>but the difference is that he has done and presented considerable research, and not just making an assertion against something he doesn't like.

Actually, no he hasn't. Or at least, not valid research. As to whether he is making an assertion against something he doesn't like, well, that's subjective.

In order to do valid research, you have to conduct a double-blind study. Just grabbing a bunch of figures from IRS records, and re-spouting figures from other research that has been done for an entirely different purpose, as Mr. Brooks has done, is not research at all. It's just pseudo-science with a psychology twist. �

For example, one of his observations is that older people tend to give more than younger people. And his conclusions from this observation? People care more as they get older.

But is this a valid conclusion? I certainly cared when I was younger. I think I cared just as much then as I do now. But when I was younger, I didn't have any money. You can't donate what you don't have. Unless you're born rich, you're simply not going to have as much to give when you are younger. That hardly has anything to do with how much you care, and hence, invalidates his conclusion.

Notice, I said "invalidates" his conclusion. That doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong, it just means there is no proof whatsoever for stating it. Might be right. Might be wrong. Might be somewhere in-between. We just don't know from the data given.

Bottom line: Mr. Brook's study is not a scientifically valid study. It sheds no light of truth. It gives us no information. It is, in fact, merely a political statement. Nothing more.

Once again, I don't say his conclusions are wrong, because I don't have the data to back up that claim. For all I know, they might be right. However, there is no proof provided, whatsoever, in his work to substantiate them. They could very easily be wrong. �

And as to that quote above "noble virtues are primarily a product of religion" is just plain silly. A great many noble virtues are the product of reason without religion, and a great many atrocities are the product of religion. That is not to say that religion is without noble virtues. Various religions have many good ones. And, that is not to say that pure reason and science is without its atrocities. Unfortunately, there have been some. But religion, and religious thought, do not have a monopoly on virtue.

>>But I'm curious to see presented here the source of Mystique's assertion quoted above.

Indeed. I agree with you there. I would also like to see the justification for that assertion. Until I see the data for it, I cannot determine whether or not it is a valid assertion. My suspicion is that this is merely the lovely Mystique�s personal opinion. She might very well be right. She might be wrong. But until we see a valid double-blind study to back it up, it�s just hearsay.

My own personal opinion � and again, it is just that, an opinion, with nothing whatsoever to back it up other than some mysterious conviction on my part � is that non-religious people give just about the same, per capita, as religious people do. Not substantially more, and not substantially less.

[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/0#23 date=1179501764]Some comments on religion and charity.[/quote]

Since other resources provided state otherwise regarding charity, then I question your source, just as you can question mine. Although, given the other related things I pointed out, such as the morality in secular vs. religious countries studies, it seems my resource is more valid. At least, that would be the more rational approach.

Enlightened self-interest can be a positive force, but we live in a world of strong emotions that can overwhelm enlightened self-interest, and push aside reason whenever they are aroused: desire, lust, resentment, hatred, greed. �One can call for reasonableness but it takes more to powerfully motivate people. �Movements of non-resistence, forgiveness and gentle, loving brotherhood like Buddhism, Christianity and the like, did not seem very rational at first, in a world of competing warlords where you needed to either be strong and violent to survive, or to know or serve someone who was strong and violent. �Sure it made sense that if everyone just loved each other and lived peacably together everyone would be better off, but that was not the world we lived in, and it was therefore not rational to live in some fantasy world of loving universal brotherhood. � And some people just didn't want that, they liked things just as they were because they were winning. �Gentleness was simply crushed underfoot. �We have had centuries to learn the collective power and stability that can grow out of these ideals, but they started as a religious vision of hope and optimism backed by an all powerful God. �Gentleness and enlightened self-interest seem more or less normal today, and therefore rational. �But a lot of people got crucified and variously dismembered to make that happen. �My comment: "noble virtues are primarily a product of religion" may well have been overstated, but secular virtue is in the habit of taking credit for victories won by men and women of religious conviction. �There have certainly been non-religious people of great strength and conviction too, some of whom have stood up for scientific truth against religious institutions at great personal cost (but a bit too much has been made of this); and some for fraternity, equality and liberty. �But religion; not the churches, but religion in the hearts of ordinary and extraordinary people; has been a powerful driving force behind this. �

When the Roman state appropriated Christianity, as was its habit, it carried on much as it always had, using religion in the same way it had previously used its armies, as it transmuted itself from the secular Roman Empire to the Holy Roman Empire using force and terror, raising itself on the wave of a global transformation of consciousness. �But at the heart of this Catholic empire was a set of ideals that bore the seeds of the dissolution of that kind of state. �As the Holy Roman Empire drummed its religious ideas into its citizens on pain of death, the glaring contradictions and hypocrisies of a religion of love behaving this way, made it virtually innevitable that people would begin to insist that these ideals be implemented truly. �As this process unfolded, first Protestant reform and then a general dispersion of thought from the dogma of the Catholic monolith took place. �Parallel to this we have the emergence of the Enlightenment and Renaissance, a reemergence of Greek and other learning; but into a new and modern world with a new set of ideals of peace, compassion and equality in which both learning and civilised living could thrive. �The Dark Ages constituted a pause in scientific development, but they were a time of a long working out of the soul of mankind, an introspective age where ideals and morals were sorted, examined and tested; and in true human fashion, every wrong way of doing things was tried and pursued to the nth degree before arriving at a new personal and social wisdom and morality. �From a culture in which ordinary citizens would go down to the local amphitheatre for an afternoon's secular entertainment watching other citizens be eaten alive by lions, through a culture in which ordinary citizens would gather in the local square to watch a local get burned alive at the stake for supposedly mystical reasons, to a supposedly "secular" society which would be sickened by the thought. �

While noble virtues might certainly be possessed by athiests, they are not the product of reason. �No value is the product of reason. �Values are a product of likes and dislikes, sentiments. �Reason can certainly be applied to values: "you value this because ... ", but at the end of the chain of reasoning, after the last "because" comes a sentiment or a desire. �Our sentiments and desires may themselves be a product of biological evolution, but that is not what gives them value. �In fact explaining these sentiments solely in terms of biological evolution robs them of value, since the value becomes illusory. �Sentiments have survival value because organisms that value life seek to protect it. �But nature doesn't care if we live or die, are happy or sad. �It didn't engineer the love of living *in order to* perpetuate us; it is just the accidental result of an accidental illusion of value, with no purpose. �There are no values in reason, but there are in sentiment. �Values just are. �

Sounds good. �I think that living "life the best I can", "without hurting anyone else" is a far cry from living life without any rules. �Those "basic human" rules are really the essence of religious belief, as opposed to the other basic human rules that are a product of our animal natures, those more akin to eating each other. �Organised religion has a lot to answer for, as does an attraction to organised religion primarily for the purpose of relinquishing independent decisionmaking in exchange for the feeling of being part of a group, be it a church or a subculture. �Organised religion has fallen prey to a lot of unnecessary rulemaking and has provided a home for a lot of fearful thought police who have too often adopted attitudes opposed to the kind of natural pleasures that make life meaningful, the gifts of creation. �Organised religion that sees itself as being opposed to science is due to embarrass itself, as are religionists who feel they must hide from it, and as is a science that makes philosophical pronouncements on what it cannot investigate. �

I think that leading a good life with a view that if there is an afterlife, you will have earned the right to be there, is religious belief: as long as not "hurting anyone else" is more than a negative avoidance of doing harm, but also encompasses some positive contribution to society. �I think it's understandable enough to resent and reject organised religion; but a rejection of organisation per-se, and of mainstream community, can be an excuse for selfish and ineffective living. �

Well, first of all I want to ask anyone whether you have come across a person who had been to heaven or hell and told you what it was like. Did religions of the world evolved all naturally, just like that? Obviously, humans had a big role in it. Let me tell you something about me. I was born into a Christian family and raised under Christian environment. That doesn't mean I can go on with my life with whatever I was fed. There comes a time in your life when you question some fundamental issues like existence of God. It doesn't matter which side you are. I'm still questioning this very issue. I'm trying to deconstruct my mind. In fact, if you don't want to take chances, you just have to believe in God without mincing a word. You never know that finally one fine day the truth unravels that God really exists and then find yourself in big trouble. Having said that, critical mind doesn't mean you are an athiest. Sometimes it helps. You don't want to simply believe whatever is passed on to you. Personally, I feel religions have contributed a lot to destruction. What about humankind history replete with wars to promote a particular religion, for instance, Christian and Islam. Even now in the name of religion, violence is perpetrated, which we are witness to these facts. I have nothing against any religion whatsoever. Whichever faith you believe in is totally personal. I have no say in that personal aspect of a person. It's very true when Karl Marx said "religion is the opium of the masses". You want to keep your faith? Go ahead. The only thing is that blind faith is dangerous and that being atheist is much better than blind faith. What about me? Well, I'm caught in between atheist and believer. If I'm asked to take position, I would rather endorse atheism. As much as I've seen good deeds in religious people, I have also seen liberal atheists doing as much good for the society. I say that there's nothing such as "dangers of atheism" as "dangers of religions". �

[quote author=Seks link=1162636212/25#34 date=1187038627]Well, first of all I want to ask anyone whether you have come across a person who had been to heaven or hell and told you what it was like. Did religions of the world evolved all naturally, just like that? Obviously, humans had a big role in it. Let me tell you something about me. I was born into a Christian family and raised under Christian environment. That doesn't mean I can go on with my life with whatever I was fed. There comes a time in your life when you question some fundamental issues like existence of God. It doesn't matter which side you are. I'm still questioning this very issue. I'm trying to deconstruct my mind. In fact, if you don't want to take chances, you just have to believe in God without mincing a word. You never know that finally one fine day the truth unravels that God really exists and then find yourself in big trouble.[/quote]

1) This argument is called "Pascal's Wager" and is fundamentally flawed when considering the vast array of deities that people have claimed. All one needs is for one of those deities to exist and your own to not, and it throws a wrench into the whole thing. If the existing god is a jealous god, even you're screwed, despite all your faith.

2) Any god who's ego depends on my belief in them when their alleged evidence is trivial, non existing, far from evident, and/or unacceptable for whatever other reason can certainly kiss my ass as I head to hell. I'd rather spend eternity burning in the hot ashes of Dante's Inferno than have to deal with an egotistical Tom Cruise of a god in heaven that can't deal with it when not everybody likes him. Especially when its that god's own fault when he's the one that allegedly created everything. That, of course, creates its own clear paradox, and is a great argument for atheism as well. Regardless, such an attitude from a world leader isn't tolerated, either.



No, a but it sure does help one become an atheist.



Agreed.



It is when people's personal beliefs stomp all over the rights of others that there is a problem - a very clear problem that should be addressed.



Merci beaucoup. I appreciate you making a statement.

Snubbing God because you don't like how he's portrayed, avoids the real issue, which is the effort and progress toward a better representation/understanding of Him. �The substance of Pascal's wager is: that it doesn't make much sense to ignore an offer of eternal life if it may be available. �


The function of worshipping God is not to satisfy His ego. �It is to learn how to honour what ought to be honoured, and learning how to honour what is good wherever it appears in our lives. �Learing to open our hearts to the experience of what is good, and to manifest that in our lives. �Worshipping when real rather than ceremonial, is an experience of spirit, and by experiencing it we become vehicles for it. �Prayer is an experience of spirit, if not simply a shopping list of selfish desires. �

But faith too is an experience. �Belief in spirit is not simply a rule, a technical requirement the successful completion of which brings the reward of entry into paradise. �Belief in spirit is the experience of spirit. �The willingness to believe is the opening of the door to the experience of believing. �Our conceptions of experience are dominated, more or less completely by material thinking. �Something is real that can be seen, heard, smelled or touched. �But experience can be more direct than those mediated through our physical senses. �Even the dimly perceived glimpses of spirit open to us now can be exhilarating and life changeingly profound, not the result of arguments like Pascal's or instructions given to us by authority figures, or second or third hand evidence, but by the raw data of immediate experience. �Our concepts and logic too are dominated by the characteristics of matter, of simple, discrete elements and mathematically regular, repeating processes. �While our lives contain much that is regular and persistent, there is also much that is unique and unusual, things that don't remain long enough or remain still to be given a name. �But such things, while innaccessible to scientific investigation, are available to experience, and are experienced in their countless forms every day. �





Quite so, but that is not religion, that is human nature. �

You do realize that my lack of belief has little to do with Pascal's wager - and that my response to the wager above is simply that, a response to something someone presented. If you're out to address why I'm an atheist, then you have to address the problem of evidence. If I am to believe in a deity, I want proof. And I am a real bitch about it. If my neighbor claimed that he had a large purple and green spotted dragon in his garage that he was using to determine which parts of my lawn to throw debris into, I'd demand the same of him should he not want me to dismiss him as a complete nutjob. In most contexts, I don't even discuss religion with people, because in most contexts, it doesn't matter. However, the moment religion interferes with something in my life, the moment I see it stomping out the rights of others, or playing a role in something that denies people their own rights. The moment I detect it being harmful - that's when I'm going to step in, and that's when, if someone is going to claim religion as a motivation for their behavior, I demand proof.



Of course it does. Under the conditions I mentioned above, I'd totally be willing to suffer, to die, to cease existing totally if it meant avoiding the evil that would be behind such a vile and vindictive creature. Hell, I would say that for nearly every deity I have ever read about. Most claim to have created this world that we're in - where people cling to trees in gigantic storms after having witnessed their families being washed away in floodwaters and torn to shreds by debris, where millions go hungry all the time, where I can walk just down the road and encounter too many hungry people for even me to be able to help much. In this place, where humans are allowed to cut each other apart over religious ideals and conflicts over land and where diseases exist to slowly eat us from the inside out. Of course this is a very pessimistic view of the wonders of life, but I also see it as putting credit where others say credit is due. If there really was an all-powerful being who desires any form of recognition at all from myself, then that being is responsible for all that I have mentioned and I am not beyond placing all of that right at their feet. Such a being, if they really existed, would be quite capable of knowing why I would do such a thing, because such a creature is truly evil to us. If eternal life is the reward one gets for *not* laying all that at the base of some deistic throne, then I'm just stubborn enough to take that. Regardless of all of this, though, I still demand proof. Just someone suggesting the chance of something to me is insufficient for me to bow down to accepting such a trivial thing. There's a chance that Neil DeGrasse could come knocking on my door offering to teach me more about physics and to enter into some fantastic, amorous liaison with me (perhaps in some alternate dimension in time and space where bunnies sprout wings or something) - but I'm not going to accept that just for the sake of there being a speculative opportunity. The same logic is what applies to your point on pascal's wager.



Who determines what "ought to be honoured"? I, for one, don't have the time to honour something with so little evidence. I need my time for other things, working, studying, helping people where I can. There is far more that can be accomplished through passing out food, giving people resources, and addressing immediate social issues than can be accomplished through kneeling and talking into nothingness.



Just like doubting the experience of women talking to god and being told to kill their own children, I doubt the experiences of others who claim supernatural events. I want the hard data because it is consistent. Were it as unpredictable of individual 'experience' I would find it equally flawed and would seek another method on which to base my thoughts. Where science produces the same results repeatedly and things are upheld, that's where I want to be. I want to base my life on things that have been thoroughly tested, not speculated and guessed at - or which just appeared out of no source other than someone's vivid imagination.



"Human nature" is too ambiguous to use there. Also, it seems to dismiss the responsibilities that people have regarding their behavior. I prefer to point to the problem directly. It isn't religion, it is dogma and herd behavior. These are things that some people do escape, leading me to believe that there is at least some room for human accountability.

[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/25#41 date=1187962346]I didn't say it made no sense under any conditions.  I already agreed that: "If God isn't really righteous, then, as Mystique says, fuck him, it's not worth being a part of His heaven".  What doesn't make much sense is turning down eternal happiness offered by a wise and loving God.  That is the possibility that doesn't interest you.[/quote]

There is no evidence that a wise and loving god even exists. In fact, if one considers their god to be omnipotent, then a wise and loving god isn't even compatible with our existence.



There's no better person to give those things than oneself. The only constant thing that most people have in life is themselves. There's not a deity that can really offer all of that, and most religions who claim their deity guides them somehow rely on strange texts that have at least some extremely unethical statements as a guide.



Death is not the only suffering that people have in life. There's hunger and starvation, various abuses, debilitating injuries, disease, war ... though many of those may end in death, they can last for years before doing so.



No, much of the pain and suffering is that it is pain and suffering. I know of few ill people who lament that too much time is consumed by the inconvenience of pain as their only complaint. Most just want the pain to end; the suffering to end.



That's almost very nihilistic of you. Think of it this way: would you suggest to the starving men living under the bridge that their hunger is so unimportant that it compares to what an infant can't retain in memory of their suffering in birth? I wouldn't - I would never dream of minimizing people's suffering like that. When I have to counsel a rape victim, when I have to help out at the shelter, when I have to tend to the needs of sick friends - there's not a single moment in time where I would dismiss their suffering so carelessly. If there really was an eternal creature, omnipotent, loving and wise - then that creature is responsible for all that we see, and even the slightest bit of suffering should be borne full-force on its shoulders.

I've given birth to two children. Both were very ill when they were born, as was I. They did suffer, and though they don't remember it now, it doesn't really take away from the fact that they suffered and were it possible, of course I would go back and remove that suffering from them, even if they have no recollection of it.



You don't have proof of that.



There is no proof of this either - regardless, were I to grant you this saying, bear in mind that a blink of an eye with sand in it is still very uncomfortable and damaging to the eye, even if the sand is quickly removed and forgotten.



Based on your logic, then, we can have this little anecdote. You know those door greeters at Wal-Mart? Well, say we have one sitting at the door, and for each person who enters, they lean to the side and pinch the individual as they walk in the door. It is only a few moments of suffering, but as each person exits the store, the greeter gives them a free gift and a sticker. Now, according to your logic, it would be okay for the greeter to pinch the individual, as long as they gave the individual something upon exiting the store. I would say, though, that the greeter is in the wrong, even if each and every person rapidly forgot that they had been pinched.



I have yet to see a clear definition of perfection, much less something I would consider perfect. Of course, I have seen things that make me happy, and that are beautiful and wonderful, but this is not perfection. Even when examining the human body, we can see where we are flawed. We have vestigial organs that become inflamed and which can kill us if not removed at times, we have poorly aligned spines which are easily injured, fragile jawbones and nasal bridges which are broken easily, we are susceptible to numerous diseases and chronic conditions which can and sometimes do disable us for life. This isn't perfection by far. If we had perfection, we would not have famine, disease and war; we wouldn't suffer, and, hell, George Bush wouldn't be President.

I base my definitions for proof on science. If spiritual concepts fail to meet that, then it is not my flaw that leads to such. Once such a concept passes scientific testing, then I will accept the concept.



I don't think it is useful to sway my requirements for such extreme claims. As one scientist said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Having rigid requirements for something that others claim has such eternal consequences and which others are using to affect the world in such a wide range of ways certainly fits into that statement. Such demanding situations necessitate demanding criteria. Furthermore, I am not terribly fond of people telling me what I should do unless they can have a rational backing for what they state. I'm quite good at determining what behavior is best for me at any given moment. You may be just fine and happy with very little to base your ideas on - but I'm not, nor do I think I will ever be.

[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/25#45 date=1188011839]Something isn't wrong just because it isn't what you want, or because it is painful.[/quote]

Intentionally causing suffering is wrong. That's the basic point to the argument. Allowing suffering when one is reasonably able to prevent it is also wrong. Then there's the further concept of if a deity created everything, then that deity created suffering. That is the basic point behind the problem of evil.



If that were true, then god is not a nice being. It would be like me seeing a kitten trapped on my front porch, starving to death and doing nothing to stop that from happening while I had full resources and knowledge to remedy the problem.



That only supports what I was saying earlier - intentionally creating a situation in which others suffer is wrong. That's like someone having a baby to intentionally perform torture on them.



No, I'd be a stupid parent for not realizing there's ways to get kids to a dentist without fighting with them. I don't have to fight with my kids to get them to a doctor or dentist.



That's not really what I said - I said there was no evidence that there is a benefit. That statement being necessary because people attempt to make arguments like yours.



If you have evidence of a benefit, then present it - and be sure that your evidence outweighs every ounce of evil in the world. Otherwise, my claim is correct - there is not proof that there is some benefit to all this that outweighs every bit of suffering.



If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts then we'd all have food to eat (and consequentally, dentists to pay). If puff the magic dragon existed green scales would fall like rain. If Peter piper picked a pack of pickled peppers, he'd better hope he's not allergic. If Tom Cruise met lord Xenu tomorrow, we'd put him in a mental institution. 'Ifs' are not evidence all by themselves - and they're certainly not worth using to make major decisions from without proof that the dependent statement is valid.



The outline I gave before is a refutation of this statement. Please re-read the 'problem of evil' portion of earlier posts.



I think it does. I think that your statements are an absurd minimization of other people's suffering - to the point that it is offensive.



If I have a box that is 2" squared and I put it in a box that is 3" squared and then remove it from there and put it in a box that is 9" squared, the 2" box is the same size no matter which other box it is in. Furthermore, you have yet to prove that this extensive amount of time in which you are diluting suffering even exists. Your 9" box doesn't even have evidence, while we have solid proof of my 3" box.



Interestingly, there's no evidence that people who are religious bear pain any less than people who are non-religious.



If there was knowledge to be had - but even then, this is all on the 'ifs' again. Even if there are one or two people in a crowd of a hundred cancer patients that found solace in being religious while in pain, there's still the other 98 or 99 that are suffering all the same.



You being able to forgive and forget doesn't make their actions right. In fact, the notion that there's even a need to forgive indicates that the individual did something wrong which necessitates forgiveness.



Regarding mathematics, you've clearly never pondered large fractal equations. Also, you still haven't proven god.

(continued next post)

This thread and the God vs Science thread are much the same discussion: the relative merits of the religious vs the irreligious and an examination of the arguments for and against. �

It would be nice to have a reasonable discussion of the subject, but your arguments tend to abandon reason and logic when it suits your immediate goal. �Your goal is driven by emotion, and some of your arguments only have the guise and pretense of reason. �Ultimately you don't believe in God because you're pissed at not getting your way. �All this call to logic and evidence is just so much confused posturing. �This is not to say that there are not reasonable grounds to doubt that God exists, only that some of your arguments are not reasonable or consistent. �You willfully overlook the meanings in some of my arguments. �It's disappointing when you turn to deceptive and distorting arguments just because you can. �If this is worth doing at all, it's worth doing for real. �


It's worth keeping in mind when judging the actions of God, the special circumstances that being God entails. �When we save a kitten or protect our children, we do so in an already created reality over which we have only limited control. �If we had absolute control over the existences of all other beings, we could not act according to the same simplistic and naive morality. �Protecting your children from all harm if you could succeed in doing so completely, would not necessarily be in their best interests. �Even earthly parents must learn sometimes to restrain their natural tendency to want to protect their children from all harm and difficulty. �While ways may be found to get your children to the dentist without them kicking and screaming, this may not always be the case, but getting them there nevertheless may be necessary. �(I should not have to think up these sorts of explanations for you.) �It is important that the universe hold the potential of danger. �As you say, the question is whether you can "reasonably" intervene. �Or more to the point would be if you could "wisely" intervene. �Expecting God to step in and save us from dangers is a tricky request if you also want to be free and to have self-respect. �Ultimately He does save us if we want to be saved, but He does not save us from all dangers and hardships, but from mortality and its limitations. �But his salvation is a long term plan of increasing happiness through personal evolution, and we are only at the very beginning of this. �God is vindicated by how grateful we will one day be for the opportunity of being able to participate in the adventure of living in His universe, regardless of what has happened to us here, or how long it takes us to forgive Him for it.