Question for everyone: "IF" God exists, why did he create us?

[alexey]

So not quite as simple as some would have you believe.

Yes, I'm quite certain it would be helpful to you to change the subject to my personal opinions on Creationism. :pfft:

I am not sure whether you phrased it that way on purpose, but your first sentence appears to suggest that I have arrived to my current position under the influence of a personality, that somebody is having me believe something. Please note that, to the best of my ability, I judge arguments and information that I encounter based on merits. Please do not accuse me of doing otherwise. My approach is fundamentally different from believing people based on authority, even if those people supposedly demonstrated supernatural powers :pfft:

Yes i think you should evaluate every teaching individually on its merits even if you think that the teacher was raised from the dead. The stakes are too high. Switching to an authoritarian/dogmatic way of thinking is a big deal.

I asked for your personal opinion because I wanted to know whether you can openly and honestly talk about problems of religion's relationship with Creationism. You are advancing a position that religion played nice with science all along. I'd like to know how open you are to acknowledging the greatest and the most obvious religiously motivated anti-scientific movement of our time.

[PeterMP]

This is a popular (and self-serving) myth propogated by the New Atheists (and it's been kind of interesting tracking your progress through Dawkins, Harris, etc.), but it's also completely and utterly false.

The flip side of this is essentially the inferred point that "rejecting" "good" science is less of an issue in secular organizations.

Which is simply false. Look at every really/practically important scientific issue of my life time and it has been organizations and entities that are secular in nature that are actually leading and funding the fight against science.

Climate change- the fossil fule industry and the organizations they created

ozone layer depletion- the chemical industry (e.g. DuPount) and the organizations they created

clean air/acid rain- the fossil fuel/electric industry and the organizations they created

smoking- the tobacco industry.

There are also lesser examples of Pharma and the Ag/food industry doing similar things.

To suggest or infer that there aren't secular entities fighting a more science based society is just so false that one has to be blind to not see it.

---------- Post added August-17th-2012 at 08:47 PM ----------

Christianity tells people to follow a set of rules or burn in hell for eternity. That is a fundamentally authoritarian and dogmatic approach.

I am blaming Christianity for being a messed up moral system. How else can people come to believe that it is moral to drown and torture people for their sins, to punish people for sins of their ancestors, or that they can get salvation through brutal torture and death of an innocent person?

Yes, at its heart that might be true, but it isn't at an Earthly level.

Reading the Bible doesn't give any human the authority to do those things or really even to say who those things will be done to.

You are the one that is always talking about what is practical. Practically, Christianity doesn't give me or anybody else the authority to say this person is going to burn in hell (or any of the other things you mentioned).

Anyway, again, this seems like a criticism of the system because it is imperfect.

Do you want to explain your system that is going to say we are going to start following the golden rule and use the empirical measures to ensure that we are moving that way that won't end up being dogmatic and authoritative in nature?

[alexey]

Yes, at its heart that might be true, but it isn't at an Earthly level.

Reading the Bible doesn't give any human the authority to do those things or really even to say who those things will be done to.

You are the one that is always talking about what is practical. Practically, Christianity doesn't give me or anybody else the authority to say this person is going to burn in hell (or any of the other things you mentioned).

Anyway, again, this seems like a criticism of the system because it is imperfect.

Do you want to explain your system that is going to say we are going to start following the golden rule and use the empirical measures to ensure that we are moving that way that won't end up being dogmatic and authoritative in nature?

Beliefs have consequences on morality. If I believe in a possibility of eternal torture in the afterlife, for example, I may be more open to temporary torture in this life in order to help people avoid the eternal one.

An example of a deliberative reason-based system I am talking about is the system that we have in this country. It does not seem to be moving towards being dogmatic or authoritative in nature. I think it would be better if less people thought that "God wants it" or "Bible says it" is a good argument, and I am glad that it's moving in that direction.

[PeterMP]

Beliefs have consequences on morality. If I believe in a possibility of eternal torture in the afterlife, for example, I may be more open to temporary torture in this life in order to help people avoid the eternal one.

Yes, you might be if you ignored the rest of the Bible.

But since this opinion seems so rare in Christianity, this would be like me arguing that your system may cause more of the likes of Ted Kaczynski.

Again, it is an argument that since the system isn't perfect let's throw it away.

An example of a deliberative reason-based system I am talking about is the system that we have in this country. It does not seem to be moving towards being dogmatic or authoritative in nature. I think it would be better if less people thought that "God wants it" or "Bible says it" is a good argument, and I am glad that it's moving in that direction.

1. It seems odd to me that you are claiming this country is what you want when railing against theism when this country was created and has been governored by people that are theist and even primarily Christian.

2. And even today, I'd guess the vast majority of Christians and theist in the US are happier with this style of government than any other. I certainly don't see a whole lot of argument on this board by people asking for restructing of the US government to another style government.

3. I don't see a lot of evidence that the current US government or society uses emperical approaches to address issues related to morality, especially related to the golden rule. Do you want to point out an example?

4. I actually have a hard time believing in general when I read about the issues related to environmental prejuidice and poverty and the increasing income and wealth disparity that for the last 30 years or so (as Christianity has become less important in the life of Americans) that we are moving to a society that more reflects things like the golden rule.

[B.A.M.F.]

Beliefs have consequences on morality. If I believe in a possibility of eternal torture in the afterlife, for example, I may be more open to temporary torture in this life in order to help people avoid the eternal one.

An example of a deliberative reason-based system I am talking about is the system that we have in this country. It does not seem to be moving towards being dogmatic or authoritative in nature. I think it would be better if less people thought that "God wants it" or "Bible says it" is a good argument, and I am glad that it's moving in that direction.

I have known a lot of religious people in my life. I've never known any of them to torture anyone no matter the circumstances. Has it happened in the distant past? Sure, but just because horrible things have been done in the name of religion, doesn't mean that religion itself is to blame. Look at the 911 attacks. Are all Muslims to blame because a radical faction took things too far and did horrible things? Should any/all positives from religion be ignored because of things in the distant past? Horrible things have been done in the name of countries as well. Wars fought, ridiculous amounts of people dying, etc. Are countries in general to blame? Should we get rid of those?

People need something to believe in. In my opinion, religion does little harm and a lot of good, whether or not it is true. Most of them preach good values, to respect and help people, and are a great comfort for people going through difficult times in their lives. Would you want to take that away from them?

[z0eboy]

Is god a black man? :pfft:

:evilg:

[alexey]

Yes, you might be if you ignored the rest of the Bible.

But since this opinion seems so rare in Christianity, this would be like me arguing that your system may cause more of the likes of Ted Kaczynski.

Again, it is an argument that since the system isn't perfect let's throw it away.

The argument is that an imperfect authoritarian/dogmatic system which is based on a single book, and does not have a clear self-correcting mechanism is fundamentally inferior to a system which is based on skepticism, critical thought, and deliberation.

1. It seems odd to me that you are claiming this country is what you want when railing against theism when this country was created and has been governored by people that are theist and even primarily Christian.

Did they believe in miracles?

2. And even today, I'd guess the vast majority of Christians and theist in the US are happier with this style of government than any other. I certainly don't see a whole lot of argument on this board by people asking for restructing of the US government to another style government.

Isn't there a strong sentiment on the right about us losing our religion and our Judeo-Christian ways?

3. I don't see a lot of evidence that the current US government or society uses emperical approaches to address issues related to morality, especially related to the golden rule. Do you want to point out an example?

Civil rights.

4. I actually have a hard time believing in general when I read about the issues related to environmental prejuidice and poverty and the increasing income and wealth disparity that for the last 30 years or so (as Christianity has become less important in the life of Americans) that we are moving to a society that more reflects things like the golden rule.

This happened because too many people are willing to believe things without proper evidence. The GOP platform is entirely faith-based at this point.

---------- Post added August-20th-2012 at 08:47 PM ----------

I have known a lot of religious people in my life. I've never known any of them to torture anyone no matter the circumstances. Has it happened in the distant past? Sure, but just because horrible things have been done in the name of religion, doesn't mean that religion itself is to blame. Look at the 911 attacks. Are all Muslims to blame because a radical faction took things too far and did horrible things? Should any/all positives from religion be ignored because of things in the distant past? Horrible things have been done in the name of countries as well. Wars fought, ridiculous amounts of people dying, etc. Are countries in general to blame? Should we get rid of those?

People need something to believe in. In my opinion, religion does little harm and a lot of good, whether or not it is true. Most of them preach good values, to respect and help people, and are a great comfort for people going through difficult times in their lives. Would you want to take that away from them?

Do you want to spend the only life you have believing in things which are not true?

(obviously I do not think it's appropriate to go around taunting dying people or trying to convince grieving families)

[PeterMP]

Did they believe in miracles?

I think the vast majority of the citizens at the founding were probably orthodox Christians and so yes.

I believe many of the more famous founders, while not strictly Christian, believed in an "active" god and was involved in everyday life (I know that George Washington talked about things like God delivering good harvest and acting for one side of conflicts (e.g. the US) vs. others (e.g. the British).

While, he might not have been Christian like you or I or his contempories would use the word, he didn't believe in a silent god.

Isn't there a strong sentiment on the right about us losing our religion and our Judeo-Christian ways?

I don't know if I'd say it is strong. The Republican nominee is Mormon and many main line Christians don't even consider them Christians. And Ryan, the VP nominee, is Cathollic, which many evengelicals consider Christain, but Christians that are still going to hell.

In one of your other threads I posted a poll that showed the majority of even people that self-identified as conservative Christians still wanted the government actions to be based on evidence.

So again, I don't see a real argument from Christains about remodelling our form of government.

Civil rights.

I could have sworn the Civil Rights movement was spear headed by Christian ministers that had at the root of their movement the claim that since they were men and created by God they were entitled to the same rights as other men.

Do you want to post some argument based on emperical evidence that was used during the Civil Rights movement?

This happened because too many people are willing to believe things without proper evidence. The GOP platform is entirely faith-based at this point.

I could have sworn that this was an issue that started over 30+ years ago and had been part of about 16 years w/ Democrats as President.

And I haven't heard a peep out of a politician on the issue.

Much less one that was based on empirical evidence.

[alexey]

Peter,

Evolution of human religions and beliefs in God can be clearly traced. Each primitive human society went through similar steps. How can you take one specific myth and hold it as truth based on faith? How can you relax your skepticism for just this one specific ancient myth?