, nothing shows that a spider would value anything outside its self-centric motives. The same spider equally values and appreciates its abhorrent facets of behaviour, and demonstrates no compunctions in behaving one way or the other as long as it survives.
An example in human form is a Medical Insurance official who tries to boost profits by denying assistacne to those who need it.

If we find this act abhorrent, my quesiton was and is, why is it abhorrent according to Genetically determined values? If we say that we have genes that naturally make us accept some deeds as good and some as bad, we need to first define good and bad.
The demarcation exists genetically - I agree. Religions says it simply in the form - man is capable of doing good and bad, and all humans have a propensity to good.
But define Good and Bad. This is where genetic theories fall short.

Why is Good good, and bad bad. Why is bad not good, and good not bad?

Example, for Hitler something was good, and somehting was bad - simplistically put. Why do we think his idea of good - ethnic cleansing - is bad? As per Gene theory.

That's all I am asking. Quantify good and bad.

And if you cannot, then you throw the door wide open for people like hitler to espouse their own brand of values - we've all seen what that lead to. Not to forget, many people too thought it was good until the Untergang; even TIME magazine voted him man of the year.

So define an idea that is "good" and define an idea that is "bad"
Posted on: November 14, 2007, 06:32:38 pm

---

In regards to the "nice" thing, you still cannot quantify "nice".
you tell me to read the book to see why he is "nice" - ok.

But can you describe "nice" as opposed to "not nice".

this is the philosophical depth I am referring to.

Condescending, and grand-standing does not say much. Attending lectures and reading other people;s ideas is good. But having one's own and evaluating them is still better.

That is why I am not talking about the superficial idea of altruism and selfishness that you are repeating. I am asking about why the word "selfish" or "exploitation" as an attribute carries in it for the reader (since you read you will certainly get one sensation about a character when he/she is described as selfish or exploitative) a negative sensation, and why is it that the attribute "just" or "equitable" carries for the reader a particular sensation when used as an attribute.

I am not talking about the sense it evokes, I am talking about why it evokes that sense.

Posted on: November 14, 2007, 06:42:03 pm

---

Define good.
Define bad.

If you say that there is no good and there is no bad.
Simple question - why condemn Hitler.

He just acted then - not good nor bad. Why the negative aura around his acts (in the mind of the reader when reading aboutthem)

If you say there is no good.
Simple question - why appreciate a philanthropist?

Why is a philanderer considered negative.
What is that "negative" sensation.

Btw. I have read the book, and about the author himself.
The book cannot answer such questions. And for the most part, you have dodged these questions redirecting me to your statements on spiders. But you too cannot explain why the brain tingles one way when u read the word "whore" and why it tingles the other way when you read "virgin".
Don't quote reproductory motive here, that is conjecture.
A person could just as well be enticed by a whore and repulsed by a virgin, as he is repulsed by a whore and enticed by a virgin.
But regardless of the enticement, the sentiment behind both is different. Can the "selfish gene" explain this difference in cerebral "appreciation".
It is this difference that houses the true concept of morality. If you say it is a gene that controls it, no scientist nor geneticist actually has demonstrated empiricity. In effect it is just as abstract and conjectural as religion.
More things change, the more they stay the same.

"By all examples cited by the "experts" that we like to read and quote, nothing shows that a spider would value anything outside its self-centric motives. The same spider equally values and appreciates its abhorrent facets of behaviour, and demonstrates no compunctions in behaving one way or the other as long as it survives."
I must say that this is completely false. If you had read the accompanying literature you would know what I meant. Yes, this is a condescending statement, because I happen to work with a professor (Linda Rayor) who does research in spider sociality and everything that has occurred points to the conclusion that spiders will value other individuals, and do behave in a manner not fitting your "The same spider equally values and appreciates its abhorrent facets of behavior, and demonstrates no compunctions in behaving one way or the other as long as it survives" idea.

You ask me to define an idea that is good and one that is bad yet I have already told you there is no such thing according to my logic (nothing can be so black and white). A good idea would depend on the individual or social thought, as would a bad one. Are you asking something else perhaps? “The Selfish Gene” in fact delves quite deeply into the idea of what makes something good or bad to a person and I find it perplexing that you would state that this is not the case. We condemn Hitler or love him based on our justifications which are based on our selfish needs. Not everyone condemns Hitler and I think this is proof enough of my point.

My statements on spiders are meant as an example, as I had stated. “Good” or “badness” is in the eye of the beholder.

“Don't quote reproductory motive here, that is conjecture.
A person could just as well be enticed by a whore and repulsed by a virgin, as he is repulsed by a whore and enticed by a virgin.”
What makes this conjecture? Can you please provide proof? It has a biological basis. It is extremely logical and is a golden rule of sorts. A virgin is safer and better for making babies: the ultimate goal for an animal’s existence.

“The ubiquitousness of this is challenged, because beleive it or not, many on the east do charity not to feel good, but because they feel it pleases God, hoping it will make him feel good.”
Oh? Are you perhaps referring to China, Japan, Korea etc? Please clarify (too vague), but I will answer based on these assumptions. I believe it not. “They do it to please god” makes these people feel better doesn’t it? They gain some sort of satisfaction, therefore it is a selfish need. Please give me proof for your statements. This is going to sound like grand-standing, but having lived and worked with Asian, European and American people/families I find that there is almost no difference in their underlying motives. The expressly may be different, but I have yet to meet a selfless person (for a truly selfless person must be also unthinking: an automaton or a computer). I think that selflessness is only possible in a non-sentient computer program: it is programmed to do something very specific without thought of consequences of any sort (other than that which is programmed in). This does not apply to biological entities (or perhaps one day to reasoning machines). But I digress, and for this I apologize.

“That is why I am not talking about the superficial idea of altruism and selfishness that you are repeating. I am asking about why the word "selfish" or "exploitation" as an attribute carries in it for the reader (since you read you will certainly get one sensation about a character when he/she is described as selfish or exploitative) a negative sensation, and why is it that the attribute "just" or "equitable" carries for the reader a particular sensation when used as an attribute. I am not talking about the sense it evokes, I am talking about why it evokes that sense.”
Sorry, what are you trying to state here? Where does this fall in your overall argument? These ideas that you raise can easily be attributed to parental guidance. We are brainwashed into thinking certain ways by the cultures we are raised in, and the people who surround us. These “feelings” are mere echoes of the values we hold dear which, as I stated before, arise from selfish desires… but this becomes circular logic.

“More things change, the more they stay the same.”
Please explain and prove.

Are your questions rhetorical or do you want me to answer them? I feel that I have answered many of these points already in my previous responses to you. This is a sore point with me, because I am not sure what issues you are trying to raise as these questions do not ground your opinion. Now, this is going to sound downright mean or cruel, but I think I need to say this. Could you please, please, cut out all the extra words and dead-wood as well as removing the generalizations from your statements?

Similarly, I no longer know what we are debating. You have changed orientations completely and I no longer can determine what you are trying to prove. At first it seemed as if you were attributing a general ability to determine right from wrong to this deity, now it seems that you are stating “Hence we all do things non-altruistically, but selfishly”. It seems you are simply asking me questions, rather than engaging me on anything at all.

Perhaps you could rephrase your argument simply, that way I can understand what you are trying to state? At the present it is much too convoluted for my homework-laden brain to handle.

You accuse me of “grand-standing” yet what exactly are you accomplishing by writing a comment in German, insinuating that I have no ideas of my own, assuming that my opinions are based off blogs and hearsay, and generally writing in a style which is neither to the point nor very coherent.

“But regardless of the enticement, the sentiment behind both is different. Can the "selfish gene" explain this difference in cerebral "appreciation".
It is this difference that houses the true concept of morality. If you say it is a gene that controls it, no scientist nor geneticist actually has demonstrated empiricity. In effect it is just as abstract and conjectural as religion.”
I will address this statement another day, I need sleep (sorry)

Serpicus is a great philosopher, and touches on some interesting points, but seems hardly capable of wording something with clarity and precision. Frankly, I tired of this wishy-washyness days ago, especially since the whole purpose of his debate is simply to distract from my original topic. As for the german thing, he said something to me in German, and I didn't understand it. I find that insulting, and smacks of the same "grand standing" which he acuses us of.

Serpicus, you can philosophise till the cows come home, and it will not change reality. What do I mean by reality? Allow me to explain:

For a moment, stop and have a look at the cold, humanless facts. Have you ever seen those maps where they expand or shrink a country based on statistics? You can easily find one that shows statistics for crime, murder and war. You'll be stunned at the results. On such a map, Western Europe and Japan are tiny. They have much lower incidents of violence than other parts of the world. They are also predominantly atheist and educated. The same is true to a slightly lesser extent for the US. The US is also noteworthy among the Western world as being religious, and yet it had higher crime than other western countries. Psychologists have discovered that Chrsitians are overrepresented in US jails, and usually they did not convert in prison. This demands explanation before you simply conclude that "Hubris" lis the problem.

Note also that violent deaths have dropped significantly worldwide since the industrial revolution. This seems like a shocking thing to claim, but it is true. If the male death rate of tirbal times had occurred during the world wars, 2 billion people would have died. It seems like the opposite due to a hugely bigger world population, and 24-7, negative media reporting. It is surely not a coincidence that this reduction in barbarity occurred during the "Enlightenment", when educating oneself became the emphasis. Education leads to peace. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but when you step back and look at the overall results, it is amazing.

I tend to diagree, on balance, that we need a holy book or creator to produce a yardstick for morality. Dawkins would argue that there is a naturalistic explanation for altruism. When you see a mother elephant protecting its calf from some natural disaster, it is heartwarming. Yet, no God requires the elephant to recite scriptures all day, or pray for guidance. What is more, the elephant has no concept of a creator.

Nature gives rise to both evil and good, but it is tending towards good. As evolution experts will show you, as intelligence increases, such as in (certain) chimp communities, altruism becomes mroe important. It seems that humans, on balance, are heading to a global family, and frankly the only thing standing in the way in religious fundamentalism.

It is surely also no coincidence that religion opposed scientific progress at every turn, right to this day, from ground breaking astronomical discoveries, to stem cell research which could save literally millions of lives. of all of the harmful ideologies, and there have been quite a few, religion holds this special position as being a blocker of progress. Countries such as China have already recognised that the key to progress is science, and it is plain to see that the most peaceful and prosperous (dare I say) nations have a strong innovation program.

I'd also like to point out that your past arguments about "atheist" atrocities are flawed. Hitler was in fact a Christian, I'm surprised you don;t know that. As for the others, it's plain to see that, like all dictators past and present, they dont give a flying monkey whether or not there's a God or not, they are simply interested in power, and will use any idea in any book or from any person to get it. You will find convincing proof of this on discussion boards all over the internet.

You're a fine debater Serpicus, your incoherence notwithstanding, but in your efforts to say that religion is merely a tool for violence, you have yet to explain why atheism leads to peaceful countries. Stunningly (or perhaps not), the most atheist countries (in Scandinavia) are so peaceful they rarely receive much attention on the world stage.

I haven't read the entire article you posted, nor am I planning to.
I think it is ok that you think christianity is stupid, however I think besides trying to prove there is no such thing as a religion I get the idea you are trying to piss other people off saying it is stupid to believe in God.

If there is one thing I do not like, is if other people say; hey, what you grew up with and you think is tru is stupid and you are a moron to still believe it, and you know what else? I know what is true or not!

So here is my opinion of you;
You are a fanatic that tries to push his opinion onto others

 :lol: Yes, you didn't read the entire article, nor the thread for that matter, that's all obvious.

I've never called Christianity "stupid", I simply think it is harmful and divisive.

As a matter of fact, I grew up with Christianity and as a devout Christian. I'm hardly going to call myself a stupid moron for believing, so how can I call other people those things? Don't put words in my mouth, and stop being lazy and read both the article and the thread, if you have the stomach for it.

I'm no fanatic, and my dicussion does not represent an "opinion" at all. I despise "opinions", as they are subjective. The article about biblical atrocity is about facts, facts that nobody can deny, they're plain to see just by reading the book. As for the way the thread went, I'm not trying to push "anything" on anyone. I'm trying to promote a logical basis of reasoning. They can then use that method to reach their own "opinions".

Cmd.Paul, I thank you for your "opinion". It must have taken several hours of deliberation for you to some up with such a sound, objective and unbiased analysis of this discussion. If I were you, I'd write up a reflective learning report and e-mail it to your supervisor, it could be worth something.

Next time read the thread.

you are right... I am lazy

let me rewrite my last post,
I agree, the bible is a bloody book,
I agree religions are used to make war,
I agree there is some kind of higher being there,

however I do not feel everything in the bible is not true, have to admit there is no evidence to support it, but I think some people take everything the way it is written.
I haven't read the entire bible, and I don't need to to support my way of thinking,

My apologies for thinking you were one of those fanatical unbelievers, however I do think that no christian would ever give up his way of life just because you write this thread and show the article.

I do wish you good luck in debate with brainless people who either believe stuff without proof or do not believe stuff and try to enforce their thoughts onto others

Aren't we all sometimes. Lazy that is.

Your three sentences are a good, but simple summary of my current philosophy, so as you can see we're largely in agreement.

Of course, I cannot possibly rule out the existence of some measure of truth in the bible, and there's even some good stuff in it (mainly in Proverbs to be honest). On the other hand, since it is obviously not inspired of God, then it has no more value than any other book on the shelf, and it is this message I try to put across.

I do encourage you to read as much of the bible as you can. It was doing so that turned me away from religion in the first place. I would argue that to uphold your way of thinking, you need to have as much information as possible. It's no coincidence that many religious people have not read the book they claim to follow.

I agree that noone is likely to turn their life around because of the article and thread, and in fact the best way for them to do so is the same way I did: to figure it out by themselves. Still, just as I used to feel the need to go door knocking to spread "the truth", I also now feel compelled to present some facts about the so-called good book, as long as there is the smallest chance that it'll open some eyes. As small as that chance is, it exists. But you are right, I'll need some luck along the way, as the very dogmatism with which some atheists approach this subject is even more abundant in religion.

That is unforately the problem Lazarus. When you are unable to answer the basic questions, you hide behind a false dichotomy of xyz is philosophy and abc is reality.
But reality as you put is only 3 dimensional. When physics itself acknowledges the existence of 10 dimensions, your procrastination of "tired" when no viable answer is forthcoming, is frankly dismal.

Fact is you have no answer to my core points. Nor does Noctis' Gene argument. Reason: the simplistic ideas promulgated by science, WHEN forced into answering dynamic questions relevant to the human phenomenon, fall short of comprehens