Why such an effort to prove the Bible wrong?

*sigh*

Here we go again :(

I state something... Kedaman says I am wrong and states something else... I reply to it and then he comes back with a "you misunderstood me" and goes off on a completely DIFFERENT track to everyone else.

:mad:

I was talking about the fact that while the group as a whole may not be able to come up with new ideas or discoveries an individual may have the scope to go BEYOND what the collection does and therefor it is incorrect to say that a single person does not have the ability to discover something new.

Whatever the hell you are talking about is completely, totally and absolutely different and completely off-topic as far as what I was saying.

If you would care to bring it back to talk on the same issue then I am happy to do so... if however you wish to continue saying I am wrong on a totally different thing to that which I was talking about then find yourself a wall.. because it is far more interested listening to you talk about unrelated things than I am.

Either learn better english or give up trying to "get with the program" because we are all watching a science program while you are watching Sesame Street and saying we are all wrong.

:mad:

Quote:

---

Whatever the hell you are talking about is completely, totally and absolutely different and completely off-topic as far as what I was saying.

---

You quoted me, not the other way around, if you think it's completely off topic, then i think the same of you.

I state something, Gen-x says i'm wrong and states something else...

That's exactly what happened to me, and the pattern seems to continue.

Now we aren't actually talking about science here at all, you replied to my statement and the statement was the scope of humanity compared to individual

It's true Gen-X, you disagreed with what kedaman said, not the other way around. To me what he said made sense and was related to the topic of 'the scope of the individual'. I said it made sense, to be honest I don't know whether I agree with you or not Kedaman, it's a very fuzzy-around-the-edges kind of topic. Sounds pretty reasonable though.

Btw I think the fact that somebody can speak/write near-fluently on a complex subject such as this in a language not native to their country is quite remarkable. I wish I could speak a foreign language properly but... well.. . I just haven't spent the time learning one I guess.

Kedaman started talking about "filters" to which I made a comment about DNA.

Then he said "Thats not what I mean" and started talking about "scope of humanity".

Now if that isn't someone showing many different heads to the same beast I don't know what is.

So I picked him up on his "Scope of the individual is SMALLER than the scope of humanity" but he went off on another tangent again.

SCOPE OF HUMANITY

Lets get this right off the bat :

Scope - The range of one's perceptions, thoughts, or actions


Now my point was that an individual have perceptions and thoughts that humanity as a collection CANNOT have. The whole world thought the earth was flat until an individual found it was not.

Hence Kedaman's original statement that "Humanity has a small scope, An individual an even SMALLER scope" is incorrect.

That is what my response was about and that was what we were talking about.... While kedaman may have made sense in his reply it certainly wasn't about the topic at hand which had started to allude around the point of "why bother, your not going to come up with something the 'brains' of our world haven't already thought about".

It seems Kedaman's reply is not talking about "scope" but about the ability to transmit information from one to the other.

Quote:

---

My point is that does that make it anymore true that 3 people believe in something, than that one does?

---

Your previous post said "My point is" and it was certainly different to this point.

Who was talking about the truth in something being in the number of people who believe it?!?!?! Is that his idea of "scope"?

Funny... Our definition of "scope" doesn't talk about information, amount of information or even validity of information but simply about the "range" of the information that can be obtained.

This is what I am talking about when I say that it is a language problem...a misunderstanding of the word "scope" and as a result it leads to these discussions that are NOT following what the topic was about. I am sure he has the ideas ok in his head but when they are translated the words are used in contexts that are alien to the meaning of the words themselves.

Having said all that I do agree that reaching this level of understanding in a non-native language is remarkable, its a shame that it causes these problems where BOTH of us think the other is misunderstanding.

But I am sure neither you nor Kedaman will see what I am talking about here... Damned if you would ever admit that perhaps I could have been right.

No no I can see what you're saying, but I think you have both misunderstood each other. The stuff about DNA and filters I didn't really understand but you seemed to feel confident enough of his meaning to reply to his post.

From the way I am seeing your two different points, they are both equally valid. You do also seem to have different interpretations of 'scope'. Kedaman has said that although your scope (by his meaning of scope - another definition of scope is 'The area covered by a given activity or subject') can be different to humanity as a whole, it can never be larger since the scope of an individual is a subset of the scope of humanity. Gen-X has used a different definition of scope (I suspect it was from dictionary.com) to prove a different point, saying that an individual can have ideas and discover things that no other part of humanity could do. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact in some ways they imply one another.

With the proposal that more people believing something doesn't make it more true I think kedaman is following on from the idea that the scope of humanity is the union of the scopes of all individuals, not the intersection of the scopes. The idea being that, as he said "the common parts are expected to be more true" (common parts = the intersections of the scopes of individuals) and although that information becomes more reliable in some ways, it doesn't change the truth or untruth of it.

I think language is a bit of a barrier here but with a little thought and a little empathy you can fathom out the gist of it.

So in summary, Gen-X is equally as right as Kedaman :)

In the interests of truth, justice and the Australian way...

:D

How would you propose we get over this language barrier that seems to rear its head quite often in our conversations?

Has anyone actually gone out and read C.S.Lewis' "the abolition of man" as I suggested? Obviously not.

For those of you who keep bringing up the age-old argument
of human suffering as a pretence to the alleged non-existence or pre-eminent incompetence of God I suggest
another book by Lewis - "The problem of pain".

This kind of argument is really phoney. We blame God for what is clearly stated throughout scripture as the results
of generalised rebellion and criminal behaviour in our tiny little part of the universe.

As a just magistrate and executive legislator God cannot allow rebellion to go unnoticed (nor unpunished).

No more than our national law-enforcers, justices etc. could without the consequence of actually promoting
rebellion by ignoring it and leading us all to a state of anarchy.

Most of you who complain about God's actions being evil should first off take up the issue with Him personally. If
your motives are wrong though He won't even listen to you let alone answer you. He'll just let you rave 'til you die
and discover the awful truth too late.

If some puny little punk came off the street to challenge you to a fist fight would you listen? It would be below
dignity for a grown adult to take up the fight. You'd probably ignore the kid and go on your way. Well God ain't
no fool and considering that He's infinitely bigger than you it's no surprise He completely ignores the vast
majority of such insignificant defiance.

If He paid attention, that would be like a judge listening to and answering a criminal whose attitude is one of
persistent defiance to the Law. It ain't gonna happen. What do you think God is? An idiot who has not deep and perfect
knowledge of the inner workings of our selfish hearts? Or that the "love of God" is some fuzzy kind of funny feeling
of fickle human emotions that binds Him to perpetual mercy with no righteousness?

Rather the love of God is benevolence in the highest sense of the term. It is willing the highest good of Himself and
all creatures. All according to their respective designs, purposes and importance.

To think of all powerful and all knowing as something that can act foolishly, create irresponsibly and react to human
injustice, perversions of every kind and human atrocities without penal sanctions and punishments is just childish.

No human governor who acted like that would draw any respect from any but criminal minds.

Fortunately for us He also exercises the most amazing patience in the face of our wickedness, perpetual unbelief
and stupid rantings claiming He doesn't exist in the face of "genius beyond genius". But their is a time-frame limit
to that patience.

The ultimate insanity is when humans begin to question their own existance. Claiming that perhaps it is all an
illusion. Perhaps the "I think, therefore I am" hypothesis is really an illusion as well.

Well, just let someone come up to you and point a gun at your head and you'll change your mind very quickly!
Suddenly you won't care much for the "illusion" of that gun! Because you know all too well what kind of reality it
threatens you with.

You say things like, "Well if God is so good why doesn't He...?" I'll tell you why.

1. If He were to eliminate all evil in the world He might just decide to start with the evil in your own life.

2. The scripture constantly teaches that man has been given responsibility for this planet. God never intervenes except
through the process of communication we call prayer.

3. He did do something! However most don't want to get involved with His solution because it entails abandoning
our inherently self-centred life styles and choosing to "love our neighbour as ourselves".

So let's not be too hasty about getting God to destroy all evils - you'll give Him no choice but to deal with your
crimes against Him and you'll suffer the consequences of moral crime - death eternal - unless you change your ways
and thinking style to follow His. If you do that then He has made perfectly adequate provision for the possibility
of mercy and forgiveness through the substitutionary death of Christ without mercy is not possible to law-breakers.


Let's not also forget that we are the ones who, in our siding with evil and selfishness, have brought about much
of the disastrous history of planet earth.

And I'll tell you something else. When you can stop your own habitual masturbation, cursing, cheating, arrogance,
jealousy, hatred, selfishness, lusting, lying and just plain old bitchin' then you can come and tell us how the
world can find peace.

No offence - just gimme a break about all this nonsense about illusions and/or God's being selfish and evil or I
just may pray that He throw a very nice brick your way to see the illusion become harsh reality.

I got work to do y'all. :p

[quote]
It seems Kedaman's reply is not talking about "scope" but about the ability to transmit information from one to the other.
[/code]
That's correct, if we structurize the topic it will look like this:
(
Maintopic
|_ Subtopic
...
)

Code:

---

Universe is not random, objective universe exists.
 |_ What should we thrust to be true ?
    |_ The ability to transmit information  +
        Our individual scope
          |_ Humanity scope (which therefore is enlarged)

---

Now with Humanity scope i meant our cumulative scope, not our common scope. To be more specific, the ability to transmit information is much more restricting, but theres a lot other factors involved, but in general you'll have a larger scope if you live amongst people than living alone.

Quote:

---

Who was talking about the truth in something being in the number of people who believe it?!?!?! Is that his idea of "scope"?

---

Now here's the big question. You and most of humanity, but especially you, is backing up humanitys common scope, why not anyone else religious you may ask, but no i'm pointing at you because the others have a relatively weak faith in what they believe in, they say "i believe". You say "i know". Now this is about science, this is what you believe so hard in that it's hard to discuss with you openminded, especially when it comes like philosophical issues that are "fuzzy". My English isn't the barrier, i think Harry have understood me well but you haven't.

Now the big missunderstanding as Harry explained:

Code:

---

Individual And individual And individual ...

 Individual Or Individual Or individual ...

---

Whereas And and Or are logical operators.

Quote:

---

With the proposal that more people believing something doesn't make it more true I think kedaman is following on from the idea that the scope of humanity is the union of the scopes of all individuals, not the intersection of the scopes. The idea being that, as he said "the common parts are expected to be more true" (common parts = the intersections of the scopes of individuals) and although that information becomes more reliable in some ways, it doesn't change the truth or untruth of it.

---

And Harry interpreted this even better than i wrote it, now that proves it's not about langugae barriers.

hitcgar, No i haven't read the book, but as usual i don't read books written by religious people about religious issues, but i have as usual my view of the point.

God created all Evil! And the point is the contrast between Evil and Good, our decisions that chooses Evil or Good in different situations, also called Free will. The whole idea about god's creation is that the majority will choose Good before Evil, if there's something i can agree on in the bible, then this would be the most logical statement.

Bring him on!!!

If God exists I will stand before him and ask why he created 3 billion people who never knew his existance and would then condemn them to hell simply because he PURPOSELY placed them on the WRONG side of the world.

I don't have a problem with the "evil" in me being judged... I am responsible for my actions and will gladly pay for them with just fashion.


But you expopsed yourself mate.... I can see now why you believe in religion... you are terrified of what will happen if you don't, you got suckered into the "Can I afford to be wrong?". It catches most of them ;)

Kedaman

Harry understood where you were coming from as did I... Why do you think he said BOTH of us were right???? because we both were.. just on different topics.

The language barrier exists because you keep thinking YOUR topics are the same as MY topics and to be honest and I hate to say this but every single time you post a reply I am left wondering if you were actually reading the same forum I am.

Now I will fully admit part of this is my fault, but you can't change the facts so why do we keep trying?

I don't see it as a language barrier. Kedaman has brought up new topics, not necessarily in answer to your questions but related to what he's talking about. Whose topics are more important? Nobody's - this is a free discussion and Kedaman is not obliged to stick to topics that you define and neither are you obliged to stick to topics he brings up.

If you understood everything he said, why did you complain about it making very little sense? "Translated the words are used in contexts that are alien to the meaning of the words themselves." The words and the context made sense to me, were you deliberately misinterpreting the prose?

Let me explain it more simply.

Quote:

---

Kedaman: Look at this lovely red apple
Gen-X: I disagree, the apple is actually green
Kedaman: No your wrong, the banana peel proves it
Gen-X: What? We were talking about apples
Kedaman: I know, so am I, why can't you see the banana peel?

---

Yeah sure its fine to change subjects and bring up new ones... but when you start a conversation about something, someone makes a comment ABOUT the conversation you brought up you don't change the subject in the middle of the answer and start bringing up NEW things saying they directly answer the OLD thing.

That is why you understood BOTH of our sides... because you were looking at it as individual and seperate entities... I however was trying to work out how what Kedaman said actually answered what I was saying "assuming" that we were still on the same issue... I had no idea he had jumped off onto another one.

I understand perfectly what he said... it just happens to be a totally different topic to the one we WERE discussing and so his answer is "completely alien" in the context of the topic at hand.

I hope that makes sense but I fear it wont because all you ever seem to want to do Harry is object for the sake of it and even when someone does explain something you will be DAMNED if you ever admit a misunderstanding on your part.

Gen-X you seem to be a very intelligent person who believes strongly in logic and science. Do you believe exerything can be proven or it is false? Do you believe everything has a scientific explanation? What about things like Love or Loyality can they be proven?

I am not trying to disagree with you as much as you have expressed much about how you feel and I am just curious about your fellings on these subjects.

hitcgar

It seems we have another over zealous believer in the discussion now. First let me ask you a question, have you read all of the posts scattered through the many threads, and if you have, have you gained anything from them, or have you just blocked it all out?

Does it not strike you as funny that we are supposed to fear god. This all loving, all forgiving, all perfect God, is supposed to keep us in mortal terror. Would you seriously consider raising a child like that. Constantly terrorising him. Threatening him with physical abuse or with eternal damnation. I cant really see that happening, and if you were to raise a child like that, how would you expect him to turn out. I would propose there is one of two main ways. The child would either be completely brain washed, scared to do anything at all in case they got it wrong. Or they would rebel, and turn into the evil that you told them not to be.

This is what i feel religion has produced. We have mass brain washing going on, and the beautiful thing is, none of you can see it. For years the church repressed new ideas, and new ways of thinking, because it undermined their power. If they were so sure they were right in the first place, and that they had god on their side, then why were they so scared.

What really gets to me though, is that people who believe in God, have such a high opinion of themselves and their deeds. Just because you believe in God does not make you a good person, and just because i refuse to be brain washed doesn't mean i am the eternal evil that you have to frown upon. In fact, i consider myself to be a very good person. Yes i have my faults, i am not denying that. What i am saying is that i will admit my faults, i know they are there, where as you seem to beleive that just because you beleive in God, you are excused from everything.

So in the words of Winston Churchill

Quote:

---

I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.

---

Kedaman

I am not really sure where we are going with this scope of humanity thing. However, while humanity has a very broad scope, it also has a very narrow scope. Humanities scope does not cover the scope of every individual, it coves what the norm wants.

Individual scope obviously resides with the person in question, this can be as narrow, or broad as the person chooses to make it. However, when people have a narrow scope, that is when they make the most progress. They are concentrating on one important thing, so they give it all they have, rather than spreading themselves out over many topics. Hence why the individual is just as important to furthering our understanding of things, as society as a whole.

Iain

Quote:

---

They are concentrating on one important thing, so they give it all they have, rather than spreading themselves out over many topics. Hence why the individual is just as important to furthering our understanding of things, as society as a whole.

---

Correct, if you look at my example with the spotlights, then you notice i said if the spotlight all were on the same spot, you would see it a lot more detailed than if they were spread out. That's the point with people verifying each others information by comparing them. Now you bent this by looking at one individual, but it works for me and my example too.

The other point, the one that Gen-x and I am arguing about, is that the rest of the room is in complete darkness, if the spotlights were spread out then you could get a picture of the whole room but now when were stuck on earth with 99% identical DNA how could we ever imagine what universe looks like?

Now this is just an idea as i said, and it's only related to the main topic on that qwestion "What should be taken for truth?"

Gen-x
Did I say anything about banana peels? Did I say anything about prooving?

No but i did use the logic that Harry accepted. If it's the connection between the topics then look at my topic tree.

Well here we go again.

1. Religious books written by religious people.

Pure (and very typical) assumption. Lewis can hardly be
called religious. The abolition of man is even less
religious. This short treatise and the "Problem of pain"
are masterpieces of logic. Besides, there 2 ways of
defining religious. - church, do this & don't do that or
else, bondage to a wrong fear of God, merit based on deeds,
etc. Or as the bible defines true religion:

Quote:

---

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress
and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

---

I've read enough non-religious so-called "logical" crap to make your head spin.

And yes I have read many of the postings in this thread.
Much of which I would simply define as I did in my first
post - the same age-old arguments - rehashed by this
generation's "thinkers" who have neither the courage nor
the honesty to read the thousands of refutations printed
over the last 1500 years. I haven't read them all because
I actually work for a living. As a supposedly "brain-
washed" systems architect.

2. God does not terrify me. He is my Father. But, as I
stated and you obviously didn't accept or perhaps even
understand, He is also a righteous Father who keeps me
through His immense love and grace - grace is unmerited
favor. He is also the ruler of all. And, as clearly
stated in the bible, He will judge the world in justice.
And that is why you self-righteous rebels against Him
should be in fact terrified. If I were a criminal I would
be afraid of the police and of finding myself in jail.

"fear god" the fear of God in the bible means "respect,
reverance" the kind of "fear" you excercise towards your
Dad when your young and if you've done wrong the kind you
have to cops.

It doesn't mean terror. That's the kind of fear demons have of God - and with good reason.

God's sanctions to moral law are not threats anymore than the promise of traffic tickets are threats to road infractions or life emprisonment is a threat to murderers.

(Who brain washed you with that very negative and erroneous view?)

Hell is the prison of the universe where those who have willfully choosen to follow satan will end up as the sentence to their crimes against Deity. It's a scarey place.

But I don't follow God's way for fear of hell but because He's right.

And at one point in my life I discovered that I was wrong
and had offended Him and needed to "apologise" and change
my ways.

Most of you who refuse to believe have one clear reason,
often hidden beneath all the excuses and rhetoric, fear of
having to give up some (or many) cherished sin(s).

Those who are genuinely honest will eventually find Him.
If you do you will be, as Lewis descibed in his experience
after spending many years as a sworn atheist philosopher
(professor - Cambridge) and then "finding God", "surprised
by joy".

3. Brain washing! Ha! That one is really ironic. Who is
the more brain washed? The vast majority of society today
utterly rejects God, His ways & Word for belief in an
impossible system of false-science which "believes" very
religiously in the doctrine of evolution no matter how
ridiculous it gets.

Birds from dinosaurs, man from monkeys, life from chance
occurrences of unknown biochemical processes that do not
exist today and so have never been and indeed cannot be
proven.

Well I'll tell you by what process the theory of evolution
functions. It's called magic.

Frogs into princes is just as viable. And still with all of
nature and all of the universe surrounding you with
unimaginable and infinite evidence for design. Yet you
still refuse to believe and then have the nerve to call
people who have discovered God in all His royal beauty -
brain washed. You are hopelessly brain washed yourselves
by an anti-god world and you can't see it.

Even David Hume, who's writings are still one of the major
influences in atheistic philosophical circles today,
discovered "the Deity" near the end of his life by studying
the human eye. (You might like to read the infamous quote
below)

4. Church repression etc. Yeah I totally agree if you're speaking of the roman catholic church where education itself was repressed for centuries.

So what's that got to do with God? Is He responsible for
the stupidity, crimes and atrocities committed in His name? Crimes that are clearly condemned in His won Word?

Some of the greatest scientists in history were christians.

As Ghandi once said,

Quote:

---

Jesus Christ I could accept,
were it not for His leperous bride

---

Fortunatley He is not responsable for all of the foolish actions His bride has done. You cannot escape God by
pointing the finger at those who have acted wrongly in His name.

5. "I'm a very good person". Really? According to who's
rule of measurement? Compare yourself to just one of the
10 commandments say number 10. "you shall not lust" Bye
bye friends we're all guilty as hell! And you know it!

So much for our own goodness. This is why God made
provision for forgiveness through Christ's substitutionary
death. His death in our behalf provided full and adequate
satisfaction to public justice allowing the LawGiver to
accord pardon to repentant criminals without it looking
like He wasn't upholding the sanctions of His own law.

Admitting faults is one thing and of course a good thing
since we all have them. I'm no better than anyone else.
The Word tells me to consider others as better than myself
and to love not only my neighbours but also my enemies
(drives them nuts).

Belief not only does excuse anyone, believer or not, from
anything at all. On the contrary pretense to faith,
knowledge of God's moral law etc implies that you should
"know better" and therefore, as the bible also teaches,
believers are more accountable for their actions than
others. Knowledge of the law, moral light are the only
foundation for the measuring of guilt.

So where do guys get off accusing God of all kinds of evils
when we ourselves are the real guilty parties? Then you
don't stop there you go on and on accusing those who have
found joy and new life and purpose in having been found by
Him.

Free will is the beauty of creation. As Dylan once sang:

Quote:

---

Everbody gotta serve somebody

---

God and His ways or Satan and his ways.

If you follow the greatest criminal of all time you'll end
up goin' where he's goin' and if you follow God because
He's right you'll end where He is. You gotta choose - no way out.


Sorry. Lunch is over - gotta get back to work - continue this at next opportunity. ;)

Gen-X: Err... I didn't realise I was causing a conflict here, I was trying to stop the existing conflict. How could I be misunderstanding when it seems that I have understood what both of you have said? You're not really explaining it, you're just making your usual analogy explaining how Kedaman has talked about something totally OT when we already discussed that it was related to the topic in question. I am objecting not for argument's sake but to stop this from turning into another pointless "Kedaman is an idiot" flame war on your part.

On the topic of the church's oppression of the masses over the years, I agree they have frequently been a pain in the arse. I make a distinction, though, between the kind of organised religious bodies you are referring to and the personal belief an individual might have. You could say Microsoft oppresses the PC-user by monopolising the OS industry, but would you say that operating systems were a bad idea from that? It's not a very directly related analogy, but it'll do. In the past, many children have been brought up with 'the fear of God' instilled in them, and some still do, but I don't think that's the only reason people find that they agree with the fundamental principles of religious life.

hitcgar

Ok, while that post was an insight into the way you think, and you are not quite as far gone as I was first lead to believe, you still show some of the classic symptoms of denial that a lot of religious people show.

God as the father. This is clearly part of Christianity’s view on God. Now I am sorry we have to go over the same old arguments again, and again, but at the end of the day, we only have certain pieces of “evidence”, and personal experience to work with.

It always has, and probably always will, baffled me as to why people think of God as a loving caring father. Time and time again, God has proven that he has no remorse, and that he cares little for his children. Unless of course, they are his favourites.

I am not happy with this view of God, yet you all seem to forgive / gloss over the facts. If you would snap out of it and finally see that God is not a nice chap when it push comes to shove, you would realise all of this.

And at the end of the day, it does all boil down to fear. Fear God’s wrath, fear Satan, fear eternal damnation, fear, fear, fear. When will you realise that it is all designed to keep you in a state of terror should you try to change your beliefs and undermine the power of the church.

As I have stated before, I will state yet again. If God shows himself to me, or you show me some immutable evidence that proves his existence, then I will change my beliefs.



Point taken about evolution, I have read that quote before about the human eye. Evolution might be unlikely, but not impossible. It is just a theory yes, and if we find a better one, we will adopt that. Though I have just been reading a book on the patterns in nature and the universe, and the number of patterns between nature and how the universe is put together, suggests that life would always turn out this way, and it is not such a chance occurrence after all.

But let’s turn things around now. God is just a theory, but if we find a better one, you will not adopt that. Now how likely is it that God actually exists, and that he created the universe (from every single atom upwards), that he created life on earth, that he created one man and one women and that all life sprang from them, and that he then exists in some mystical place called heaven, and that an eternal evil dwells in hell, and that he decided to nearly wipe out his most loved creation, and that he does not even let some of us know him. Now I ask you, which is the less likely option of these two theories.



I am not escaping God by blaming other peoples actions on him. God has done more that enough horrific things himself for me to reject the idea of a so called Perfect and Loving God.



Yeah, I am a very good person. In my opinion at least ;) But if you want it that way, we can play it that way. You shall not Lust is not one of the ten commandments, and to be perfectly honest, if it was it would be the stupidest one I have ever heard of. It states that “you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife”. This is a very different commandment to what you stated it as. (by the way I am still guilty of it :) ) If we take your commandment, then God does not want the human race to exist, for how are you supposed to sleep with your wife without lust. Is it supposed to be all clinical? I doubt that very much.

Besides which, in societies eyes, and many others I probably am a good person, in your however I am probably considered to be the spawn of Satan. Still never mind hey, ill get over it. By the way, don’t even start on the forgiveness thing. Until God can practice what he preaches, he is the biggest hypocrite of them all.

Edneeis

I take it you have not been following anything I have said for the past several months ;)

Quote:

---

Do you believe exerything can be proven or it is false?

---

I believe in the absolute EXACT opposite and if you understood science at all you would realise Science ALSO believes in the opposite.

You can't prove ANYTHING true... you can only prove something FALSE. That is how science works. It puts forward a theory and people try to shoot it down... if it stands the test of time and nobody can provide evidence that invalides it then it is held as a "truth".

They thought the earth was flat... that was the "truth" until someone proved it was a sphere. They thought we were the centre of the universe and again it held TRUE until someone showed we were heliocentric. They think there is a God and one day that too will be proved false.

Does that give you an insight into something I have said perhaps a dozen times already ;)

Iain17

Kudos! Hats off to you for trying with hitcgar.... it takes a certain amount of sheer willpower to keep down your lunch with yet another zealot mouthing off like he is a "chosen one".

Kedaman

Lets just drop that one hey? You ain't getting it... I'm not getting it and Harry is getting everything. :)

Hitcgar

Talk about rehashing the old arguments... your rhetoric is like listening to a tape recording of the other couple of hundred thousand God-washed. Do you have any original comments or statements of your own or can you only repeat those that have been drilled into you?

I look at you in amazement... and wonder in awe at how a person is capable of constructing such an incredible fabrication around himself.. yet there you stand, like someone who is hallucinating and wondering why the rest of the world cannot see your pink flying elephants.

Quote:

---

Most of you who refuse to believe have one clear reason,
often hidden beneath all the excuses and rhetoric, fear of
having to give up some (or many) cherished sin(s).

---

And most of YOU have a clear reason as well... a complete and total innability to function as a human being without the CRUTCH of placing all the responsibility on someone elses shoulders. Your brain CRACKED and the only way you could mend it was to create a God and keep spouting... "He works in mysterious ways" when your wife gets raped and murdered, your children are gay and you find a funny wart on the end of your manhood one morning.

Quote:

---

Brain washing! Ha! That one is really ironic. Who is
the more brain washed? The vast majority of society today
utterly rejects God

---

So its the MAJORITY that are brainwashed and the MINORITY that see clearly?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

My dear fellow... do you understand the concept of learning at all? Go look up the discussion on hypnosis and come back here and tell us how ridiculous it is, thus proving your complete and total brain-washing.

Quote:

---

Birds from dinosaurs, man from monkeys, life from chance
occurrences of unknown biochemical processes that do not
exist today and so have never been and indeed cannot be
proven.

---

Actually, Birds from dinosaurs HAS been proven, Man from Monkeys also though not by darwinian evolution, the process of life is well documented and KNOWN and DO exist today but because you don't live for 2 million years you cannot see it... ALL have withstood many a religous freak such as yourself trying to deny it yet have withstood ALL slings and arrows.

Did you know that every single living creature on the face of this earth share genetics that are 30% similar (was that the figure we ended up with guys?)... even PLANTS?

Quote:

---

Is He responsible for
the stupidity, crimes and atrocities committed in His name?

---

He is when they do it believing as YOU do that they are doing the right thing. You think believing in God is right and just and that anything you do in his name is also as right... other people do it and you suddenly turn coward and say "Thats not God".

How wonderful... Its God when ANYTHING good happens and Man when ANYTHING bad happens... how paranoically convenient for you... Does this malase of yours extend to justify all of your sins?

Quote:

---

"I'm a very good person". Really? According to who's
rule of measurement?

---

Not by your pathetic and 2000 year outdated idiology (I meant to say ideology but my finger slipped).

People like you would kill a doctor because he performs abortions, people like you massacred thousands of people during the inquision....

We tout "Thou shalt not murder" and you find justification in your actions by saying it is NOT murder when YOU do it.

What a f#*king hypocrit!!!!

Harry

I have changed my tune... Kedaman is NOT an idiot (appologies for my misdiagnosis), we just have an innability to communicate on the same topic or even know when we are both on the same topic.

All

I just love it how people dispute every shred of science ever put forward but then believe with absolute surity about a book that was written 2000 years ago by a collection of people as the absolute BE-ALL-and-END-ALL of what is true...

Doesn't that just SMACK of bias to you???

[PS : New thread for people to be blind about coming soon]

When was it proven that birds came from dinosaurs? I thought this was an ongoing argument that the experts in the field were deeply divided on.

Harry

Unless there are some events that occured recently I was not aware of I thought this was now a foregone conclusion.

What are your sources that say its still contentious?

BTW, would appreciate your comment in the other post "If you are Religious... read this"

Die, Thread, Die

Last entry - agree with "die, thread, die".

"You shall not Lust is not one of the ten commandments, and to be perfectly honest, if it was it would be the stupidest one I have ever heard of. It states that “you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife”. This is a very different commandment to what you stated it as."

You got it wrong there. lust and covet mean the same thing - desiring that which you have no right to. Now read the rest "...wife...nor anything ..." Besides lust applies to anything - not just sexual stuff.

The greek word translated as lust just means a strong willful desire for what is not right.

The real meaning of this law is that you shall not lust
after anything which is not yours. Lust and sexual desire
are by no means the same thing. I'm married had 4 kids.
The youngest died of a cerebal tumour after 5.5 months of excrutiating and grueling struggle for her life.

I know the difference between normal healthy desire for my wife and lusting after someone else's wife or anything else. This is why the bible refers to idolatry as lust. Anything that overules what God has given in preference to what He has not given - making me overrule His rule is lust - willful desire of a forbidden thing - like me desiring your wife.

I don't consider you to be the "spawn of Satan". In Eastwood's words "we all got it comin'" -(the unforgiven)

Quote:

---

fear, fear, fear

---

Quote:

---

There is no fear in love. Perfect love casts out fear. 1 John.

---

And there is only one perfect love - God's.

"immutable evidence that proves his existence"
What you all need is immutable evidence that proves He doesn't exist!

And where are you going to find that?

"The spherical world"?

The bible (Isa. 40 etc.)said the world was round centuries before scientists ever thought of it.

"Your brain CRACKED and the only way you could mend it was to create a God and keep spouting... "

Same old technique of insults and intimidation when you can't stand the truth huh?

"ridiculous it is, thus proving your complete and total brain-washing."

Don't need to. It's too foolish to even try. Who hypnotised you?

"Actually, Birds from dinosaurs HAS been proven, Man from Monkeys also though not by darwinian evolution, the process of life is well documented and KNOWN and DO exist today but because you don't live for 2 million years you cannot see it... "

On the contrary it is called a theory because it never has
even come close to being proven. And the process by which
one species changes into another has never even come close
to being explained except in sci-fi trash mags and evolutionary faery-tale mags of course.

Mutations are always coupled with many negative effects that corrupt the gene pool - they don't help it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a proven "law" and is in very nature contrary to evolutionary theories.

Everything deteriorates if left to itself over time - it certain doesn't improve on it's own.

The birds from dinosaurs theory is still magic and carries a blatant illustration the logical fallacies.

The fallacy of 'before this therefore because of this'
which is similar to the religion of evolution that says
'like this therefore related to this' which is a reasoning
error that wouldn't stand 5 seconds if applied to informatics. (check your discreet mathematics books from
university)

"...many a religous freak such as yourself trying to deny it yet have withstood ALL slings and arrows. "

You should really see a psy. it might do you good to get rid of your hatred and bitterness.

"Not by your pathetic and 2000 year outdated idiology (I meant to say ideology but my finger slipped)."

It actually goes back to the begining. And in fact Truth has no begining and can never be outdated.

"People like you would kill a doctor because he performs abortions, people like you massacred thousands of people during the inquision...."

The inquisition was an on-going atrocity engaged by the prostitue, power-mad, demonic roman catholic "church" of
the time - nothing to do with 'people like me' or real xtianity. And a very very far cry from "turn the other cheek, bless them that curse you, do unto others you would have them do to you etc."

165 million xtians were slaughtered from 1900 to 2000 because they believed.

What do you call that! But I will not say that "people like
you" did this. And you are very wrong to say anything of
the kind on my behalf - you know nothing about me except
what your poor atheist thinking has angered you into
imagining however wrong and sick.

"We tout "Thou shalt not murder" and you find justification in your actions by saying it is NOT murder when YOU do it. "

I don't believe in murder. And I don't think anyone who
has killed abortionists, however much I belive them to be
comitting infanticide, is a real "xtian" anyway. Hardly in
line with "love your enemies".

I do understand the desperation of these people though. If abortion is
actually the premeditated and willful taking of human life
(murder) - who can prove it is not? Then it is normal for
people to feel enraged over it and want to do something
radical to stop it - however wrong - when government has
condonned it as legal - however wrong.

50 years ago or so, before a few people decided that a
woman could take the life of her unborn child for the sake
of pure convenience and inspite of it being her own
responsibility, nearly all nations would have been enraged
over the practice as it stands today - more babies killed -
cut to pieces, poisoned by saline injections etc - in their
mother's womb than all the victims of WWII combined.

"What a f#*king hypocrit!!!! " Totally unmerited "friend".

But in spite of the low, bitter, hatefull and childish insults. I am not a hypocrite.
//--------------------
Now Read this you who spout all of that verbal diarrhea about the psy. reasons for belief in God take a good long look at your own heart:

"Professor Paul C. Vitz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of this paper, "The Psychology of Atheism," may seem strange.
Certainly, my psychological colleagues have found it odd and even, I might
add, a little disturbing. After all, psychology, since its founding roughly
a century ago, has often focused on the opposite topic - namely the
psychology of religious belief. Indeed, in many respects the origins of
modern psychology are intimately bound up with the psychologists who
explicitly proposed interpretations of belief in God.

William James and Sigmund Freud, for example, were both personally and
professionally deeply involved in the topic. Recall The Will to Believe by
James, as well as his still famous Varieties of Religious Experience. These
two works are devoted to an attempt at understanding belief as the result of
psychological, that is natural, causes. James might have been sympathetic to
religion, but his own position was one of doubt and skepticism and his
writings were part of psychology's general undermining of religious faith.
As for Sigmund Freud, his critiques of religion, in particular Christianity,
are well known and will be discussed in some detail later. For now, it is
enough to remember how deeply involved Freud and his thought have been with
the question of God and religion.

Given the close involvement between the founding of much of psychology and a
critical interpretation of religion, it should not be surprising that most
psychologists view with some alarm any attempt to propose a psychology of
atheism. At the very least such a project puts many psychologists on the
defensive and gives them some taste of their own medicine. Psychologists are
always observing and interpreting others and it is high time that some of
them learn from their own personal experience what it is like to be put
under the microscope of psychological theory and experiment. Regardless, I
hope to show that the psychological concepts used quite effectively to
interpret religion are two - edged swords that can also be used to interpret
atheism. Sauce for the believer is equally sauce for the unbeliever.

Before beginning, however, I wish to make two points bearing on the
underlying assumption of my remarks. First, I assume that the major barriers
to belief in God are not rational but - in a general sense - can be called
psychological. I do not wish to offend the many distinguished philosophers -
both believers and nonbelievers - in this audience, but I am quite convinced
that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument there are many,
many more affected by nonrational psychological factors.

The human heart - no one can truly fathom it or know all its deceits, but at
least it is the proper task of the psychologist to try. Thus, to begin, I
propose that neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God are of great
importance. What some of these might be I will mention shortly. For
believers, therefore, it is important to keep in mind that psychological
motives and pressures that one is often unaware of, often lie behind
unbelief.

One of the earliest theorists of the unconscious, St. Paul, wrote, "I can
will what is right, but I cannot do it. I see in my members another law at
war with the law of my mind." (Rom. 7:18, 23). Thus, it seems to me sound
theology as well as sound psychology that psychological factors can be
impediments to belief as well as behavior, and that these may often be
unconscious factors as well. Further, as a corollary it is reasonable to
propose that people vary greatly in the extent to which these factors are
present in their lives. Some of us have been blessed with an upbringing, a
temperament, social environment, and other gifts that have made belief in
God a much easier thing than many who have suffered more or have been raised
in a spiritually impoverished environment or had other difficulties with
which to cope. Scripture makes it clear that many children - even into the
third or fourth generation - suffer from the sins of their fathers,
including the sins of fathers who may have been believers. In short, my
first point is that some people have much more serious psychological
barriers to belief than others, a point consistent with the scriptures'
clear statement that we are not to judge others, however much we are called
to correct evil.

My second point as qualification is that in spite of serious difficulties to
belief, all of us still have a free choice to accept God or reject Him. This
qualification is not in contradiction to the first. Perhaps a little
elaboration will make this clearer. One person, as a consequence of his
particular past, present environment, etc., may find it much harder than
most people to believe in God. But presumably, at any moment, certainly at
many times, he can choose to move toward God or to move away. One man may
start with so many barriers that even after years of slowly choosing to move
toward God he may still not be there. Some may die before they reach belief.
We assume they will be judged - like all of us - on how far they traveled
toward God and how well they loved others - on how well they did with what
they had. Likewise, another man without psychological difficulties at all is
still free to reject God, and no doubt many do. Thus, although the ultimate
issue is one of the will and our sinful nature, it is still possible to
investigate those psychological factors that predispose one to unbelief,
that make the road to belief in God especially long and hard.

The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives

There seems to be a widespread assumption throughout much of the Western
intellectual community that belief in God is based on all kinds of
irrational immature needs and wishes, but atheism or skepticism is derived
from a rational, no - nonsense appraisal of the way things really are. To
begin a critique of this assumption, I start with my own case history.

As some of you know, after a rather weak, wishy - washy Christian
upbringing, I became an atheist in college in the 1950s and remained so
throughout graduate school and my first years as a young experimental
psychologist on the faculty at New York University. That is, I am an adult
convert or, more technically, a reconvert to Christianity who came back to
the faith, much to his surprise, in my late thirties in the very secular
environment of academic psychology in New York City.

I am not going into this to bore you with parts of my life story, but to
note that through reflection on my own experience it is now clear to me that
my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist - skeptic from about
age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual
or moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and
still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social
scientists.

The major factors involved in my becoming an atheist - although I wasn't
really aware of them at the time - were as follows.

General socialization. An important influence on me in my youth was a
significant social unease. I was somewhat embarrassed to be from the
Midwest, for it seemed terribly dull, narrow, and provincial. There was
certainly nothing romantic or impressive about being from Cincinnati, Ohio
and from a vague mixed German - English - Swiss background. Terribly middle
class. Further, besides escape from a dull, and according to me unworthy,
socially embarrassing past, I wanted to take part in, in fact to be
comfortable in, the new, exciting, even glamorous, secular world into which
I was moving. I am sure that similar motives have strongly influenced the
lives of countless upwardly mobile young people in the last two centuries.
Consider Voltaire, who moved into the glittery, aristocratic, sophisticated
world of Paris, and who always felt embarrassed about his provincial and
nonaristocratic origin; or the Jewish ghettos that so many assimilating Jews
have fled, or the latest young arrival in New York, embarrassed about his
fundamentalist parents. This kind of socialization pressure has pushed many
away from belief in God and all that this belief is associated with for
them.

I remember a small seminar in graduate school where almost every member
there at some time expressed this kind of embarrassment and response to the
pressures of socialization into "modern life." One student was trying to
escape his Southern Baptist background, another a small town Mormon
environment, a third was trying to get out of a very Jewish Brooklyn ghetto,
and the fourth was me.

Specific socialization. Another major reason for my wanting to become an
atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential
scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be
accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was
thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research
psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on
psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two
things - their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of
religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and
renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek
him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3 - 4).

In this environment, just as I had learned how to dress like a college
student by putting on the right clothes, I also learned to "think" like a
proper psychologist by putting on the right - that is, atheistic - ideas and
attitudes.

Personal convenience. Finally, in this list of superficial, but
nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list
simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be
a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo - pagan world. I
would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time.

Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures
that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer. And then I
also knew it would cost me time and some money. There would be church
services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time spent
helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious would
be a real inconvenience.

Now perhaps you think that such reasons are restricted to especially callow
young men - like me in my twenties. However, such reasoning is not so
restricted. Here I will take up the case of Mortimer Adler, a well known
American philosopher, writer, and intellectual who has spent much of his
life thinking about God and religious topics. One of his most recent books
is titled How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th Century Pagan (1980).
In this work, Adler presses the argument for the existence of God very
strongly and by the latter chapters he is very close to accepting the living
God. Yet he pulls back and remains among "the vast company of the
religiously uncommitted" (Graddy, 1982). But Adler leaves the impression
that this decision is more one of will than of intellect. As one of his
reviewers notes (Graddy, 1982), Adler confirms this impression in his
autobiography, Philosopher at Large (1976). There, while investigating his
reasons for twice stopping short of a full religious commitment, he writes
that the answer "lies in the state of one's will, not in the state of one's
mind." Adler goes on to comment that to become seriously religious "would
require a radical change in my way of life . . ." and "The simple truth of
the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious
person" (Graddy, p. 24).

There you have it! A remarkably honest and conscious admission that being "a
genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient. I
can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an
unbeliever's position.

In summary, because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my
professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and
because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle - for all these
needs atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I
can honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to
adolescence.[2]

The Psychology of Atheism: Psychoanalytic Motives

As is generally known, the central Freudian criticism of belief in God is
that such a belief is untrustworthy because of its psychological origin.
That is, God is a projection of our own intense, unconscious desires; He is
a wish fulfillment derived from childish needs for protection and security.
Since these wishes are largely unconscious, any denial of such an
interpretation is to be given little credence. It should be noted that in
developing this kind of critique, Freud has raised the ad hominem argument
to one of wide influence. It is in The Future of an Illusion (1927, 1961)
that Freud makes his position clearest:

[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other
achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself
against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)

Therefore, religious beliefs are:

illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of
mankind. As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in
childhood aroused the need for protection - for protection through love -
which was provided by the father. Thus the benevolent rule of a divine
Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)

Let us look at this argument carefully, for in spite of the enthusiastic
acceptance of it by so many uncritical atheists and skeptics, it is really a
very weak position.

In the first paragraph Freud fails to note that his arguments against
religious belief are, in his own words, equally valid against all the
achievements of civilization, including psychoanalysis itself. That is, if
the psychic origin of an intellectual achievement invalidates its truth
value, then physics, biology, much less psychoanalysis itself, are
vulnerable to the same charge.

In the second paragraph Freud makes another strange claim, namely that the
oldest and most urgent wishes of mankind are for the loving protecting
guidance of a powerful loving Father, for divine Providence. However, if
these wishes were as strong and ancient as he claims, one would expect pre -
Christian religion to have strongly emphasized God as a benevolent father.
In general, this was far from the case for the pagan religion of the
Mediterranean world - and, for example, is still not the case for such
popular religions as Buddhism and for much of Hinduism. Indeed, Judaism and
most especially Christianity are in many respects distinctive in the
emphasis on God as a loving Father.

However, let us put these two intellectual gaffes aside and turn to another
understanding of his projection theory. It can be shown that this theory is
not really an integral part of psychoanalysis - and, thus cannot claim
fundamental support from psychoanalytic theory. It is essentially an
autonomous argument. Actually, Freud's critical attitude toward and
rejection of religion is rooted in his personal predilections and is a kind
of meta psychoanalysis - or background framework which is not well connected
to his more specifically clinical concepts. (This separation or autonomy
with respect to most psychoanalytic theory very likely accounts for its
influence outside of psychoanalysis.) There are two pieces of evidence for
this interpretation of the projection theory.

The first is that this theory had been clearly articulated many years
earlier by Ludwig Feuerbach in his book The Essence of Christianity (1841,
1957). Feuerbach's interpretation was well - known in European intellectual
circles, and Freud, as a youth, read Feuerbach avidly (see Gedo & Pollock,
1976, pp. 47, 350). Here are some representative quotes from Feuerbach which
make this clear:

What man misses - whether this be an articulate and therefore conscious,
or an unconscious, need - that is his God. (1841, 1957, p. 33)

Man projects his nature into the world outside himself before he finds it
in himself. (p. 11)

To live in projected dream - images is the essence of religion. Religion
sacrifices reality to the projected dream. (p. 49)

Many other quotes could be provided in which Feuerbach describes religion in
"Freudian" terms such as wish - fulfillment, etc. What Freud did with this
argument was to revive it in a more eloquent form, and publish it at a later
time when the audience desiring to hear such a theory was much larger. And,
of course, somehow the findings and theory of psychoanalysis were implied as
giving the theory strong support. The Feuerbachian character of Freud's
Illusion position is also demonstrated by such notions as "the crushing
superior force of nature" and the "terrifying impression of helplessness in
childhood," which are not psychoanalytic in terminology or in meaning.

The other piece of evidence for the nonpsychoanalytic basis of the
projection theory comes directly from Freud, who explicitly says so himself.
In a letter of 1927 to his friend Oskar Pfister (an early psychoanalyst, and
believing Protestant pastor), Freud wrote:

Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book
(The Future of an Illusion) form no part of analytic theory. They are my
personal views. (Freud/Pfister, 1963, p. 117).

There is one other somewhat different interpretation of belief in God which
Freud also developed, but although this has a very modest psychoanalytic
character, it is really an adaptation of Feuerbachian projection theory.
This is Freud's relatively neglected interpretation of the ego ideal. The
super - ego, including the ego ideal is the "heir of the Oedipus complex,"
representing a projection of an idealized father - and presumably of God the
Father (see Freud, 1923, 1962, pp. 26 - 28; p. 38).

The difficulty here is that the ego ideal did not really receive great
attention or development within Freud's writings. Furthermore, it is easily
interpreted as an adoption of Feuerbach's projection theory. Thus, we can
conclude that psychoanalysis does not in actuality provide significant
theoretical concepts for characterizing belief in God as neurotic. Freud
either used Feuerbach's much older projection or illusion theory or
incorporated Feuerbach in his notion of the ego ideal. Presumably, this is
the reason Freud acknowledged to Pfister that his Illusion book was not a
true part of psychoanalysis.

Atheism as Oedipal Wish Fulfillment

Nevertheless, Freud is quite right to worry that a belief can be an illusion
because it derives from powerful wishes - from unconscious, childish needs.
The irony is that he clearly did provide a very powerful, new way to
understand the neurotic basis of atheism. (For a detailed development of
this position see Vitz and Gartner, 1984a, b; Vitz, 1986, in press.)

The Oedipus Complex

The central concept in Freud's work, aside from the unconscious, is the now
well - known Oedipus Complex. In the case of male personality development,
the essential features of this complex are the following: Roughly in the age
period of three to six the boy develops a strong sexual desire for the
mother. At the same time the boy develops an intense hatred and fear of the
father, and a desire to supplant him, a "craving for power." This hatred is
based on the boy's knowledge that the father, with his greater size and
strength, stands in the way of his desire. The child's fear of the father
may explicitly be a fear of castration by the father, but more typically, it
has a less specific character. The son does not really kill the father, of
course, but patricide is assumed to be a common preoccupation of his
fantasies and dreams. The "resolution" of the complex is supposed to occur
through the boy's recognition that he cannot replace the father, and through
fear of castration, which eventually leads the boy to identify with the
father, to identify with the aggressor, and to repress the original
frightening components of the complex.

It is important to keep in mind that, according to Freud, the Oedipus
complex is never truly resolved, and is capable of activation at later
periods - almost always, for example, at puberty. Thus the powerful
ingredients of murderous hate and of incestuous sexual desire within a
family context are never in fact removed. Instead, they are covered over and
repressed. Freud expresses the neurotic potential of this situation:

The Oedipus - complex is the actual nucleus of neuroses . . . What remains
of the complex in the unconscious represents the disposition to the later
development of neuroses in the adult (Freud, 1919, Standard Edition, 17, p.
193; also 1905, S.E. 7, p. 226ff.; 1909, S.E., 11, p. 47).

In short, all human neuroses derive from this complex. Obviously, in most
cases, this potential is not expressed in any seriously neurotic manner.
Instead it shows up in attitudes toward authority, in dreams, slips of the
tongue, transient irrationalities, etc.

Now, in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all our
neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for
understanding the wish - fulfilling origin of rejecting God. After all, the
Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood and, above
all, its dominant motive is hatred of the father and the desire for him not
to exist, especially as represented by the desire to overthrow or kill the
father. Freud regularly described God as a psychological equivalent to the
father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful,
unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God. Therefore, in the Freudian
framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the
father and replace him with oneself. To act as if God does not exist is an
obvious, not so subtle disguise for a wish to kill Him, much the same way as
in a dream, the image of a parent going away or disappearing can represent
such a wish: "God is dead" is simply an undisguised Oedipal wish -
fulfillment.

It is certainly not hard to understand the Oedipal character of so much
contemporary atheism and skepticism. Hugh Heffner, even James Bond, with
their rejection of God plus their countless girls, are so obviously living
out Freud's Oedipal and primal rebellion (e.g., Totem and Taboo). So are
countless other skeptics who live out variations of the same scenario of
exploitative sexual permissiveness combined with narcissistic self -
worship.

And, of course, the Oedipal dream is not only to kill the father and possess
the mother or other women in the group but also to displace him. Modern
atheism has attempted to accomplish this. Now man, not God, is the
consciously specified ultimate source of goodness and power in the universe.
Humanistic philosophies glorify him and his "potential" much the same way
religion glorifies the Creator. We have devolved from one God to many gods
to everyone a god. In essence, man - through his narcissism and Oedipal
wishes - has tried to succeed where Satan failed, by seating himself on the
throne of God. Thanks to Freud it is now easier to understand the deeply
neurotic, thoroughly untrustworthy psychology of this unbelief.

One interesting example of the Oedipal motivation proposed here is that of
Voltaire, a leading skeptic about all things religious who denied the
Christian and Jewish notion of a personal God - of God as a Father. Voltaire
was a theist or deist who believed in a cosmic, depersonalized God of
unknown character.

The psychologically important thing about Voltaire is that he strongly
rejected his father - so much that he rejected his father's name and took
the name "Voltaire." It is not exactly certain where the new name came from
but one widely held interpretation is that it was constructed from the
letters of his mother's last name. When Voltaire was in his early twenties
(in 1718), he published a play entitled "Oedipus" (Edipe), the first one of
his plays to be publicly performed. The play itself recounts the classic
legend with heavy allusions to religious and political rebellion. Throughout
his life, Voltaire (like Freud) toyed with the idea that he was not his
father's son. He apparently felt the desire to be from a higher, more
aristocratic family than his actual middle - class background. (A major
expression of this concern with having a more worthy father is the play
Candide.) In short, Voltaire's hostility to his own father, his religious
rejection of God the Father, and his political rejection of the king - an
acknowledged father figure - are all reflections of the same basic needs.
Psychologically speaking, Voltaire's rebellion against his father and
against God are easily interpretable as Oedipal wish fulfillment, as
comforting illusions, and therefore, following Freud, as beliefs and
attitudes unworthy of a mature mind.

Diderot, the great Encyclopaedist and an avowed atheist - indeed he is one
of the founding brothers of modern atheism - also had both Oedipal
preoccupation and insight. Freud approvingly quotes Diderot's anticipatory
observation:

If the little savage were left to himself, preserving all his foolishness
and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions
of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother
(from Le neveau de Rameau; quoted by Freud in Lecture XXI of his
Introductory Lectures (1916 - 1917), S.E., 16, pp. 331 - 338).

The Psychology of Atheism: The Theory of Defective Father

I am well aware of the fact that there is good reason to give only limited
acceptance to Freud's Oedipal theory. In any case, it is my view that
although the Oedipus complex is valid for some, the theory is far from being
a universal representation of unconscious motivation. Since there is need
for deeper understanding of atheism and since I don't know of any
theoretical framework - except the Oedipal one - I am forced to sketch out a
model of my own, or really to develop an undeveloped thesis of Freud. In his
essay on Leonardo da Vinci, Freud made the following remark:

Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the
father complex and belief in God, has shown us that the personal God is
logically nothing but an exalted father, and daily demonstrates to us how
youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the
father breaks down (Leonardo da Vinci, 1910, 1947 p. 98).

This statement makes no assumptions about unconscious sexual desires for the
mother, or even about presumed universal competitive hatred focused on the
father. Instead he makes the simple easily understandable claim that once a
child or youth is disappointed in and loses his or her respect for their
earthly father, then belief in their heavenly Father becomes impossible.
There are, of course, many ways that a father can lose his authority and
seriously disappoint a child. Some of these ways - for which clinical
evidence is given below - are:

1. He can be present but obviously weak, cowardly, and unworthy of respect -
even if otherwise pleasant or "nice."
2. He can be present but physically, sexually, or psychologically abusive.
3. He can be absent through death or by abandoning or leaving the family.

Taken all together these proposed determinants of atheism will be called the
"defective father" hypothesis. To support the validity of this approach, I
will conclude by providing case history material from the lives of prominent
atheists, for it was in reading the biographies of atheists that this
hypothesis first struck me.

We begin with Sigmund Freud's relationship to his father. That Freud's
father, Jacob, was a deep disappointment - or worse - is generally agreed to
by his biographers. (For the supporting biographical material on Freud see,
for example, Krull, 1979, and Vitz, 1983, 1986.) Specifically, his father
was a weak man unable to financially provide for his family. Instead money
for support seems to have been provided by his wife's family and others.
Furthermore, Freud's father was passive in response to anti - Semitism.
Freud recounts an episode told to him by his father in which Jacob allowed
an anti - Semite to call him a dirty Jew and to knock his hat off. Young
Sigmund, on hearing the story, was mortified at his father's failure to
respond, at his weakness. Sigmund Freud was a complex and in many respects
ambiguous man, but all agree that he was a courageous fighter and that he
greatly admired courage in others. Sigmund, as a young man, several times
stood up physically against anti - Semitism - and, of course, he was one of
the greatest of intellectual fighters.

Jacob's actions as a defective father, however, probably go still deeper.
Specifically, in two of his letters as an adult, Freud writes that his
father was a sexual pervert and that Jacob's own children suffered from
this. There are also other possible moral disasters that I have not bothered
to note.

The connection of Jacob to God and religion was also present for his son.
Jacob was involved in a kind of reform Judaism when Freud was a child, the
two of them spent hours reading the Bible together, and later Jacob became
increasingly involved in reading the Talmud and in discussing Jewish
scripture. In short, this weak, rather passive "nice guy," this schlemiel,
was clearly connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of
courage and quite possibly to sexual perversion and other weaknesses very
painful to young Sigmund.

Very briefly, other famous atheists seem to have had a similar relationship
to their fathers. Karl Marx made it clear that he didn't respect his father.
An important part in this was that his father converted to Christianity -
not out of any religious conviction - but out of a desire to make life
easier. He assimilated for convenience. In doing this Marx's father broke an
old family tradition. He was the first in his family who did not become a
rabbi; indeed, Karl Marx came from a long line of rabbis on both sides of
his family.

Ludwig Feuerbach's father did something that very easily could have deeply
hurt his son. When Feuerbach was about 13, his father left his family and
openly took up living with another woman in a different town. This was in
Germany in the early 1800s and such a public rejection would have been a
scandal and deeply rejecting to young Ludwig - and, of course, to his mother
and the other children.

Let us jump 100 years or so and look at the life of one of America's best
known atheists - Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Here I will quote from her son's
recent book on what life was like in his family when he was a child.
(Murray, 1982) The book opens when he is 8 - years - old: "We rarely did
anything together as a family. Hatred between my grandfather and mother
barred such wholesome scenes." (p. 7) He writes that he really didn't know
why his mother hated her father so much - but hate him she did, for the
opening chapter records a very ugly fight in which she attempts to kill her
father with a 10 - inch butcher knife. Madalyn failed but screamed, "I'll
see you dead. I'll get you yet. I'll walk on your grave!" (p. 8)

Whatever the cause of O'Hair's intense hatred of her father, it is clear
from this book that it was deep and that it went back into her childhood -
and at least psychological (e.g. p. 11) and possibly physical abuse is a
plausible cause.

Besides abuse, rejection, or cowardice, one way in which a father can be
seriously defective is simply by not being there. Many children, of course,
interpret death of their father as a kind of betrayal or an act of
desertion. In this respect it is remarkable that the pattern of a dead
father is so common in the lives of many prominent atheists.

Baron d'Holbach (born Paul Henri Thiry), the French rationalist and probably
the first public atheist, is apparently an orphan by the age of 13 and
living with his uncle. (From whom he took the new name Holbach.) Bertrand
Russell's father died when young Bertrand was 4 - years - old; Nietzsche was
the same age as Russell when he lost his father; Sartre's father died before
Sartre was born and Camus was a year old when he lost his father. (The above
biographical information was taken from standard reference sources.)
Obviously, much more evidence needs to be obtained on the "defective father"
hypothesis. But the information already available is substantial; it is
unlikely to be an accident.

The psychology of how a dead or nonexistent father could lay an emotional
base for atheism might not seem clear at first glance. But, after all, if
one's own father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to
desert, then it is not hard to place the same attribute on your heavenly
Father.

Finally, there is also the early personal experience of suffering, of death,
of evil, sometimes combined with anger at God for allowing it to happen. Any
early anger at God for the loss of a father and the subsequent suffering is
still another and different psychology of unbelief, but one closely related
to that of the defective father.

Some of this psychology is captured in Russell Baker's recent autobiography.
(Baker, 1982) Russell Baker is the well - known journalist and humorous
writer for the New York Times. His father was taken to the hospital and died
there suddenly when young Russell was five. Baker wept and sorrowed and
spoke to the family housekeeper, Bessie:

For the first time I thought seriously about God. Between sobs I told
Bessie that if God could do things like this to people, then God was hateful
and I had no more use for Him.
Bessie told me about the peace of Heaven and the joy of being among the
angels and the happiness of my father who was already there. The argument
failed to quiet my rage.
"God loves us all just like His own children," Bessie said.
"If God loves me, why did He make my father die?"
Bessie said that I would understand someday, but she was only partly
right. That afternoon, though I couldn't have phrased it this way then, I
decided that God was a lot less interested in people than anybody in
Morrisonville was willing to admit. That day I decided that God was not
entirely to be trusted.
After that I never cried again with any real conviction, nor expected much
of anyone's God except indifference, nor loved deeply without fear that it
would cost me dearly in pain. At the age of five I had become a skeptic
(Growing Up, p. 61).

Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for
being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and
disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state
the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty,
the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those
whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who
hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there
must be understanding and compassion. Certainly for a child to be forced to
hate his own father - or even to despair because of his father's weaknesses
is a great tragedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father. For
any unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experience, the believer,
blessed by God's love, should pray most especially that ultimately they will
both meet in heaven. Meet and embrace and experience great joy. If so,
perhaps the former atheist will experience even more joy than the believer.
For, in addition to the happiness of the believer, the atheist will have
that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself
surrounded by joy in, of all places, his Father's house.

REFERENCES

Adler, M. (1976). Philosopher at large. New York: Macmillan.

Adler, M. (1980). How to think about God: A guide to the twentieth century
pagan. New York: Macmillan.

Baker, R. (1982). Growing up. New York: Congdon & Weed.

Feuerbach, L. (1891/1957). The essence of Christianity. Ed. and abridged by
E. G. Waring & F. W. Strothman. New York: Ungar.

Freud, S. (1910/1947). Leonardo da Vinci, New York: Random.

Freud, S. (1927/1961). The future of an illusion. New York: Norton.

Freud S. (1923/1962). The ego and the id. New York: Norton.

Freud S. & Pfister, 0. (1963). Psychoanalysis and faith: The letters of
Sigmund Freud and Oskar Pfister. New York: Basic.

Gedo, J. E. & Pollock, G. H. (Eds.). (1967). Freud: The fusion of science
and humanism. New York: International University.

Graddy, W.E. (1982, June). The uncrossed bridge. New Oxford Review, 23-24.

Krull, M. (1979). Freud und sein Vater. Munich: Beck. Murray, W.J. (1982).
My life without God. Nashville, TN: Nelson.

Vitz, P.C. (1983). Sigmund Freud's attraction to Christianity: Biographical
evidence. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 6, 73-183.

Vitz, P.C. (1986). Sigmund Freud's Christian unconscious. New York:
Guilford, in press.

Vitz, P.C. & Gartner, J. (1984a). Christianity and psychoanalysis, part 1:
Jesus as the anti-Oedipus. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 4-14.

Vitz, P.C., & Gartner, J. (1984b). Christianity and psychoanalysis, part 2:
Jesus the transformer of the super-ego. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
12, 82-89.

FOOTNOTES

1. Address: New York University, Department of Psychology, 6 Washington
Place, New York 10003.
2. I understand there is a sequel to the story of Adler. I've recently been
told that about 2 years ago Adler became a Christian, and Anglican.

------------------------------------------------------------

copyright (c) 1995-1997 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
//---------------------

Quote:

---

A. Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
God is subtle, but he is not malicious.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

Blake
God forbid that Truth should be confined to Mathematical Demonstration!
Notes on Reynold's Discourses

---

God bless you all. Hope you all find Him in His magnificent Light.

I'm outta here. Don't need the insults and all of the
"pretzel logic - high in fibre makes great ****". Insults
are below you, gentlemen, and I will not waste my time
paticipating in insult forums with manipulation tactics or
base and mean comments intended to intimidate, anger and
manipulate. Good luck to the rest.

Hope to see you on VB coding forums :p

[Edited by hitcgar on 09-22-2000 at 08:40 PM]

I think it may have been something in New Scientist a couple of months ago, or on TV perhaps. I think there were more people of the opinion that birds came from dinosaurs than those who thought otherwise, and the argument for it was quite convincing, but there were many experts in the field giving contrary opinions. Not that this necessarily means it's wrong of course - remember Einstein's thoughts on randomness? Oh yes, I forgot, you don't agree with that :D (Btw that was a small joke, I don't want to turn this into another randomness thread, it may never dies if that happens :))

If god exists then he got a very bad personality.

If a programmer Creates a Program and the program doesn't
do the things it was supposed to. A good programmer with a
bit of sense realize that it's his own fault.

Agree ?

God created Adam and Eve.
They didn't do what they where supposed to.
So the way I see it, if God exists then he is not
worth being it.

If God messed up when he created you, who are you but an accidental cock up to say he did wrong?

hitcgar

Well thanks for that, my garden is now blooming thanks to all that fertiliser you provided.

Seriously though, I take back my comments saying that you weren’t as far gone as I first thought. That post has just made me realise that you are probably the blindest of the blind. Do you have any ideas of your own, or are you just regurgitating what they spoon feed you?

Well I did manage to wade through it all, though only once, there is only so much contrived crap I can withstand in one lifetime. Ok, insults aside, I should be bigger than that, but I fell it is the only way to get you to pay attention, and to make you listen.


Now for crying out load, when you are wrong have the grace to admit it. YOU quite clearly stated the following.

Quote:

---

Compare yourself to just one of the
10 commandments say number 10. "you shall not lust" Bye
bye friends we're all guilty as hell! And you know it!

---

Now this cannot be taken in any other way. You quite clearly state “you shall not lust”. I proposed that it was a damn stupid law, and you then go and work your way around it. Next time, get the commandment right in the first place, you’re the religious one, not me. I shouldn’t be teaching you things that you should have learnt in Sunday school.



As for that rather extensive quote, I don’t have the time or the patience to sift through it all and argue with specific points, so let us take a more general view.

Take me as an example. My father is not missing, has never deserted me, in fact he has always been there, he is in fact as close as damn it to being a perfect father as anyone could wish for. I also have a great deal of respect for him. In fact, my father is the man I most respect in the whole world.

As for the other idea on believing in God being to much trouble, that is the biggest pile of bull-**** I have ever heard. It would be just as easy for me to be a believer as it is for me not to believe. And if you think you have to go to church services / church groups and set aside time for reading the bible every night if you are going to believe in god, then you are, to be blunt, a complete idiot.

hitcgar

I liken Christians to people with mental disorders and people chew me out.... Yet I have proof standing right in front of me :)

Interesting postulations.... pity they are the constructed works of someone with just enough knowledge to be dangerous and an almost pathological insecurity in NEEDING to believe in what he says.

Its harder NOT believing in a God than doing so... When you don't you must face death, oblivion and the consequences of your own actions... When you believe in a God you will end up in Heaven, are always looked after, there is a reason for everything and just fling out a few "Hail Mary's" or "Forgive me Fathers" and you are no longer responsible for the attrocities you commit.

Iain

Where DO they come from???

Have you noticed that so soon after I postuated Mikeycorn was in fact someone else on this forum he promptly disappeared? And that now we are "suddenly" seeing someone with few posts once more and the same psychologically imbalanced views of the importance of their own religion and the same silver tongue con-artists use to fleece their "prey"?

Mmmmmm... There is something in that methinks.

:D

I dont' want to get into the debate on the bible but wanted to clear up some issues I read in the first few posts on evolution. if this has been done, sorry. i haven't got time to read 229 posts on this.

Man did not evolve from apes. Man an ape have the closest lineal relative. What that means is man and ape evolved from the same ancestor.

That is why man and ape coexist in special time. Another important point is that survival of the fittest does not mean ability to out live another species, it means the ability for a species to adapt to their environment and persist. Sometimes the environment changes to that a species dies off, sometimes it means a new species occupies a different environment and flourishes there.

Evolution does NOT disprove the existence of a primary mover or God. It simply describes a process. You have to accept the fact that species evolve. Just like you have to accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. If you remember, Gallileo was excommunicated from the Church for his belief in that theory. We accept it today. Btw, the Earth isn't round either. Faith and science can coexist.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "faith" and "science" are ;)

Personally I would say they cannot coexist but then again people disagree with my definition of "faith" despite every dictionary in the world saying so.

Faith is all about "I shall believe what you tell me without question, without support, without evidence".

Science is all about "Ok, so now you have told me. Why? How? When? Where? How often? What quantity? But it contradicts this, that can't happen if this happens, etc, etc"


If you then give "Faith" a status of being a "virtue" then it makes it a SIN to even question something.... hence the most "holy" of people are those who do not question but merely follow what they are told.



As for apes, I think you are right there... hence the reason they have never been able to find the "missing link"... because there is no link.

I do however dispute the concept of evolution as told by Darwin, I dispute the entire concept of evolution via mutation as it doesn't explain the spontaneous multiple mutation of a global population of one species. But I have said this before...

Science is the belief in that truth is what is prooved by logic and evidence, no matter if you see or don't see the flaws.

Quote:

---

"If pushed too hard, if you find you are running out of excuses then get out of there before your faith is lost"

---

Wasn't this something you posted Gen-X`?

Quote:

---

Wasn't this something you posted Gen-X`?

---

Yes it was something I posted... and its the indicator that seperates the men from the boys ;)

Actually it tells whether you are looking at something for truth or just to establish your faith.

I don't think faith is what you said it is... though I understand where you are coming from.

"Faith" is going "Ok, I accept what you say is true"

"Science" is going "Your last 10 proposals came back true, you have validated yourself as a source of credibility, I have also done some preliminary research into what you say and find it consistent and have analysed it both logically and can confirm that for all intention purposes it sounds very feasible and I cannot find flaw in it"


Now if you want to claim the second still has "faith" in it then we have totally different ideas of what the word faith means... So unless you are going to start using mine or I am going to start using yours... it would be a fools errand to try and discuss it with such different terminology.

This thread is extremely long and interesting.
I read the first page and then jumped to the last.
The debate continues.

We all live in this world. We all think differently.
Why? Because we have different genes and we are
taught differently.

We are all temporary.

Life is function-driven. The ultimate function is to
pass on the messages to the next object. Life is a
VB program took millions of years to write; then it
came to a stage where the program starts to decode
itself, and the environment -- our operating system,
the universe.

Bible is a function. Science is another function.
What's wrong with a function? If it works, it is
a good function. Up to now, both functions are
working, in different people's brains.

I bet there must be other life forms out there in
the universe, but not many intelligent ones.

[email protected]