@ivo_ivanov:

Those are NOT my classifications, to restate them:

-On one far side: "X MUST be, and exactly as it is purported to be, and we know our place perfectly, and that place is whatever and wherever we know X wills us"
-On the other side: "X CANNOT be, it never was and never will be, in any form whatsoever, and there is nothing like X that can ever be, all X ideas are ludicrous"
-In the middle: "X may or not exist, and it might be in many forms, our purpose is yet unkown but there are so many possibilties...so let's not rule too much out here, we still have a long way to go in figuring this out, but we MUST figure it out."

wow. i don't agree with evolution, but that's a pretty bad example of why it doesn't exist. i mean, sure, if you reeeeaally streched the concept of evolution, you could come to that conclusion(with the peanut butter), but it's extremely far fetched to dismiss the theory based on peanut butter. don't get me wrong, peanut butter is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but still....

@abgemacht:

If that's the case and atheists want proof of the positive, then why do I hear so much from that circle concerning their efforts DISproving God?

That's my biggest problem- fundamentalists stuff the mind with their idea and only that one idea is ever true, and atheists (and other groups) blast open that ideal...but a void is left, and that void needs to be filled by something of equal magnitude.

Again, I hate to cite him again adn again, but after Nietzsche writes "God is Dead" he proceeds to create Zarathustra and tell us of the Ubermensch and create a new ideal to fill the void left by the Death of God; he recognized, he even states that this MUST be done, "How will we, the murderers of all murderers console ourselves?"

You NEED something to fill the void, to provide an answer.

Atheists calling Christian dogma doesn't make atheists or atheism any more RIGHT, it simply states that Christianity is WRONG...without giving us an adequate, equal account of what they can hold as right.

So disproving one view doesn't make yours better or more valid, it only invalidates the other view (supposing your assertions are correct.)

Nietzsche provided the idea of the Ubermensch, that man could, in essence, become god-like...Heidegger gives us a picture of a world in which our very being is constantly in flux and so we can constantly re-invent ourselves and perhaps even grow...Sartre tells us that perhaps creating a world for ourselves, like paint on a white canvas, is the answer, even if it's not an ultimate truth it's ours and something we can live with in his view...

And Dawkins...grins like and ass (I HATE to keep using him, but again, I'm adressing the extremists on the atheistic side, and they simply call to mind Dawkins. I mean, Hume was an atheist, and he came up with ideas of how the universe could work and what our place in it could be and how man could still be something incredible without God, John Stuart mill was no proponent of God and he perfected Utilitarianism and as such gives us a vieew of ourselves as being equal and ultimately one great collective of utility and being that should be utilized for the greatest possible good, so I KNOW atheists can come up with good ideas that don't involve God, I'm simply saying I HATE the atheist crowd that makes their living or touts their ideals simply by DISproving Christianity and stating science and chance are the be-alls and end-alls when they're clearly not...the type of atheist that gives nothing new to the discussion and only takes away. Richard Dawkins- if you're NOT a Dawkins-ite, then fine, what's your idea, I truly want to hear, maybe it's good. If you ARE a Dawkins-ite, then let's here some actual ORIGINAL THOUGHT for a change instead of your doing the intellectual equivalent of being the kid in class who instead of doing his own project just looks at everyone else's and says, "That's GAY...that's gay...oh, that's GAY...YOU'RE gay..."

See how unproductive and annoying and frustrating that is?

Obi....that' was GAY! :P

@obiwan

I suspect that if there were fewer religious extremists pushing for creationism and the like to be taught in the classroom, there would be fewer atheists trying to disprove god. I certainly wouldn't care what religious people did if they kept pit in their homes.

What is this void you speak of?

@abgemacht

Those religious fundamentalists see themelves as pushong for a return to those principles being taught in schools. They also have a point if they see themselves as reacting to a trend toward increasing secularism in schools that their children attend. It does no good to say "Well if there weren't so many of you guys disagreeng with us; we wouldn't have to disagree with you so vehemently" to a great extent in many areas you have people who prayed in school as a matter of course now having the same schools wondering if it's okay to have the "Left Behind" novels in teacher's classroom libraries. You may see that as the righting of a wrong, but you can hardly expect them to agree and be silent about it.

Basically can you really blame increasing dogmatism on one side of the issue on the increasing dogmatism to the opposition. At the very least that's merely an excuse to be dogmatic and still hold on to the illusion that you're somehow more open minded than your opponent. That is "If the other guys would do X then I wouldn't have to do Y".

"but a void is left, and that void needs to be filled by something of equal magnitude."

What do you mean a void is left? That implies that God always existed, and s/he was removed, instead of say there being no God and s/he being inserted in. And even if a void is left, does it need to be filled?

@Crazy

Certainly it goes both ways. As you said, many people feel the need to force the issue with ID because of the secular nature of schools.

In many ways I sympathize with religious people. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure that religious courses shouldn't be offered in public schools. However, I am strongly opposed to bringing religious matters into science classes by dressing up a religious concept as science.

I still don't understand (and I'm glad you mentioned this) why one can't believe in Jesus and evolution.

I'd say that its pretty much human nature to replace any idea with another one rather than merely letting go and forgetting. For instance if you all of the sudden stopped believeing that air travel was safe it would probably affect your behavior in some ways rather than just being a dispassionately held opinion.

@ abgemacht

I think that it comes down to rejecting the idea on the chance that it might give credence to those whom they'd oppose. The theory of evolution in and of itself is really not that much of an issue from my perspective. I can vaguely rememebr learning the theory of evolution and being unsettled until I talked to my parent who basically said "So, how do you know that it isn't a process that God uses to create new animals?" As to the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that's basically just looking at the generations mentioned in the Bible were the only generations that existed at all.

** and stating that they were the only ones to exist**

"it comes down to rejecting the idea on the chance that it might give credence to those whom they'd oppose."

Believe me I'm well of this; it just upsets me because it creates needles conflict between two institutions that should be working to serve humanity.

Like with anything look at where the money is going. You've got polemicists and preachers on both sides raking it in and fanning the flames. Yet you still have people working with and for the betterment of society among atheists and Christians. There aren't really any bars against secular and religious organizations working together and they tend to do so pretty well for the most part.

I guess as an example you've got the coffee that's being sold from Rwanda. That's a cooperative between lots of churches and it was spearheaded by a couple of State universities. You can easily find coffee grounds from businesses like "Land of a Thousand Hills" sold in churches. The sole idea for this is to give people in Rwanda a decent chance to rebuild (it began a few years after the genocide) and have a way to sustain themselves and eventually succeed.

http://drinkcoffeedogood.com/ourstory.php?page=3

This particular was begun by an Anglican priest but there is at least one other similar company that was begun as a cooperative of a couple of universities.

That was very interesting; thanks for the link. I heard recently that a lot of microfinancing companies that do things like this are running into trouble. This doesnt seem to be one of those though.

@Everyone who asked about the void:

The void isn't God himself or not, "God is Dead" is not to be taken literally.

It means the IDEA is dead, or, rather, can no longer be taken seriously- hence, as much of Western culture and thought and faith was built upon the idea of a deity (if you want to be really generous you can even say that it applies to the Judeo-Christian God and the pagan Greek gods and Norse and Egyptian gods and so on, but the void when mentioned by Nietzsche and by subsequent thinkers generally concerns itself with the J/C God) there is now a huge void left in it's absence, not a literal void, but a mental and emotional one.

Again, Nietzsche asks right after he proclaims "God is Dead...how shall we, the murderers of murderers, console ourselves?"

He recognized (as does Sartre and Camus and Beckett and you might argue Heidegger and other thinkers as well) that this thing, this idea which has formed the base for so much of the Western world, adn the thought that still comforted many people...is gone.

I mean, imagine you're a kid and you REALLY believe in Santa Claus, I mean REALLY believe in the guy, you leave cookies and write a list and thw whole nine yards...and at age five your jerk sixteen year old brother tells you there is no such guy, and that the parents bring the presents and all that.

His statement might be more plausible and logically sound...but still, that's going to leave a void for the kid, he thought there was this overseer adn gift-bringer and just fun guy, and now the brotehr says, "Santa Claus Doesn't Exist."

He's going to miss all the emotional (spritiual?) good that he felt believing in Santa Claus.

The Judeo-Christian God Case is like one BIG version of that...because God doesn't just give us presents- the tradtion teaches he creates everything, creates us, loves us, watches out for us and can see and do all if we stay faithful and, perhaps the biggest thing of all, that he's Beyond Us, that he can't die and will alays be there for us to save us and will return someday (if you believe in Jesus) or else will send/be a messiah someday (Judaism) and always look out for us and never die.

That's a pretty good thing to visualize and to think of.

And you tell people that the Being who could never die died or, worse, that He never was...that all their hopes were in vain...and that, maybe worst of all for some, there is no one watching out for them and over everyone, and so there's nothing beyond this, you live and die and that's that and if you're in a bad spot and all alone no great entity can sve you, like the Ultimate Parental Shield...

THAT is God for people, some people anyway.
THAT is what Nietzsche says is gone, or never was.
THAT, as he realized, leaves a HUGE emotional and mental void...

@obiwan - sorry man, your views are not moderate - you're a believer and want everyone to be, else they are extremists.

As for the 'void' - I never realized Christ can be used as a replacement for Santa - nor that there is a requirement to believe in at least one fairytale character at any time.

Btw, Nietzche was s faschist biggot in love with his sister. He was just as crazy as he was brilliant, so I'd recommend using him only for ideas - not for answers - he did not have these.

The fact that you think that:
"Atheists calling out Christian dogma doesn't make atheists or atheism any more RIGHT, it simply states that Christianity is WRONG...without giving us an adequate, equal account of what they can hold as right. "
Is an example of extreme closeminded and will lead to the collapse of civilisation makes me believe that you are a silly and melodramatic person.

Look at it this way;

Obiwan, if, on a practical day to day basis, I reject Christian dogma as a meaningful route by which to understand all of the wonderful essence of creation, similar to how I rule out all religious mysticism and dogma, I am simply making a life choice based on the information I have available. I don't believe that God exists, but I am not about to stake a claim of absolute knowlege on the subject. Obviously, I don't know for sure. No-one does. But I'd like to spend my time free from the shackles that religion puts on my behaviour, and there are few to no rationally justifiable reasons why I should respect dogma as a legitimate world view by which to guide myself.

The point here is that the issue of DOGMA (to mimic your incessant capitalisation tirade :P) and the issue of the existence of 'God' are two different things. I am an atheist who rejects religion, but doesn't outright deny the possible existence some sort of God; Zoroaster, Yahweh, etc. Active belief need not imply absolute certitude of knowlege.

Now why do I reject dogma? It isn't because I think it is universally bad, no. But I do think dogma is often pretty nasty, and is commonly used to justify terrible things, just like other fundamentalist ideologies. So let's respect it's existence, sure (ie. don't try to limit dissemination etc.), but let's not use it as a means by which everyone's view of the world should be coloured.

And because religion is so strong in the world, and dogma isn't far behind, we are forced to criticize religion when it limits rights, when it makes us uncomfortable, etc. etc. I see nothing wrong with this.

Finally, the world isn't going to collapse if religion stops having as much influence as it used to. Look at Holland, look at Swweden, look at Canada, etc. etc. The Western World is built on more than just the act of worshipping and feeding on a deceased Jew. We have lots of things that have meaning for us. Religion is, I am sad to say, replacable as a source of inspiration and knowlege. There is no void. Jeez mate.


ps. Stop being a crazy Nietzche-lover. ^^

"Religion is, I am sad to say, replacable as a source of inspiration and knowlege. There is no void. Jeez mate."


I think that's precisely what he means by void. That when one thing is taken away there is the room for something else to take its place. Look at it like this, If you are were a committed Christian and decided for whatever reason to reject Christianity. You would not, in all likelihood, merely sit and do nothing for the time that you previously spent at Church or pursuing a greater understanding of Chirstianity, Scripture, etc. There would be some extra time and energy to spend. Hence a void (something that was filled and now isn't) not necessarily a gaping hole upon which one would necessarily brood and feel sadness.


I certainly take exception to the terms "often" and "commonly" with regard to religious dogma being nasty and used to justify terrible things. Clearly sometimes it is. There are atheistc dogmas that are at least as nasty if not much moreso. One can just as easily say that religious dogma is often a source of wisdom and commonly used to encourage people to acts of kindness. Would you care to give some indication as to how widespread this nastiness is? Mind you anecdotes are interesting but show only your particular experience which is by definition limited to the people you've known or heard about. For every Westboro Baptist Church it's pretty easy to several church sponsored community shelters of battered women. They don't grab headlines but I'm confident that if we wanted to compile a list of Christian charities and compare it to an actual list of Christian groups that tend toward nastiness and justifying horrible actions, the charities and missionary work would likely win out.

Are we really going to try to make this a "look at all the terrible things done 'in the name of religion' discussion".... really a lot of terrible things are done for a lot of reasons. No particular group has a lock on the lion share of cruelty in the world, and happily enough the general Christian track record seems to be getting much much better over the centuries (we've gone from the use of torture chambers to the voting booth as the chief complaint against us) where some atheistic ones are as nasty as they've ever been.

The void can be replaced by ones reason and conscience. Some people don't need a supersticious fear in order to be civil :)

The argument that the good things done somehow compensate for the wrongs is just... unChristian.

I know people who act like that - complete menace to society but go to church every Sun and come out with the concept they've been forgiven and can just carry on - and I do blame organized religion for this nonsense - because together with all good ideas they are also teaching a lot of crap that does lead to long-term damage for all humanity.

Again there is the assumption of Superstitious fear? How do you justify that assumption that you know what any other person's internal motivation?

I again said nothing of justifying the wrong and made no attempt to do so. However Friendly Sword sees religion as "commonly" used to justify evil and you blame organized religion for the lack of manners, or whatever, of a few people whom you seem to dislike. I'd suggest that if organized religion were really to blame then it would be easy more than a few people whom you've met. It sounds more like those people are jerks and Christian groups accept the jerks along with everyone else. Like anything it's a process and you cannot know where each individula person is on the walk toward the ideal. That's hardly an indictment of the ideal nor does it make the ideal culpable for the individuals choices. You'll really need to do better than that.

Like I said anecdote only show that you've bumped into some bad examples but say nothing about the whole. Why not look at the whole and try to sustain your argument?

Shall we take a look at the number of deaths and the suffering imposed by secular governments?


No wait. They were just dupes of the plotting churches, right?

Politics easily outstrips religion in the deaths and suffering department, yet I doubt you see that as something to replace?

I am talking about the whole:
1. Can you define this void? What us lacking exactly? You have no moral compass, you cannot think for yourself, you want presents for Christmas? :)
2. It is not ok that the Church will accept anyone and, often, protect them at all costs regardless of what they do, as long as they are loyal. This is how all religions ( the institutions behind them at least) operate. Setting the standards high, are we.
3. I would like to finally meet a believer who does not try to defend his religion, but would admit that somewhere along the ways the good ideas were swarmed by the dogma - and that's not ok - there's nothing holy in being rigid. The Churches need to evolve and stop hanging on scraps and being ok with everything that serves them.

Crazy Anglican, if you read what I said carefully, it wasn't an attack on churches for being nasty. I don't blame organized religion (in particular) for creating evil. That blame is shared by nearly everyone.

The point that I was actually making was in response to Obiwan labeling an atheistic rejection of dogma as somehow closeminded. I established that I have legitimate personal reasons for rejecting dogma because it... please note... explicitly justifies things that I, and many other people (including you methinks), consider to be very nasty. There are a litany of everyday things that you deserve to be killed for according to a strict reading of the bible, and (for example) something like the Islamic aqidah or the Catholic Catecism. Kissing before marriage anyone? Eating oysters?

Even Protestants like you ascribe to varying degrees of dogma, which, though less objectionable, is drawn from the same source as a bunch of badness.

But even more generally, I think dogma is something I could never reconcile with the way I live my life. The nature of dogma is to be athoritative and unquestioned. It is a claim to absolute certitude. If you buy into dogma, that must be the only thing you buy into.

So yeah, whatevs, be dogmatic and all. Just don't call me closeminded for rejecting a world view that is explicitly closeminded, and either hypocritical (picking and choosing) or monstrous (ie. a literal following of the Torah). I don't believe that dogma should ever be an individual's prime basis for seeking meaning in the world, though I respect your decision to use it as such.




ps. "Shall we take a look at the number of deaths and the suffering imposed by secular governments?"
Methinks that an important different here is that rarely do secular regimes kill people because they are secular; with the possible exception of the Soviet Union, the fact of secularism was irrelevant or unecessary to the cause. In any case, religion is also often incidental in terms of being a prime cause for violence. Personally, I see 90% of violence of any kind being about power, madness, or paranoia. Religion just gets taken along for the ride.