OT: The Episcopal Church - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 8, 2006

RE: OT: The Episcopal Church

Date: Jul 9, 2006

LVN wrote:

Atheist, as far as evil caused by people of faith, I give you those great atheists Josef Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That argument is useless, as horrible things have been done by people of every philosophical stance. ...

Sorry for the late reply, LVN, but church ran late today. I know you have tired of this conversation so I will be short and clear up what I meant by the danger in belief in the supernatural.

Religion is what divides and separates people rather than bring them together. I know this is a sensitive issue for you now because of the situation in your church. The reason is that belief is based on faith ("the leap of faith") rather than logic using objective evidence. Scientists attend meeting where their ideas are challenged along with the established theory. Theists attend the church where everyone pledged belief in a set creed which isn't challenged, unless the church divides.

I think the atheism of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot played as much in their actions as the theism of Adolph Hitler played in the actions of the Nazis, which is not very much at all. I was pointing out the motivating power of theist that doesn't exist for the atheist. (I doubt an atheist would give his life for 72 virgins in an afterlife.)

But the problems are much more than that. We have people denying their children medical help because they believe in supernatural healing. We have mentally ill people believing they hear voices from the supernatural telling them to do evil acts. We have devoted theist who feel God is directing them to bomb abortion clinics, etc. No other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God. All that a theist can say is that those actions are contrary to the beliefs of their religion now.

I know you are tired of this so I will stop here.

Date: Jul 9, 2006

I'm just so happy that atheist finally put an "s" on theists.

Date: Jul 9, 2006

Atheist,

Your list of bad deeds done by religious folks is impressive. Equally impressive is the list of bad deeds done by non religious folks. To quote Mark Twain, “he is a human being, no worse could I say about anyone” [If he did not say it, he should have.]. An Atheist is no more or less trustworthy than a person proclaiming them selves religious. I do not see the value in defining yourself on the basis of what you are or are not. Moreover, a propensity to focus on either religion or anti religion seems rather trivial. I willing accept folks of many different persuasions including religion, anti religion, straight, gay, democrat, republican, independent, conservative, liberal, etc., so long as they leave me alone to be a happy curmudgeon.

Date: Jul 9, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Atheist, Your list of bad deeds done by religious folks is impressive. Equally impressive is the list of bad deeds done by non religious folks. To quote Mark Twain, “he is a human being, no worse could I say about anyone” [If he did not say it, he should have.]. An Atheist is no more or less trustworthy than a person proclaiming them selves religious. I do not see the value in defining yourself on the basis of what you are or are not. Moreover, a propensity to focus on either religion or anti religion seems rather trivial. I willing accept folks of many different persuasions including religion, anti religion, straight, gay, democrat, republican, independent, conservative, liberal, etc., so long as they leave me alone to be a happy curmudgeon.

Cossack, I don't disagree with what you and/or Mark Twain say. I also accept and live with people that have many different persuasions. However, in this post you seem to think I'm concerned with labels. In my last post I spoke of the cause for some (negative?) theists' actions being belief in the supernatural. Granted people of all labels do both bad and good things. But the cause or basis for their actions is not due to the those labels we assign to them. For example, what negative things do conservatives due only because they are conservatives? What bad things have non religious people done because they were non religious? What negative things would an atheist be motivated to do because they lacked belief in the supernatural?

P.S. I hope I put those "ssssss" after atheist and theist where appropriate.

Date: Jul 10, 2006

Atheist wrote:

What negative things would an atheist be motivated to do because they lacked belief in the supernatural?

As I recall from history, Mao and Stalin both had nasty little habits for purging their respective atheist states of religious leaders and followers because they refused to believe that Mao/the State or Stalin/the State was the source of all authority. So far, history has shown that all human societies not organized around the concept of a higher source of authority than man fall into despotism. Please name me one atheistic democratic county whose laws and social order were not found/based on the belief in a higher moral authority than man himself.

Marxist/communist states are based on the “freedom from religion.” The great democracies of the world are based on the “freedom of religion.” While history is filled with accounts of men who have killed other men in the name of God/gods, those action reflect on the nature of man, not God.

As an atheist you must concede that if there is no God, no person has killed another person because God told them to do so. If the person claims God told them to do it, then their claim is a delusion, thus they killed the other person because they are delusional and if they had not said it was God, they would say it was something or someone else. Or is it your claim that the belief in God or gods is bases for a person becoming delusional? There would be no schizophrenics in an atheist world?

Date: Jul 10, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Atheist wrote: What negative things would an atheist be motivated to do because they lacked belief in the supernatural?

As I recall from history, Mao and Stalin both had nasty little habits for purging their respective atheist states of religious leaders and followers because they refused to believe that Mao/the State or Stalin/the State was the source of all authority. So far, history has shown that all human societies not organized around the concept of a higher source of authority than man fall into despotism. Please name me one atheistic democratic county whose laws and social order were not found/based on the belief in a higher moral authority than man himself. Marxist/communist states are based on the “freedom from religion.” The great democracies of the world are based on the “freedom of religion.” While history is filled with accounts of men who have killed other men in the name of God/gods, those action reflect on the nature of man, not God. As an atheist you must concede that if there is no God, no person has killed another person because God told them to do so. If the person claims God told them to do it, then their claim is a delusion, thus they killed the other person because they are delusional and if they had not said it was God, they would say it was something or someone else. Or is it your claim that the belief in God or gods is bases for a person becoming delusional? There would be no schizophrenics in an atheist world?

Coast Resident, I would say Mao and Stalin purged all who threaten their authority. The fact that a subset included groups that were religions is besides the point. Belief in the supernatural wasn't the cause, but rather the threat to communist authority.

I'm confused by your comments concerning societies/governments base on " a higher source of authority". 1) I hope you are not committing the fallacy of numbers. If everyone believed in something, that does not make it true. Everyone could be wrong. 2) Our government's founding documents refer to a "creator", but does not specify what/who the "creator" is. (Many who wrote, edited and signed the document were deist.) The question is then, "What is the source of our "Human Nature" and our "Natural Rights". Of course, theists will turn to the supernatural and say God, in agreement with their previous beliefs. Atheists would say our nature evolved just like every other animal, so the "higher moral authority" would be nature, the laws of the Universe, which we know exist. I know, I know, the Christian right claim this is a "Christian Nation" founded on "Christian Principles", but saying that doesn't mean it is true.

People who believe in God and the Bible tell me God has commanded people to kill others. Examples, when the Jews fought to get the Promise Land, when Abraham was directed to kill his son, the Crusades(?), etc, etc. Do you think this was delusional or what everyone does when they want authority to do something? As a theist, what do you use to decide which were delusional?

Finally, I have a hard time imaging atheistic schizophrenics saying God or the Devil spoke to them. What gives the "voices" the schizophrenics hears the "higher authority" that forces them to obey?

Date: Jul 10, 2006

Atheist wrote:

We have mentally ill people believing they hear voices from the supernatural telling them to do evil acts. We have devoted theist who feel God is directing them to bomb abortion clinics, etc. No other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God.

Atheist, do you believe that if a mentally ill person were an atheist that they would not hear voices telling them to do evil acts? Of course not! They would claim they are receiving messages from aliens, the Government, or something else. The point is that you can not blame a belief in the supernatural for the actions of the mentally ill. This argument holds no water so quite putting it forth.

As to your statement that "no other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God," hogwash! Your claim here is to say that because someone believes anything is possible to God, that one can not claim that another person's claim about what God has or has not done can not be proven wrong. Look at it this way, a good God believing church going person is sitting at a table and has a shoe box on it in which they have a 10 sided die with the numbers 0-9. Across from them sitting at the table is their preacher. The preacher can not see inside the shoe box but claims he does not need to as he talks to God and God will tell him not only what number has been rolled, but also what number will be rolled next! The preacher says God has told him that the last number rolled was a 7 and the next will be a 9. The parishioner looks in the box and the number is 3. They pick up the die and roll it again and it is a 2.

Of course at this point you will now retort, "Wait, I only said that the parishioner can not claim the preacher did not hear God. At best the parishioner can only claim that the preacher was either misinformed by God or that the preacher misunderstood what God said."

Ah, but lets now say that the preacher was right and the numbers were 7 and 9 and that the two of them go through the little exercise a hundred times more and the preacher is always right. Would this prove that God talks to the preacher? Of course, you as an atheist say this can never happen as there is no God. But that is not the point here. This is only a hypothetical to illustrate an argument.

Now let’s add to this scene another preacher from the church across the street. This preacher also claims that God talks to him. Now, this new preacher only picks the right number about 1 out of every 10 times. So now you say again, "Wait, at best the parishioner can only claim that the new preacher was either misinformed by God or that this preacher misunderstood what God said."

Come now, if I said that this were but an experiment to test psychic ability of some yet understood natural phenomena and that every one at the table were an atheist, then you would accept that it could be shown that one person has psychic ability and the other does not. Your argument (No other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God) rest on the idea that nothing is absolutely knowable.

We have but a vague understanding of the laws of physics. Is there dark energy? What is dark matter? Why do the galaxies continue to accelerate from each other? Nothing is absolutely knowable but you take it on faith everyday that you know enough about the laws of physics to drive a car or rely on the information your computer generates accepting that it was given correct data. These things are "reasonable" for you to know and accept. I would claim that it is reasonable for theist/deist to make the same claim as to know if another person's claim to hearing God might in fact be not true or at least incorrect. A theist/deist has the right to make these claims as much as an atheist. In the absent of any empirical evidence, just because you believe something to not be true does not make you any more right than the person who believes it to be true.

Date: Jul 10, 2006

Coast Resident,

I wish I could have said that, but I would have confused myself by the second paragraph.

Date: Jul 10, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Atheist wrote: We have mentally ill people believing they hear voices from the supernatural telling them to do evil acts. We have devoted theist who feel God is directing them to bomb abortion clinics, etc. No other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God.

Atheist, do you believe that if a mentally ill person were an atheist that they would not hear voices telling them to do evil acts? Of course not! They would claim they are receiving messages from aliens, the Government, or something else. The point is that you can not blame a belief in the supernatural for the actions of the mentally ill. This argument holds no water so quite putting it forth. As to your statement that "no other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God," hogwash! Your claim here is to say that because someone believes anything is possible to God, that one can not claim that another person's claim about what God has or has not done can not be proven wrong. Look at it this way, a good God believing church going person is sitting at a table and has a shoe box on it in which they have a 10 sided die with the numbers 0-9. Across from them sitting at the table is their preacher. The preacher can not see inside the shoe box but claims he does not need to as he talks to God and God will tell him not only what number has been rolled, but also what number will be rolled next! The preacher says God has told him that the last number rolled was a 7 and the next will be a 9. The parishioner looks in the box and the number is 3. They pick up the die and roll it again and it is a 2. Of course at this point you will now retort, "Wait, I only said that the parishioner can not claim the preacher did not hear God. At best the parishioner can only claim that the preacher was either misinformed by God or that the preacher misunderstood what God said." Ah, but lets now say that the preacher was right and the numbers were 7 and 9 and that the two of them go through the little exercise a hundred times more and the preacher is always right. Would this prove that God talks to the preacher? Of course, you as an atheist say this can never happen as there is no God. But that is not the point here. This is only a hypothetical to illustrate an argument. Now let’s add to this scene another preacher from the church across the street. This preacher also claims that God talks to him. Now, this new preacher only picks the right number about 1 out of every 10 times. So now you say again, "Wait, at best the parishioner can only claim that the new preacher was either misinformed by God or that this preacher misunderstood what God said." Come now, if I said that this were but an experiment to test psychic ability of some yet understood natural phenomena and that every one at the table were an atheist, then you would accept that it could be shown that one person has psychic ability and the other does not. Your argument (No other theist can say they know those people are not hearing God) rest on the idea that nothing is absolutely knowable. We have but a vague understanding of the laws of physics. Is there dark energy? What is dark matter? Why do the galaxies continue to accelerate from each other? Nothing is absolutely knowable but you take it on faith everyday that you know enough about the laws of physics to drive a car or rely on the information your computer generates accepting that it was given correct data. These things are "reasonable" for you to know and accept. I would claim that it is reasonable for theist/deist to make the same claim as to know if another person's claim to hearing God might in fact be not true or at least incorrect. A theist/deist has the right to make these claims as much as an atheist. In the absent of any empirical evidence, just because you believe something to not be true does not make you any more right than the person who believes it to be true.

Whoa, Coastal Resident. Please slow down for me. There is too much here for me to respond to in a reasonable way.

1) I Agree that an atheistic mentally ill person would associate "the voices" to aliens (or mental illness?). But why should they obey aliens, after all it isn't God speaking with that "higher moral authority". But of course they act because of mental illness.

2) My statement that another theist can't claim God is not speaking to, say, an abortion clinic bomber is not based on having absolute knowledge, but rather they have no knowledge of what God orders people to do. Remember "God works in mysterious ways". The dice experiment would test for outside knowledge sources, but that is about all one could say about it as far as I see. And while I'm at it I may as well state that "God" has not even been defined here.

3) You talk about "absolute knowledge" and then "faith". It is an equivocation to use the word faith (believe without evidence or is spite of evidence) with your scientific discussion where there are phenomena requiring explanation and Dark Matter and Energy are still tentative explanations. What phenomena requires the supernatural?

4) I totally disagree with your statement: "I would claim that it is reasonable for theist/deist to make the same claim as to know if another person's claim to hearing God might in fact be not true or at least incorrect. A theist/deist has the right to make these claims as much as an atheist. "

A claim to knowledge is not knowledge, only a claim. You confuse belief with knowledge. Example: How do you claim to know the Muslim bombers are not performing God's will as they claim? I'm not asking what you believe.

5)" In the absent of any empirical evidence, just because you believe something to not be true does not make you any more right than the person who believes it to be true."

Nonsense, the burden of proof (or supplying evidence) is always on the person making the claim. It is a fallacy to think statements are true until proven false. If you don't agree, then we are correct is believing you are a child molester until you prove otherwise.

Date: Jul 11, 2006

Atheist wrote:

2) My statement that another theist can't claim God is not speaking to, say, an abortion clinic bomber is not based on having absolute knowledge, but rather they have no knowledge of what God orders people to do. Remember "God works in mysterious ways".

An inability to predict how God will perform a given action is not the same as claiming that his character itself cannot be known.

The consistency of God's character is in fact heavily attested.

I the Lord change not. (Malachi 3:6)

This saying is faithful: For if we died with him, We will also live with him. If we
endure, We will also reign with him. If we deny him, He also will deny us. If we
are faithless, He remains faithful. He can't deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:11-13)

On God's faithfulness, see also

Genesis 6:18; 9:15-16; 21:1; 24:27; 28:15; 32:10; Exodus 2:24; 6:4-5; 12:41; 34:6; Leviticus 26:44-45; Deuteronomy 4:31; 7:8-9; 9:5; 31:6; 32:4; Joshua 21:45; 23:14; Judges 2:1; 1Samuel 12:22; 2Samuel 7:14-15,28; 22:31; 23:5; 1Kings 8:15,20,23-24,56; 2Kings 8:19; 13:23; 1Chronicles 17:27; 28:20; 2Chronicles 6:4-15; 21:7; Ezra 9:9; Nehemiah 1:5; 9:7-8,32; Psalms 9:10; 18:30; 19:9; 25:10; 31:5; 33:4; 36:5; 37:28; 40:10; 89:1-2,5,8,14,24,28,33-34; 92:1-2,14-15; 94:14; 98:3; 100:5; 103:17; 105:8,42; 111:5,7-9; 117:2; 119:65,89-90; 121:3-4; 132:11; 138:2; 146:6; Isaiah 11:5; 25:1; 42:16; 44:21; 49:7,16; 51:6,8; 54:9-10; 65:16; Jeremiah 29:10; 31:36-37; 32:40; 33:14,20-21,25-26; 51:5; Lamentations 3:23; Ezekiel 16:60,62; Daniel 9:4; Hosea 2:19-20; Micah 7:20; Haggai 2:5; Zechariah 9:11; Matthew 24:34-35; Luke 1:54-55,68-70,72-73; John 8:26; Acts 13:32-33; Romans 3:3-4; 11:1-2,29; 15:8; 1Corinthians 1:9; 10:13; 2Corinthians 1:20; 1Thessalonians 5:24; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:10,13-19; 10:22-23,37; 1Peter 4:19; 2Peter 3:9; 1John 1:9; Revelation 6:10; 15:3.

And on his consistent personality, see also

Exodus 3:14; 8:10; 15:11; 20:3; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 5:7; 6:4; 10:17; 32:12,39; Joshua 22:22; Judges 13:16; 1Samuel 2:2; 7:3; 2Samuel 7:22; 22:32; 1Kings 8:23,60; 2Kings 17:36; 19:15; 2Chronicles 6:14; Ezra 1:3; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 18:31; 86:10; 96:5; Isaiah 37:16; 40:25; 42:8; 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5-6,18,21-22; 46:5,9; Jeremiah 10:6-7,10; 14:22; 32:27; Hosea 13:4; Malachi 2:10; Mt 4:10; 23:9; Mark 12:32; John 14:9; 17:3; Romans 1:25; 3:29; 1Corinthians 8:4-6; 2Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 3:20; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:15; 1Thessalonians 1:9; 1Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 1:3.

Date: Jul 11, 2006

You say apples, I say oranges wrote:

Atheist wrote: 2) My statement that another theist can't claim God is not speaking to, say, an abortion clinic bomber is not based on having absolute knowledge, but rather they have no knowledge of what God orders people to do. Remember "God works in mysterious ways".

An inability to predict how God will perform a given action is not the same as claiming that his character itself cannot be known. The consistency of God's character is in fact heavily attested. I the Lord change not. (Malachi 3:6) This saying is faithful: For if we died with him, We will also live with him. If we endure, We will also reign with him. If we deny him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful. He can't deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:11-13) On God's faithfulness, see also Genesis 6:18; 9:15-16; 21:1; 24:27; 28:15; 32:10; Exodus 2:24; 6:4-5; 12:41; 34:6; Leviticus 26:44-45; Deuteronomy 4:31; 7:8-9; 9:5; 31:6; 32:4; Joshua 21:45; 23:14; Judges 2:1; 1Samuel 12:22; 2Samuel 7:14-15,28; 22:31; 23:5; 1Kings 8:15,20,23-24,56; 2Kings 8:19; 13:23; 1Chronicles 17:27; 28:20; 2Chronicles 6:4-15; 21:7; Ezra 9:9; Nehemiah 1:5; 9:7-8,32; Psalms 9:10; 18:30; 19:9; 25:10; 31:5; 33:4; 36:5; 37:28; 40:10; 89:1-2,5,8,14,24,28,33-34; 92:1-2,14-15; 94:14; 98:3; 100:5; 103:17; 105:8,42; 111:5,7-9; 117:2; 119:65,89-90; 121:3-4; 132:11; 138:2; 146:6; Isaiah 11:5; 25:1; 42:16; 44:21; 49:7,16; 51:6,8; 54:9-10; 65:16; Jeremiah 29:10; 31:36-37; 32:40; 33:14,20-21,25-26; 51:5; Lamentations 3:23; Ezekiel 16:60,62; Daniel 9:4; Hosea 2:19-20; Micah 7:20; Haggai 2:5; Zechariah 9:11; Matthew 24:34-35; Luke 1:54-55,68-70,72-73; John 8:26; Acts 13:32-33; Romans 3:3-4; 11:1-2,29; 15:8; 1Corinthians 1:9; 10:13; 2Corinthians 1:20; 1Thessalonians 5:24; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:10,13-19; 10:22-23,37; 1Peter 4:19; 2Peter 3:9; 1John 1:9; Revelation 6:10; 15:3. And on his consistent personality, see also Exodus 3:14; 8:10; 15:11; 20:3; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 5:7; 6:4; 10:17; 32:12,39; Joshua 22:22; Judges 13:16; 1Samuel 2:2; 7:3; 2Samuel 7:22; 22:32; 1Kings 8:23,60; 2Kings 17:36; 19:15; 2Chronicles 6:14; Ezra 1:3; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 18:31; 86:10; 96:5; Isaiah 37:16; 40:25; 42:8; 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5-6,18,21-22; 46:5,9; Jeremiah 10:6-7,10; 14:22; 32:27; Hosea 13:4; Malachi 2:10; Mt 4:10; 23:9; Mark 12:32; John 14:9; 17:3; Romans 1:25; 3:29; 1Corinthians 8:4-6; 2Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 3:20; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:15; 1Thessalonians 1:9; 1Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 1:3.

Sorry for the delayed response, but I had demons in my computer today that need exorcized. My statement use the word knowledge. With all due respect, "You say...", I think you confuse knowledge and belief. You believe in a supernatural being called God, you believe the Bible is the word of this being and you believe your interpretation of this book is correct. None of this is known to be true, but is taken by you on faith. There are theists who would not agree with you. Also there are theists who are not Christian, Jew or Muslim.

I'm puzzled as to why you would quote the Bible as a response to me, an atheist. Are you aware of all the biblical errors? Check these links: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

How about the good book's position on slavery: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html#ref1222

Date: Jul 11, 2006

That was weird. Anyway, let me try again.

Atheist, my internet connection was on the fritz for a long time too. I just figured you came over and put a gris-gris on it!! Anybody else have problems??

Date: Jul 11, 2006

From Mencken's Creed:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

Date: Jul 11, 2006

LVN wrote:

That was weird. Anyway, let me try again. Atheist, my internet connection was on the fritz for a long time too. I just figured you came over and put a gris-gris on it!! Anybody else have problems??

LVN, I'm on Comcast, how about you? So that is how you spell gris-gris, pronounced gre'-gre'. Haven't heard anyone use it in a while.

Date: Jul 11, 2006

Yes, I'm on comcast. My brother is too, and says they were down for a while this morning. Somewhere in the process of unplugging and rebooting, I turned the modem off, which does make it difficult to connect!

Date: Jul 11, 2006

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

Since we are into sweeping generalizations,

I believe that liberals, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that their modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage they have done to clear and honest thinking.

Date: Jul 11, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

Since we are into sweeping generalizations,

I believe that liberals, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that their modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage they have done to clear and honest thinking.

Now Cossack, I thought we had this back and forth just the other night (in the guise of those evil socialists/Nazis/liberals/baby-killing godless genocide mongering Democrats). Why would you want to start this ball rolling again? Sigh.

Date: Jul 11, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

Since we are into sweeping generalizations, I believe that liberals, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that their modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage they have done to clear and honest thinking.

Cossack, which definition of "liberal" are you using? Some people I know consider what you wrote to be the definition of "liberal".