onenerdykidDarwin argues (in summation) that genetic mutation is random, and the best/most successful traits are the ones that live on. The end result is present day life. Intelligent Design argues (in summation) that genetic mutation is caused by God, and the changes that exist in nature are ultimately caused by God. The end result is also present day life. Two different theories, both logically possible, both explaining present day life.

For both, however, the knowledge of it is simply not possible. Both remain logical theories.

To 100% claim that Darwin is correct is no more true than to 100% claim that it is God. Both are unknowable and unproveable.

There are multiple ways of describing Intelligent design no? You summarized Darwins perspective, but who is "intelligent design"? You need to be more specific as to whos version of intelligent design you are describing. Random genetic mutation could have easily been part of the ultimate design. We have random number generators, why cant Krsna have something similar?

Your post reminded me of this.

– Anything that we take to be true is revisable

– We can never have a 'god's-eye' view of the universe

– All truths are a matter of opinion

– Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)

– All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)

– There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

The debate regarding truth has gone in circles for centuries.

I feel that knowing God is like leaving Platos Cave and I assume it feels the same for Athiests as well.

DlCKThere are multiple ways of describing Intelligent design no? You summarized Darwins perspective, but who is "intelligent design"? You need to be more specific as to whos version of intelligent design you are describing. Random genetic mutation could have easily been part of the ultimate design. We have random number generators, why cant Krsna have something similar?

Your post reminded me of this.

– Anything that we take to be true is revisable

– We can never have a 'god's-eye' view of the universe

– All truths are a matter of opinion

– Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)

– All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)

– There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

The debate regarding truth has gone in circles for centuries.

I feel that knowing God is like leaving Platos Cave and I assume it feels the same for Athiests as well.

I was speaking of "intelligent design" in general, that the ultimate cause of things is due to a supreme being. All intelligent design arguments share this, so there was no reason for me to be specific as to which deity. Most often, the deities are left out of the discussion because they don't need to be there.

To your other points:

1. only factual truth is reviseable and that happens when the facts change. Logical truths are not reviseable, and if you think so then you will have a hard time arguing with anyone since even your arguments are based on unchanging rules of thought.

2. true

3. All truths are not matters of opinion, but some are. Logical truths are not subject to opinion, but rather opinion is subject to them.

4. I have already addressed how this is a self-defeating argument that at its basis is a universal, non-relative truth. Your statement should be "some truths are relative" in the contexts of which you noted some will be true..

5. Again not true- many truths are universal, these are mostly logical truths. They are mind-dependent in so far as they require a subject to think about them, but your earlier point if we discover them they are independent of us. We simply tap into them.

6. Whether we are willing to assert a truth or not, it is true without our assertion. No matter how often I don't want to assert that categorical syllogisms are true, they are nonetheless true.

People argue about truth today mainly because they are mistaken. And you are more than welcome to disagree with my points (and I encourage it), but you will see that you need the principles of which I speak of in order to make your assertions. By trying to negate these principles, you end up proving their necessary existence.

DlCK– Anything that we take to be true is revisable

– We can never have a 'god's-eye' view of the universe

– All truths are a matter of opinion

– Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)

– All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)

– There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Also- your second point contradicts your other relativistic points. If you say " we can never have a "god's eye view" of the universe" then you are making an absolute (read: non-relativist) statement that is not subject to be the opposite way. If true, it is an absolute truth.

DlCKThat would negate the meaning of the word cause.

Not true. Infinite time continuum or something along the lines of that. Basically let's say somehow someday I create the universe. But the universe created me. But I then went on to create the universe. Remember that time isn't static

NikolausTotal bull. He went from smart to stupid. Usually doesn't happen.

This is a actually a genuine question from me:

Why are you so adamant on proving that God is not real when, for many, it's a source of hope and encouragement?

DaskiThe Bible is full of metaphors, not every word in it is "fact" in the sense that it is literally true. The world being created in 7 days is a metaphor, it gives an answer to an ancient people wondering "Who and what made all this shit around us?" and is not meant to be taken as God literally made the world in 7 days. Disciples references followers of Jesus, not the 12 Apostles you may be confusing with disciples. The Catholic Church (along with many other Christian denominations and many Christian people in general) even says that not all of the Bible is historically factual, and it is heavily laden with metaphors. Many churches (Including Catholic) accept evolution/the big bang as fact. Making generalizations like you are is sad. You don't have to agree with me, I'm not asking you too, but you could be a little more respectful of those with different beliefs/ learn about them before making blanket statements.

End rant, lets all just be nice to each other

So you just confirmed that my "blanket statement" of the bible being fictitious is correct? And saying the bible is fiction is a generlization? I even said before how Christianity offers a good moral compass? Did you respond to the wrong person? Are you okay?

Also

A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two.

It's not a metaphor you dingus. There's nothing to say it's the same as.

It literally says that the earth was created in 7 days, not "the earth was created in 7 days like the creation of a pair of skis in u steps." that's a metaphor.

But hey you tried

Lonely"the earth was created in 7 days like the creation of a pair of skis in u steps." that's a metaphor.

But hey you tried

You just provided an example of a simile, not a metaphor...

But hey you tried

LonelyNot true. Infinite time continuum or something along the lines of that. Basically let's say somehow someday I create the universe. But the universe created me. But I then went on to create the universe. Remember that time isn't static

Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

"the cause of the accident is not clear"

Conundrum: a confusing and difficult problem or question.

Paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

"a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox"

shotvetThis is a actually a genuine question from me:

Why are you so adamant on proving that God is not real when, for many, it's a source of hope and encouragement?

Because although for some it does provide that, Religion as a whole cusses much more damage than good. Society needs to move past false hope and make their own hope.

saskskierYou just provided an example of a simile, not a metaphor...

But hey you tried

Yes I did haha. Regardless he did not use metaphor correctly.

DlCKCause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

"the cause of the accident is not clear"

Conundrum: a confusing and difficult problem or question.

Paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

"a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox"

But God is a paradox too. What greatest God? The consistent answer is that he just exists. Which would also conflict with your statements of all must have a cause. Paradoxs are everywhere among us. And since you copy and pasted quantum mechanics I doubt that you understand them or their potential of proving the bible even more wrong. Do you know the law of the state of quantum physics?

I mean most of quantum mechanics are contoversial because they are paradoxial

LonelyYes I did haha. Regardless he did not use metaphor correctly.

Ha ha. I'm just an grammar snob.

I generally agree that those who say biblical stories are metaphors or analogies are incorrect. I would (generally) say the terms people are looking for when saying "the stories in the bible are just metaphors" are moral stories or parables or allegories.

LonelyBut God is a paradox too. What greatest God? The consistent answer is that he just exists. Which would also conflict with your statements of all must have a cause. Paradoxs are everywhere among us. And since you copy and pasted quantum mechanics I doubt that you understand them or their potential of proving the bible even more wrong. Do you know the law of the state of quantum physics?

There are many passages in the Bible that can be interpreted to prove the existence of higher dimensions. Disappearances can be explained by the escape into a physical fourth dimension. William Anthony Granville, author of The Fourth Dimension and the Bible, explains, "A man (three-dimensional being) who has been translated from our space into a higher-dimensional space will remain invisible to earthly beings until he returns again to our space." (44) Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 describe Enoch walking with God and then disappearing because God took him. Jesus inexplicably escapes from threatening multitudes twice- John 8:59 and 10:39. It seems most logical that Jesus used the fourth dimension to elude his would-be captors.

Similar to the power to disappear from three-dimensional beings, anyone who could move in a fourth physical dimension could also transport himself/herself anywhere in our three-dimensional world instantly. The Bible also contains examples of appearances which also are easily explained with the use of the Fourth Dimension. Twice, Jesus entered the room of the disciples without using a door (John 20:19-23, 26-29). Entering a room through its walls is only possible via the Fourth Dimension. Another example of movement only possible in the Fourth Dimension is contained in Acts 8:39-40. Philip baptized an eunuch on a road and then was swept up by the Lord and found later that day at Azotus- which was several days journey from where Philip baptized the eunuch.

God is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and infinite to human beings. These characteristics seem impossible for humans to understand. Many people base their spiritual faith on this lack of understanding and attribute to God characteristics that are impossible for three-dimensional humans to understand. However, the existence of God as a higher-dimensional being explains these characteristics simply. God- as a higher-dimensional being- is only omnipotent, omniscient, etc. to lower dimensional beings. The existence of higher dimensions clearly explains all of these powers attributed to God. It is interesting to consider God's dimensionality. While some people believe that God exists in the fourth dimension, many others place God in a higher dimension.

SparkNotes: Matthew Mcconaughey in Interstellar is God

To throw some diesel on the embers...

What's that saying, along the lines of "If you need a bible to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably not a very good person"

I know many, many good people that have never picked up a bible.

And I know of a few complete bastards who have dedicated their lives to some or another religion.

I also know good people who are quite religious, and I know bad people who aren't.

I personally don't think there's any real correlation.

But to go back to the original post, unless you knowingly send your child to a school with a religious affiliation then "religious education" shouldn't go beyond the history, background and beliefs of religions. It should be taught (and I think it should be taught, as a matter of equality and awareness) as, for example, "Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected" rather than a teaching like a factual statement "Jesus was resurrected"

There's plenty of hours in the day that aren't at school where you can invite your child to peruse the Bible/Torah/Koran/Tao Te Ching/Doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

rozboonTo throw some diesel on the embers...

What's that saying, along the lines of "If you need a bible to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably not a very good person"

I know many, many good people that have never picked up a bible.

And I know of a few complete bastards who have dedicated their lives to some or another religion.

I also know good people who are quite religious, and I know bad people who aren't.

I personally don't think there's any real correlation.

But to go back to the original post, unless you knowingly send your child to a school with a religious affiliation then "religious education" shouldn't go beyond the history, background and beliefs of religions. It should be taught (and I think it should be taught, as a matter of equality and awareness) as, for example, "Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected" rather than a teaching like a factual statement "Jesus was resurrected"

There's plenty of hours in the day that aren't at school where you can invite your child to peruse the Bible/Torah/Koran/Tao Te Ching/Doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I agree with this. I think it would be very beneficial to learn about about other religions in all schools as I think knowledge leads to respect which correlates with tolerance, which is lacking in so many areas of our society today. I went to public school and now find myself an adult and feel I know very little about religions outside of Christianity

LonelySo you just confirmed that my "blanket statement" of the bible being fictitious is correct? And saying the bible is fiction is a generlization? I even said before how Christianity offers a good moral compass? Did you respond to the wrong person? Are you okay?

Also

A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two.

It's not a metaphor you dingus. There's nothing to say it's the same as.

It literally says that the earth was created in 7 days, not "the earth was created in 7 days like the creation of a pair of skis in u steps." that's a metaphor.

But hey you tried

Only proving further that you could be more respectful of others. "But hey you tried" Can you be more condescending? Don't let your emotions/need to please an internet community with mildly funny responses get in the way of presenting your view point. It clouds the logic of your argument.

Also, to whoever said the Bible is full of "parables" or "allegories", thanks for correcting me. I had it wrong using the word metaphor

DaskiOnly proving further that you could be more respectful of others. "But hey you tried" Can you be more condescending? Don't let your emotions/need to please an internet community with mildly funny responses get in the way of presenting your view point. It clouds the logic of your argument.

Also, to whoever said the Bible is full of "parables" or "allegories", thanks for correcting me. I had it wrong using the word metaphor

Oh get off the butthurt train. I wasn't doing anything before that and if you're so hurt by a condesending statement you shouldn't be here cause people will be a lot more blunt than me

DlCKThere are many passages in the Bible that can be interpreted to prove the existence of higher dimensions. Disappearances can be explained by the escape into a physical fourth dimension. William Anthony Granville, author of The Fourth Dimension and the Bible, explains, "A man (three-dimensional being) who has been translated from our space into a higher-dimensional space will remain invisible to earthly beings until he returns again to our space." (44) Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 describe Enoch walking with God and then disappearing because God took him. Jesus inexplicably escapes from threatening multitudes twice- John 8:59 and 10:39. It seems most logical that Jesus used the fourth dimension to elude his would-be captors.

Similar to the power to disappear from three-dimensional beings, anyone who could move in a fourth physical dimension could also transport himself/herself anywhere in our three-dimensional world instantly. The Bible also contains examples of appearances which also are easily explained with the use of the Fourth Dimension. Twice, Jesus entered the room of the disciples without using a door (John 20:19-23, 26-29). Entering a room through its walls is only possible via the Fourth Dimension. Another example of movement only possible in the Fourth Dimension is contained in Acts 8:39-40. Philip baptized an eunuch on a road and then was swept up by the Lord and found later that day at Azotus- which was several days journey from where Philip baptized the eunuch.

God is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and infinite to human beings. These characteristics seem impossible for humans to understand. Many people base their spiritual faith on this lack of understanding and attribute to God characteristics that are impossible for three-dimensional humans to understand. However, the existence of God as a higher-dimensional being explains these characteristics simply. God- as a higher-dimensional being- is only omnipotent, omniscient, etc. to lower dimensional beings. The existence of higher dimensions clearly explains all of these powers attributed to God. It is interesting to consider God's dimensionality. While some people believe that God exists in the fourth dimension, many others place God in a higher dimension.

SparkNotes: Matthew Mcconaughey in Interstellar is God

That's a very interesting take. Doesn't relate so much to my quantum mechanics post but regardless. The only issue I would have with that is the countless other theories. String theory being probably the most well known. And fourth dimension deals more with peacetime contiums which are hard to do with since time is relative and for some formulas to work it has to be considered static. Still an iteresting take. Definetly something to look into. But again this is expaining the bible with SCIENCE. That makes sense. But saying that it just happened and not questioning it is where problems arise

"What do you think the average IQ of this group is, huh?"

"Just observation and deduction. I see a propensity for obesity. Poverty. A yen for fairy tales. Folks puttin' what few bucks they do have into a little wicker basket being passed around. I think it's safe to say nobody here's gonna be splitting the atom, Marty."

"Yeah, well if the common good's gotta make up fairy tales then it's not good for anybody."

"I mean, can you imagine if people didn't believe, what things they'd get up to?

'Exact same thing they do now. Just out in the open.'"

'If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible."

'What's it say about life, hmm? You gotta get together, tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the god damn day. Nah. What's that say about your reality, Marty?"

"Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective at proportion to the amount of certainty he can project. Certain linguistic anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain. Dulls critical thinking."

"At least I'm not racing to a red light."

"You see we all got what I call a life trap, a gene deep certainty that things will be different... that you'll move to another city and meet the people that'll be the friends for the rest of your life... that you'll fall in love and be fulfilled... fucking fulfillment... and closure whatever the fuck those two fuckin' empty jars to hold this shit storm. Nothing's ever fulfilled, not until the very end. and closure. Nothing is ever over."

"People... I have seen the finale of thousands of lives, man. Young, old, each one so sure of their realness. You know that their sensory experience constituted a unique individual with purpose and meaning. So certain that they were more than biological puppet. The truth wills out, and everybody sees. Once the strings are cut, all fall down."

"The ontological fallacy of expecting a light at the end of the tunnel, well, that's what the preacher sells, same as a shrink. See, the preacher, he encourages your capacity for illusion. Then he tells you it's a fucking virtue. Always a buck to be had doing that, and it's such a desperate sense of entitlement, isn't it?"

onenerdykidAlso- your second point contradicts your other relativistic points. If you say " we can never have a "god's eye view" of the universe" then you are making an absolute (read: non-relativist) statement that is not subject to be the opposite way. If true, it is an absolute truth.

You are just great in this thread. Philosophy was never this interesting in school.

Carry on!

mirozYou are just great in this thread. Philosophy was never this interesting in school.

Carry on!

If you or anyone is still in school, I highly recommend taking a class in logic (an intro course that deals with informal and formal logic would be great). A logic class sounds like it will be boring, but it is far from it. All of the great philosophers were "fluent" in logic and many considered themselves logicians first and philosophers second.

It will teach anyone how to spot flaws in arguments and how to have a proper system in your thought process. This is not only awesome for discussing philosophy, but in writing papers and in arguing in general, no matter what your field of study is. My intro to logic class was one of the most eye-opening classes I ever took.

DlCKGod is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and infinite to human beings. These characteristics seem impossible for humans to understand. Many people base their spiritual faith on this lack of understanding and attribute to God characteristics that are impossible for three-dimensional humans to understand. However, the existence of God as a higher-dimensional being explains these characteristics simply. God- as a higher-dimensional being- is only omnipotent, omniscient, etc. to lower dimensional beings. The existence of higher dimensions clearly explains all of these powers attributed to God. It is interesting to consider God's dimensionality. While some people believe that God exists in the fourth dimension, many others place God in a higher dimension.

These attributes of God are always interesting to discuss. Among other things, they gave way to the Problem of Evil, that how can evil things exist when all things were created by a God who is all good, all powerful, and all knowing and would therefore be able to know them and not let them happen. I won't go into the solutions to this (as that would easily fill a semester) but I personally think St Augustine solved it the best.

On a different, yet related note many theologians have posited that despite God's omni-qualities, he still cannot think/do the impossible. So whether he exists in a fourth dimension beyond our comprehension, he still cannot do the impossible (read: do or be self-contradictory). He cannot think of a square sphere or a married bachelor. This does not put limits on God's power, but just clarify that God can only work within all possible things. God would always be able to do the possible (no matter how seemingly far fetched or crazy it may seem to us) but he cannot do the impossible.

DlCKGod is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and infinite to human beings. These characteristics seem impossible for humans to understand. Many people base their spiritual faith on this lack of understanding and attribute to God characteristics that are impossible for three-dimensional humans to understand. However, the existence of God as a higher-dimensional being explains these characteristics simply. God- as a higher-dimensional being- is only omnipotent, omniscient, etc. to lower dimensional beings. The existence of higher dimensions clearly explains all of these powers attributed to God. It is interesting to consider God's dimensionality. While some people believe that God exists in the fourth dimension, many others place God in a higher dimension.

These attributes of God are always interesting to discuss. Among other things, they gave way to the Problem of Evil, that how can evil things exist when all things were created by a God who is all good, all powerful, and all knowing and would therefore be able to know them and not let them happen. I won't go into the solutions to this (as that would easily fill a semester) but I personally think St Augustine solved it the best.

On a different, yet related note many theologians have posited that despite God's omni-qualities, he still cannot think/do the impossible. So whether he exists in a fourth dimension beyond our comprehension, he still cannot do the impossible (read: do or be self-contradictory). He cannot think of a square sphere or a married bachelor. This does not put limits on God's power, but just clarify that God can only work within all possible things. God would always be able to do the possible (no matter how seemingly far fetched or crazy it may seem to us) but he cannot do the impossible.

onenerdykidThese attributes of God are always interesting to discuss. Among other things, they gave way to the Problem of Evil, that how can evil things exist when all things were created by a God who is all good, all powerful, and all knowing and would therefore be able to know them and not let them happen. I won't go into the solutions to this (as that would easily fill a semester) but I personally think St Augustine solved it the best.

On a different, yet related note many theologians have posited that despite God's omni-qualities, he still cannot think/do the impossible. So whether he exists in a fourth dimension beyond our comprehension, he still cannot do the impossible (read: do or be self-contradictory). He cannot think of a square sphere or a married bachelor. This does not put limits on God's power, but just clarify that God can only work within all possible things. God would always be able to do the possible (no matter how seemingly far fetched or crazy it may seem to us) but he cannot do the impossible.

Hindu religion attributes evil as the by product of humanities free-will which I think is very interesting, definitely something to look over.

I definitely remember talking about the limitations of God and that there are verses in the bible which create contradiction, impling that God has limitation. It was a discussion about being omnipresent but not omniscient, i think. I believe in Free Will so God couldnt be omniscient. A higher intelligence could maybe know all possibilities but is unable to know a specific outcome and that coincides with what would be possible

DlCKI definitely remember talking about the limitations of God and that there are verses in the bible which create contradiction, impling that God has limitation. It was a discussion about being omnipresent but not omniscient, i think. I believe in Free Will so God couldnt be omniscient. A higher intelligence could maybe know all possibilities but is unable to know a specific outcome and that coincides with what would be possible

Theologians have argued that you can have free will and God can be omniscient at the same time because we are in space/time but God is outside it (he must be since he is ultimately eternal, ultimately unchanging, ultimately universal, etc). They argue that since you are in the chain of causal events, you can pick and choose what you want and therefore you have your free will. God, being outside space/time, would need to see all events of all existence (past, present, future) as one single moment. As such, you have your free will but God is still omniscient because he would know all things at once.

I basically summarized 500 pages of argument into one paragraph haha, but it is interesting to contemplate nonetheless.

DlCKTruth vs Fact. Most science is fact.

"A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts."

This is one of the biggest problems of religion. How are we supposed to progress as a species if the majority of humans don't understand truth and how science works. Everything we know has been sensed through human experience or discovered through the scientific method. We've had the scientific method for a couple hundred years, we've had religion for several thousand years. The progress achieved through science has exceeded the progress made through religion in a FRACTION of the time. Do away with faith and embrace the pursuit of actual truth, actual fact, and maybe we can actually make the world a better place.

shotvetThis is a actually a genuine question from me:

Why are you so adamant on proving that God is not real when, for many, it's a source of hope and encouragement?

Because hope and encouragement can be found elsewhere and religion has done far more bad in this world than it has good. You have to ask yourself, does getting hope and encouragement from a lie seem better for you and the human race than forgetting about that lie and working toward an actual better future. If I have to be bribed by the possibility of eternal life to be a decent person than that's pathetic. At that point you take away what it really means to do good and be a decent person.

SteezyMageeBecause hope and encouragement can be found elsewhere and religion has done far more bad in this world than it has good. You have to ask yourself, does getting hope and encouragement from a lie seem better for you and the human race than forgetting about that lie and working toward an actual better future. If I have to be bribed by the possibility of eternal life to be a decent person than that's pathetic. At that point you take away what it really means to do good and be a decent person.

While I totally agree with you that it is hard to be a good/morally right person if you do not perform moral acts for their own sake (i.e. the promise of an eternal life of blessedness is a selfish reason for doing something, not a moral reason for doing something), it is hard to say that religion is a lie and therefore false. While it is super tempting and interesting to say, there is a lot of burden on your end to prove that it is a lie.

In my opinion, you are better off just sticking to their argument and dismantling their argument. Rather than say the afterlife is a lie, have a discussion about their motives & reasons for generosity, honesty, faithfulness, etc (as your last sentence does).

saskskierYou just provided an example of a simile, not a metaphor...

But hey you tried

Technically, similes are a type of metaphor.

From my OED: "METAPHOR ... (1) All figures of speech that achieve their effect through association, comparison, and resemblance. Figures like antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy, simile are all species of metaphor."

onenerdykidIf you or anyone is still in school, I highly recommend taking a class in logic (an intro course that deals with informal and formal logic would be great). A logic class sounds like it will be boring, but it is far from it. All of the great philosophers were "fluent" in logic and many considered themselves logicians first and philosophers second.

It will teach anyone how to spot flaws in arguments and how to have a proper system in your thought process. This is not only awesome for discussing philosophy, but in writing papers and in arguing in general, no matter what your field of study is. My intro to logic class was one of the most eye-opening classes I ever took.

Second this. I didn't major in philosophy (I was an English major, as my knowing that simile is a subset of metaphor may indicate) the way onenerdykid did, and definitely don't have a masters, and he obviously knows all this stuff way better than I do, but I did take a logic class in college along with a few other philosophy classes (was going to minor in philosophy, but dropped it when I ran out of classes that seemed interesting to me to take) and it ended up being really, really useful in everyday life. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone.

Anyway, the whole "the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally" (I know we said we wouldn't discuss the Bible specifically here, but other people have been, so I guess I will too) thing has always been interesting to me for a number of reasons.

1. How do you know it isn't meant to be taken literally? Did God ever tell anyone that?

2. How do people know or decide which parts are supposed to be taken literally, and which parts aren't?

3. If it isn't meant to be taken literally, why the hell are we still using it as a reference point at all?

For me, whenever I hear the "well the Bible shouldn't be taken literally" argument, all I really hear is "I know a lot of the stuff in it is outdated and ridiculous and I don't want to have to try at all, or inconvenience myself in any way, to listen to or follow the Bible, so I'm going to pick and choose the bits that still seem applicable, listen to those, and just ignore the rest." This is, of course, completely fine, and seems like a reasonable way of thinking to me, but why not just admit it instead of hiding behind the "well, it just isn't meant to be taken literally" bit? Because, again, how do you know what's supposed to be taken seriously, and what isn't? Is there another book that tells you what parts are literal and what parts aren't? Who's to say the parts about loving your neighbor are literal, and the ones about not getting haircuts or shaving (I think the Bible says both those things are bad, someone correct me if I'm wrong) aren't?

SteezyMageeBecause hope and encouragement can be found elsewhere and religion has done far more bad in this world than it has good. You have to ask yourself, does getting hope and encouragement from a lie seem better for you and the human race than forgetting about that lie and working toward an actual better future. If I have to be bribed by the possibility of eternal life to be a decent person than that's pathetic. At that point you take away what it really means to do good and be a decent person.

I think you (and those who share this belief) don't have a good understanding of why (some) Christians try to be good and decent people. For those who believe, heaven/eternal life/etc is a byproduct, but not in and of itself the reason to be moral. They do so because they believe that they have a relationship with God and that behaviour is pleasing in the same way that you do good things for your friends or family or spouse. Not because you will get something out of it, but because it will make them happy.

As for religion doing far more bad than good? How do you qualify/quantify that? Certainly not through war/death?

"In their recently published book, "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone...

...Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. And the Mongol Asian rampage, which is thought to have killed nearly 30 million people, had no religious component whatsoever.

Most modern wars, including the Napoleonic Campaign, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, the Russia Revolution, World War II, and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, were not religious in nature or cause. While religious groups have been specifically targeted (most notably in World War II), to claim that religion was the cause is to blame the victim and to misunderstand the perpetrators' motives, which were nationalistic and ethnic, not religious.

Similarly, the vast numbers of genocides (those killed in ethic cleanses, purges, etc. that are not connected to a declared war) are not based on religion. It's estimated that over 160 million civilians were killed in genocides in the 20th century alone, with nearly 100 million killed by the Communist states of USSR and China. While some claim that Communism itself is a "state religion" -- because it has an absolute dictator whose word is law and a "holy book" of unchallenged rules -- such a claim simply equates "religion" with the human desire for power, conformance, and control, making any distinctions with other human institutions meaningless." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html)

tl:dr - religion has been the cause for 123/1763 or about 7% of recorded wars

SteezyMageeBecause hope and encouragement can be found elsewhere and religion has done far more bad in this world than it has good. You have to ask yourself, does getting hope and encouragement from a lie seem better for you and the human race than forgetting about that lie and working toward an actual better future. If I have to be bribed by the possibility of eternal life to be a decent person than that's pathetic. At that point you take away what it really means to do good and be a decent person.

If this isn't rhetorical and you are actually asking me, here is what I think.

I agree religion has had brutal consequences throughout the world, but it's hard to say that it has factually done more bad than good. As far as finding hope and encouragement "from a lie", prove to me it's a lie. It's beliefs vs. beliefs. If we are talking about Christians and being "bribed to act morally and ethically" you are only partially correct. I know dozens of Christians who are the kindest and most ethically sound people I know because their faith leads them to act in such a way. They do it not for fear of punishment, but instead because they believe it is their calling from God and is pleasing to Him. Think of it as doing chores for your mother because you know she has already spent a long day at work and you are helping her, rather than doing them because, if you don't, she will punish you. Unfortunately though, there are probably significantly more Christians who "act" morally and ethically for fear of hell. These are also the people persecuting other religions and condemning others and giving a bad name to Christianity

shotvetIf we are talking about Christians and being "bribed to act morally and ethically" you are only partially correct. I know dozens of Christians who are the kindest and most ethically sound people I know because their faith leads them to act in such a way. They do it not for fear of punishment, but instead because they believe it is their calling from God and is pleasing to Him. Think of it as doing chores for your mother because you know she has already spent a long day at work and you are helping her, rather than doing them because, if you don't, she will punish you. Unfortunately though, there are probably significantly more Christians who "act" morally and ethically for fear of hell.

There are no doubt kind, loving, compassionate Christians out there- many in my family are. But to say they are the most ethically sound people is probably philosophically incorrect.

In Christian theology, moral obligation and moral worth comes from God. You need to do X because God commands it- this is where the obligation and necessity to do good comes from. You need to it, because it is ultimately the will of God. Those that do this will be rewarded in the afterlife.

So there are 2 main parts to Christian morality: do good because God commands it, and you will be rewarded for it.

For both of these, the main reason for doing the right/good thing is not intrinsic, meaning good in itself or performed for their own sake. It is right/good because God commands it and therefore extrinsic.

If Christians performed good acts for their own sake, they would not need the moral obligation from God as commandments. Moreover, the act cannot be done for its own sake and at the same time because God commands it. That would mean an act is both intrinsically done and extrinsically done at the same time, and this is self-contradictory.

What am I getting at? Well, Christians are therefore not ethically sound because they are not performing good acts intrinsically. They are doing it because some ultra-powerful being told them too. This is not acting ethically, but instead acting in accordance with ethics which is very different. The same end is achieved but the reasons why are not, and it is due to the reason why we do things that we are moral or not.

The amount of long paragraphs in this thread is too dang high.

onenerdykidThere are no doubt kind, loving, compassionate Christians out there- many in my family are. But to say they are the most ethically sound people is probably philosophically incorrect.

In Christian theology, moral obligation and moral worth comes from God. You need to do X because God commands it- this is where the obligation and necessity to do good comes from. You need to it, because it is ultimately the will of God. Those that do this will be rewarded in the afterlife.

So there are 2 main parts to Christian morality: do good because God commands it, and you will be rewarded for it.

For both of these, the main reason for doing the right/good thing is not intrinsic, meaning good in itself or performed for their own sake. It is right/good because God commands it and therefore extrinsic.

If Christians performed good acts for their own sake, they would not need the moral obligation from God as commandments. Moreover, the act cannot be done for its own sake and at the same time because God commands it. That would mean an act is both intrinsically done and extrinsically done at the same time, and this is self-contradictory.

What am I getting at? Well, Christians are therefore not ethically sound because they are not performing good acts intrinsically. They are doing it because some ultra-powerful being told them too. This is not acting ethically, but instead acting in accordance with ethics which is very different. The same end is achieved but the reasons why are not, and it is due to the reason why we do things that we are moral or not.

I'm curious then if you think moral tendencies in Christians (or anyone) are at all a part of human nature or strictly an obligation from God's commandments. If its not at all rooted in human nature then isn't all morality extrinsic, thus unethical?

shotvetI'm curious then if you think moral tendencies in Christians (or anyone) are at all a part of human nature or strictly an obligation from God's commandments. If its not at all rooted in human nature then isn't all morality extrinsic, thus unethical?

Empathy is natural, which would make the Golden Rule rooted in nature.

If a society were to do the opposite of the 10 commandments could that society sustain its self or would it naturally crumble?

Nikolausif there was, i bet a lot more people would be atheist

I agree, I also think it would help provide a greater context for history type classes especially

theabortionator

Just sayin

This is the truest post in a long time

NikolausSome examples are milkman, frenchy, cj and many more. Don't be stupid.

I can assure you that I am not.. lol

And why is a guy using "truth is relative" to argue for the existence of God? Christians believe in an absolute truth..and ridicule those who believe the statement, "There is no absolute truth." I don't think he knows what he's talking about.. At all.. There IS absolute truth, and that is God and his Word.

Truth is not relative. Science is relative. Science is not "truth." Science is observation. Quantum physics is 'proving' that what we see may not actually be what we see. So in a way science is tearing itself apart, because quantum physics is starting to say that even the stuff we observe and know as fact could be completely different.. To me it seems like the quantum physics world points toward a God.. Because it shows how insignificant human understanding is

inb4 "milkman you are the last one to talk about science and quantum physics"

milk_manI can assure you that I am not.. lol

I Recall a certain conversation in which you said being gay was wrong, would send you to hell, was a mental disorder, and that gay marriage was "offensive" to straight marriage. But I'm sure you're not homophobic, buddy.

Nikolauswould send you to hell, was a mental disorder,

I didn't say either of those.. Being gay doesn't send you to hell. Sin doesn't send you to hell. Sin without repentance is what sends you to hell. But I guarantee I never said being gay would send you to hell.

milk_manAnd why is a guy using "truth is relative" to argue for the existence of God? Christians believe in an absolute truth..and ridicule those who believe the statement, "There is no absolute truth." I don't think he knows what he's talking about.. At all.. There IS absolute truth, and that is God and his Word.

Truth is not relative. Science is relative. Science is not "truth." Science is observation. Quantum physics is 'proving' that what we see may not actually be what we see. So in a way science is tearing itself apart, because quantum physics is starting to say that even the stuff we observe and know as fact could be completely different.. To me it seems like the quantum physics world points toward a God.. Because it shows how insignificant human understanding is

inb4 "milkman you are the last one to talk about science and quantum physics"

Truth-in accordance with fact or realty

So science isn't in accordance with fact or reality?

Milkman you are the last one to talk about science and quantum physics.

milk_manI didn't say either of those.. Being gay doesn't send you to hell. Sin doesn't send you to hell. Sin without repentance is what sends you to hell. But I guarantee I never said being gay would send you to hell.

you're still homophobic

shotvetI'm curious then if you think moral tendencies in Christians (or anyone) are at all a part of human nature or strictly an obligation from God's commandments. If its not at all rooted in human nature then isn't all morality extrinsic, thus unethical?

I argue that morality does not involve an innate tendency (feelings or habits), but a conscious decision to act in a certain way, at a certain time. What is rooted in human nature is the capacity for rational thought, and this is what all humans (as functioning humans) share. Not all humans are capable of or have the same feelings regarding an event. But they can all think through it, and in this way it can be intrinsic in each of us.

DlCKEmpathy is natural, which would make the Golden Rule rooted in nature.

If a society were to do the opposite of the 10 commandments could that society sustain its self or would it naturally crumble?

But empathy is not natural and not necessarily felt all the time. For example, if I don't feel empathy, should I not help someone in need? No- simply because I do not feel empathy to a human, it does not mean that I should not help them. I help them regardless of what I feel. I help them because it is the right thing to do, irrespective of my feelings on the matter. I may be feeling lazy or disinterested one day when someone asks for help, but I still ought to help that person.

Your second point is very much related to Kant's categorical imperative: act only in such a way that you can at the same time will your reasons for other people to use as rules too. All typical morally right things pass this test, all morally wrong things fail this test because they would be naturally self-defeating. If I will that lying is morally right and therefore a rule other rational being should follow it necessarily defeats itself because no one would ever believe a thing I say.

The Golden Rule (you should do unto other what you would want done to yourself) is then made morally valid through Kant's categorical imperative because if rules extend to all rational beings I am therefore included in that, but on its own it is a principle of selfish moral egosim.

onenerdykidI argue that morality does not involve an innate tendency (feelings or habits), but a conscious decision to act in a certain way, at a certain time. What is rooted in human nature is the capacity for rational thought, and this is what all humans (as functioning humans) share. Not all humans are capable of or have the same feelings regarding an event. But they can all think through it, and in this way it can be intrinsic in each of us.

But empathy is not natural and not necessarily felt all the time. For example, if I don't feel empathy, should I not help someone in need? No- simply because I do not feel empathy to a human, it does not mean that I should not help them. I help them regardless of what I feel. I help them because it is the right thing to do, irrespective of my feelings on the matter. I may be feeling lazy or disinterested one day when someone asks for help, but I still ought to help that person.

Your second point is very much related to Kant's categorical imperative: act only in such a way that you can at the same time will your reasons for other people to use as rules too. All typical morally right things pass this test, all morally wrong things fail this test because they would be naturally self-defeating. If I will that lying is morally right and therefore a rule other rational being should follow it necessarily defeats itself because no one would ever believe a thing I say.

The Golden Rule (you should do unto other what you would want done to yourself) is then made morally valid through Kant's categorical imperative because if rules extend to all rational beings I am therefore included in that, but on its own it is a principle of selfish moral egosim.

I love what you have to say and agree with most

But empathy is Natural and we are hard wired to experience it.

There are other similar studies if this one doesnt do it for you.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2008/07/11/children-are-naturally-prone-be-empathic-and-moral-university-chicago-study-shows

WATCH THIS!

http://youtu.be/l7AWnfFRc7g

NikolausBecause although for some it does provide that, Religion as a whole cusses much more damage than good. Society needs to move past false hope and make their own hope.

Really? When is the last time you donated money to charities helping people survive in 3rd world countries?

Cause for most religious folks that's weekly.

You are an angry young person looking to rebel and prove your intelligence and independence.

It'll take some time, but you will gain perspective on religion and realize you were an ignorant angsty douche in your younger years.

Humans will always struggle for more power, more money, more land. Religion just happens to be a vehicle through which morally corrupt leaders steal scripture and push their own agendas. That's not religion, that's morally bankrupt leaders taking advantage of people. That will always happen, regardless of religion.

californiagrownReally? When is the last time you donated money to charities helping people survive in 3rd world countries?

Cause for most religious folks that's weekly.

You are an angry young person looking to rebel and prove your intelligence and independence.

It'll take some time, but you will gain perspective on religion and realize you were an ignorant angsty douche in your younger years.

Humans will always struggle for more power, more money, more land. Religion just happens to be a vehicle through which morally corrupt leaders steal scripture and push their own agendas. That's not religion, that's morally bankrupt leaders taking advantage of people. That will always happen, regardless of religion.

Id like to see a stat that shows that "the majority" of religous people donate to charity weekly because I find that highly doubtful.

Granite_StateId like to see a stat that shows that "the majority" of religous people donate to charity weekly because I find that highly doubtful.

That is what "offering" is used for- upkeep of the church facilities and money for the various humanitarian causes supported by the church. Ya know, those collection plates that get passed around?

And I define religious people as the 52 times a year people haha

californiagrownReally? When is the last time you donated money to charities helping people survive in 3rd world countries?

Cause for most religious folks that's weekly.

You are an angry young person looking to rebel and prove your intelligence and independence.

It'll take some time, but you will gain perspective on religion and realize you were an ignorant angsty douche in your younger years.

Humans will always struggle for more power, more money, more land. Religion just happens to be a vehicle through which morally corrupt leaders steal scripture and push their own agendas. That's not religion, that's morally bankrupt leaders taking advantage of people. That will always happen, regardless of religion.

There is so much wrong with what you said but