Beatnik

You're right. It is a fact that it's more believable that a white man with long hair and a beard and awesome flowing robe, who's not actually "God" but part of a mysterious tri-headed omnipotent entity ("god", jesus and the genderless holy spirit) looks down on you and listens to you when you pray and loves you but at the same time demands behaviors of you that continue to show your respect, fear and love for him. He's omnipresent and invented the universe in 6 days, invented man out of whole cloth but also created a giant billion year backstory of the universe from which all matter came. We kind of screwed up early on, talking to snakes with apples and all, so Noah built a really big boat and took two of every animal on board while God flooded the earth. Of course nobody ate anything for 40 days, certainly not the animals eating each other. Not to mention the fact that every entity on the planet since then is horribly inbred. But after all this he still has some insecurities about us, so he sent a virgin-born son to come down and watch over us for a while, which then became (or always was) part of the three-pronged godhead which we all know today. Then of course there's the virgin mary who isn't really apart of the holy triumverate, but nonetheless holds some kind of position of power worth praying to. She and God (God God, not Jesus God) apparently don't talk much, but their relationship is amicable. And in the nether regions of the universe, or maybe just 30 or 40 feet below the ground, there's of course Lucifer, with his demons and pitchforks and red, reptillian skin and gay people and suicide victims and sulfurous rivers and heat and double chocolate cake and loud music and the dancing in the town that Footloose was based in and general unpleasantness. This is contrasted with heaven, sitting upon clouds in the sky, where St. Peter the doorman who reads you every sin you committed on earth before letting you in the pearly gates. There you meet up with everyone you've ever known (except the gays and non-Christians and non-circumcized), your pets, etc, while angels chauffeur you down cobblestone paths in golf carts and pristinely manicured landscapes. There's no sleeping, sex or (god forbid) pooping in heaven, no showers or doctor's appointments, and every meal is an Early Bird Special, every day at the store is double coupon day. Ok that last sentence is mostly conjecture...

In the meantime, god and Lucifer continue to wage proxy battles in each of our lives, between making rock music, choosing to have that extra piece of sinful cheesecake after dinner, having abortions, gays marrying, people worshiping "false idols" such as Iron Maiden and Mohammed, etc. Satan appears to be winning, since the majority of people on the planet are after all not even Christian, but that's ok because once the Jews re-occupy all of the holy land again, the End of Days will come in which all the True Believers will be sucked up to heaven while earth becomes hell-on-earth, with the boiling seas and the raining frogs and cats and dogs playing together, and the wretched writhe in agony with the gnashing teeth and blistering skin and feverish brows for all of eternity, pleading for mercy for falling under satan's spell.

You're right. It is a fact that's more believable/plausible than a giant thing made of pasta creating man by a touch of his noodly appendage.

__________________

Kerostasis

After thinking again about disrespect, I present to you -- Beatniks post.

While you make sure to remind us at every opportunity that you think my God and the FSM hold equal status in your mind, you don't bother to mention what that status is. Neither though do you deny my assertion that the status held by FSM is no more than that of an object of mockery. Thus once again you proclaim the same to be true of the Lord worshipped by half the population of the earth. And once again you tell me I'm disrespecting you by not bowing to your conception of his impossibility. I will not bow to that. I will not stand idly by while you mock the Lord of Creation to my face.

You don't have to believe. You don't have to agree with me. I'm just asking for the tiniest bit of respect here.

__________________

Beatnik

Forgive me if I find it hard to "respect" such obviously erroneous, fallacious arguments made, like appeals to popularity (half the population on earth? 3 billion followers? I don't think so.), appeals to emotion, etc.

If I had just discovered The Sandbox, I'd have taken the time to re-quote your posts, hyperlinking each of your fallacious arguments to show where they don't hold water. But logic has no place in religious beliefs involving "faith", and introducing some cognitive dissonance is funner, if not just a little dickish.

Feel free to assume the stance of God Warrior, defending the virtue of the omnipotent God. But don't expect respect for platitudes, appeals to emotion, appeals to belief, appeals to common practice, appeals to tradition, confusing of cause and effect, and so on.

Simply stamping your feet and saying "show me respect" will earn you precious little.

__________________

RandomGuy

I disagree. I know for certain that some people can't believe. They could pay lip service if they wanted but are not able to truly believe.

I suspect that most modern-day people are like this. This includes those who profess faith but refuse to question their own faith. By actively refusing to question their faith, even in solitary reflection, they are paying lip service to themselves.

Requital

My appologies, this is not a true statement. I had a class about 15 years ago on India and China social issues and I believe I mixed the two together at some point. India was performing infanticide of females because of population and lineage in some way and China created a law that gave one child families special privleges which caused some families to give up female children for adoption and that was tied to lineage as well. I looked it up and stand corrected.

__________________

Zoopy

Since I have no idea what this thread was original questioning and has turned into a religious argument, I thought I would answer everyones questions.

The point of all religions is to get humanity as a whole to live by a set of morals. Christianity uses a God like figure to scare people into using morals (i.e.: Live by these morals or you won't get into to our super awesome kingdom), etc.

So this answers many "big" question everyone has easily:

Meaning of life = live life following good moral values.

Does God exist = no.

So the argument shouldn't be either or not God/god(s) exist, it should be what is morally good and what isn't.

To answer this I turn to Kantian ethics since it has the most logical stance on morality.

Requital

I once took a class called Theory of Knowlege. It did a study on major concepts in human societies. Studied Kant, Nietzche, Aristotle, Plato, Marks, Freud, and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head, but I did learn quite a bit about everything. Very challenging concepts that have very intelligent ways to describe the human condition. I came to the conclusion that a lot of beliefs I held were flawed. I had constructed a table out of what you posed Beatnik.

A lot of my beliefs of who God was had no basis to back it up. For instance, Peter being a doorman. That seems to be a very common conception, but there really is no historical or written text on the subject. It simply is a concept that derived from a discussion Jesus and Peter had concerning the Gates of Heaven. It nowhere does it mention Peter being a doorman.

So as I took this class the legs were knocked off of the table until only one pillar stood at the center holding up pieces of wreckage. At one point I decided that either God did exist and I didn't know who He was, or He didn't. I opened the Bible and read who Jesus and God said they were. I ignored what I had learned perviously and started from scratch. Not to say that was entirely successful, but when I came to a logical conflict I simply took the path in which God explained Himself.

God is full of very difficult seeming contradictions, such as Wrath, Mercy, and Love. How could a Merciful God allow people to suffer? What would a God of Love that poured out his Wrath in billowing fires and plagues know about Love? Concepts that seemingly exist, but can not be quantified through simple observation. What about the unseen is easy to understand? Scientific oberservation and Math are much less complex than the workings of human thoughts, and emotions combined with Logic. To me Thoughts, Emotions, and Logic seem to be such a conflict to be almost impossible to reconcile at times. Yet we do.

Since God claimed to have created man in His image, God must work in a similar fashion. All of it must have Logic, if God made us Logical. The more I search out the Character of God the more I come to understand the absolute brilliance in what He does. It defies Logic at times, but the outcome is so definately perfect that it makes you shake your head in awe. How could the begining tie up to the end with such permanency? A house built on the foundation of the universe can not fall. How is it that over the course of thousands of years the flow of history and prophecies could be fullfilled in one blink of the eye, but with such uniform percision that thousands of years later people still are changed by Him? All of it is such a grand story of man's reconcilliation to God by God. It is, even if you deny God's existance, utterly brilliant.

The question of belief and if everyone can? That's a good question. I definitely think that belief is hard, but I don't think it require any exceptional abilities or intellectual gymnastics. At its most basic leve it requires trust that God is who He said He is. I think if anyone took the time to find out who God said He is, that trust wouldn't be terribly difficult.

As far as why Trust God vs. Buddha, or even someone else? I think if you look into who they say they are, you might find the answer.

__________________

sordavie

Heh, I teach a class called theories of knowledge and reality.

__________________

CingularDuality

Likewise.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Requital

Seeing as I do believe in God, and would label myself a Christian I would have to say that this assumption is incorrect with regards to Christianity. The purpose of Chrisitanity is not to scare or even get people to heaven, that is simply the instant outcome of believing in Christ as your "lord and savior." The purpose of Christianity is being in a right relationship with the Creator. Being moral comes out of that relationship, much like being married changes who you are so too does living with your Lord. It's a gradual proccess of change that removes the blinders and chains keeping you from experiencing joy. Joy is much more fullfilling than happieness, which is a fickle master.

__________________

Requital

Do you instruct on the different philosphies throughout history in the western civilization? What is the basic course outline?

__________________

Kerostasis

My apologies, I didn't realize that using a number like 1/2 instead of 1/3 when discussing what is still the largest religion on the earth was enough to disqualify it from wielding any more weight than a religion with a sum total of zero followers. Clearly a logical fallacy on my part. Next time I refer to argument by popularity, I shall make sure to specify 2 billion instead of 3 billion.

Are you happy yet? No? Didn't think so. After all, that wasn't really your point, just a way to take a cheap shot at me, right?

I didn't reply to your earlier post because I was pretty sure you were already dead-set against showing me any respect, so there didn't seem to be much point. But all of the random types of arguments you mention only serve to conceal one underlying fact -- although it is often fun to pretend otherwise, FSMism was generated for the sole and exclusive purpose of making a mockery of Christianity in general and Intelligent Design in particular. You can claim to defend it if you like, but I doubt you will convince anyone of your sincerity. By attempting to equate that with Christianity, you one-up all of the logical fallacies you reference by skipping logic entirely and simply falling back on pure insults.

__________________

sordavie

No, I don't take a historical approach. Instead, I focus on argument evaluation. In the process I try to get my students to critically evaluate their reasons for having certain beliefs (i.e. beliefs about personal identity, free will and determinism, fatalism, God, knowledge and skepticism). I'm toying around with doing some more exciting topics like time as well as more traditional topics like properties and universals. But either way, the real focus is on getting the students to grasp conceptual tools used for critical thinking.

Teaching has made me come to realize that being able to do this really does not come naturally. Students are very, very bad at critically evaluating the reasons for their own beliefs. They are highly prone to fallacies, under or overestimating the strength of evidence, and conceptual confusions. And, moreover, it takes a lot of effort for them just to get the basics. Unfortunately, students don't appear to be much different than non-students in these regards...

__________________

Beatnik

Correctamundo. I've made no claim otherwise.

I'm not attempting to equate FSM with Christianity. Of course it's making fun of Intelligent Design, and of course it's not a "real religion". That's, you know, the point. I'm not attempting to be sincere, just pointing out that the myths of the man in robes in the sky and demons underfoot and animals strolling two by two onto a giant boat to whether a torrential flood sound as silly to me as a flying pastaman, no matter how delicious, does to you.

Which is all well and good, except your team has a guy leading the free world right now who thinks that god talks to him and views this very complex world in simplistic lines of thought like "good vs evil", and doesn't necessarily think it's a bad idea to facilitate the Apocalypse in order to bring about the End Times, which is a threat to all of us "non-believers" (as well as the "believers", even if you don't realize it yet).

So excuse me if I'm a little bitter. At least I still have a sense of humor!

__________________

CingularDuality

I didn't create the FSM, but I'm pretty sure it was created not to mock any other religion, but to demonstrate the fact that having a public school system promote one religion and exclude others is pretty shaky ground, REGARDLESS of how many people believe in something that has no scientific evidence supporting it. The point was that the FSM is just as scientifically believable as the judeo-xian god, and therefore should have equal coverage in school.

I would never expect the FSM to get any slack in a church, mosque or synagogue, as those are places where beliefs are shared, not facts.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran: