LucidDreamer

The Milgram experiments of 1951 and countless other experiments since have confirmed that roughly two thirds of people will undertake actions which violate their own moral codes so long as they feel they've been told to do so by a legitimate authority.

In the stereotypical experiment, an authority would tell a person to press a button that would give electric shocks, even shocks severe enough to kill, to another (third) person (who in reality is an actor, and not really receiving shocks at all), and they would do so, so long as they were told to, and not acting under their own volition. They would even continue giving shocks after the recipient has appeared to die from the shocks they've received.

This willingness to harm when commanded is a well established fact. Now, when we look at history of Christianity, it is replete with examples of times where otherwise good and moral people committed truly horrid and despicable acts because the church told them to. The Crusades, the Inquisition, conversions forced on pain of death, witch hunts, trials, and burnings, etc..

The unquestioning respect for authority has functioned in times where others besides Religious leaders were in charge as well, but in those instances it can be recognized that they were motivated by political ideologies (generally fascist and communist ideals), not religious beliefs.

When men are the ones giving orders, they can be deposed, their claims and assertions debunked, their political or economic ideas refuted, etc.. But when faith is the basis for the authority in question, it's not so easy.

When the authority figure that is urging horrid acts claims to be speaking (or inspired by) God, questioning their authority can be seen as an act of heresy against God himself, and that much harder to do.

The practice of adhering to the authority of religious leaders or holy texts because you believe (on faith) that they accurately represent the whims and will of God can be one of the most insidious and powerful motivators for death and immorality humanity has yet come up with, even if you believe that actions taken by your faith were justified, look at the actions of another faith, it still holds true.

As a moral argument against faith, this has some legitimate basis, but that's not what I want to ask about.

What I want to know is: Do you believe that unquestioning submission to authority, whether to a man claiming to speak for God or a text which claims to espouse Gods desires, to a man positing political solutions, is ever truly justified when it can be (and has been) abused so readily?

Should there not always be a contingent level where we cease, and refuse to submit, no matter how powerful the authority?

The reason I ask, is because when it's asked here in R&S how we would react if given the same choice Abraham was with his son Isaac, I am appalled to see so many theists piously proclaim that they wouldn't hesitate to kill their loved ones for God.

Is there nothing that could not be demanded of you so long as it was justified by your beliefs and put forth by someone or something you feel is a legitimate authority?

Why is it that no human (or even primate) fossil or has ever been found in the same geological strata as dinosaur fossils?

How come all applicable radiological dating methods (not just radiocarbon) all put dinosaurs and man millions of years apart instead of existing concurrently?

Why is there no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible?

NOTE: 2 or 3 references to behemoths or leviathans are not indications thousands of species of dinosaurs. If you saw herds of Brontosaurs and Triceratops & Pachycephalosauria, you wouldn't call them all behemoths anymore than you would call herds of Antelope and herds of Bison by the same term.

Also, one quick question unrelated to dinosauria..

What day was Man created? Because in Genesis 1:23-26 it says:

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

..it's the fifth day, but Genesis 2:1-7 says:

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

..which indicates to me two different stories about the timing of the creation of man, one on the fifth day, one on the eighth day (at the earliest).

Just wondering how these two stories, presented in context, can be seen as non-contradictory..

Oftentimes here in R&S I see users who are blatantly a member of an organized religion (Who are not Deists) try to use the first cause argument for their God.

In case you're not familiar with it, the argument goes something like this:

"Everything has a cause, therefore there must be a first cause that begins the sequence of events of the universe. This first cause is identified as God."

Now, I could go into Quantum mechanics and how the very first part of it is an unsupportable assumption, but I'd rather deconstruct this another way and ask a question.

Let's assume the first cause argument fro God is 1000% correct, and there is a "prime mover" an "uncaused cause".. A God.

How does this argument IN ANY WAY justify belief in a -specific- God? I mean, how do you make the leap from "prime mover" to "God that is accurately portrayed by ~insert Holy text here~ and is interested in my beliefs and my behavior"?

I mean, assuming the argument is correct and using Christianity as the example, how does this argument indicate that the prime mover created the universe and placed mankind in a Garden? How does it support the idea that he/she/it conversed with a man named Abram? That he/she/it ended up flooding the world? That they ended up living a life as a carpenter and mystic more than 2000 years ago, only to be tortured, killed, come back to life and ascend into the sky?

What is it that logically justifies the HUGE leap of faith it takes to move from one assumption to the next?

They believed this because the Bible said that Eve, the first woman, was made from one of Adam's ribs.

But when empirical science bothered to actually count the ribs, we found that the genders had equal numbers of ribs.

Just think about that for a second, for hundreds of years, a belief about physical reality was completely wrong, but was believed out of faith. Claims to the contrary were rebuffed and discounted, out of religious dogmatism.

How is this any different from modern Creationists who refuse to examine or understand the evidence for Evolution?

In a court of law you must prove guilt. What is blasphemy and what is not blasphemy against a given religion can only defined by that particular religions deity.

When they can get ‘God’ to testify in a court of law as to what does and does not constitute blasphemy in their religion then they have proof of the basis of the law against which someone can be judged, until then it is only a matter of belief, an opinion and not a statement of fact, and fact is what laws must be based on. To do otherwise to make a law arbitrary, and entirely dependant on the interpretation of an individual.

In fact, doesn't the choice to enact the law usurp the right of "God" to define the nature of a religion? After all, it effectively puts the courts definition of what is to be construed as blasphemous or "true" religious observance above the will of "God".

Couldn't the law itself could be considered to be blasphemous as it place the court as an arbiter between the worshiper and god in defining what is an appropriate display of faith and what is not?

Not that I support religious or faith-based legislation at all, I'm an atheist, but I seek to understand the thinking of those who believe that there /should/ be blasphemy laws.

Surely there are some here in R&S?

I mean, we atheists are asked every day to prove that your God doesn't exist, and we point out that proving a negative is a logical impossibility. Since you obviously think we're mistaken, can you please justify your belief by eliminating ALL the other possibilities?

And remember, since "lack of evidence" isn't good enough for us to use, you can't use it against all the other Gods either.

Just evening out the playing field...

It was put in this way:

“Almost everybody believes in God when they are children, and polls show the vast majority of adults continue to believe in God--although a distinct minority does not. It turns out that almost everyone goes through a period of questioning the existence of God, usually during their teen years.

“Does God really exist?” we ask ourselves. It is obviously a very important question. IF you ever began to question the existence of the traditional God, to wonder--because of things that happened or doubts that arose in your mind--if this God really exists, HOW did you decide? Below are ten things that people might do in this situation to help them make of their minds."

"I talked it over with friends and acquaintances who believed in God."

"I read books by atheists or agnostics to see what their arguments were."

"I brought my questions to a religious authority, such as a minister, priest or rabbi."

"I talked with my parents, asking for their help in figuring things out."

"I talked with people who had decided God did not exist, or who had big doubts about it."

"I prayed for enlightenment and guidance."

"I studied up on scientific findings that would challenge the traditional account of God, creation, etc."

"I read scriptures, or other religious books, believing they would contain the answers to my questions."

"I purposely read books, plays, etc. that went against my family’s religious beliefs."

"I made a determined effort to figure it out for myself, not going to anyone else nor seeking any new information."

Which one of these did you do the most to reach your decision? What else did you do, more than anything else except the answer you just gave? Did you do something else besides these two? If so, what?

The results were interesting, those with strongly religious families tended to pray for enlightenment, or they talked to their friends & family who believed in God. Or they read scriptures. In other words, they rarely made an honest and open-minded two-sided search of the issue. In effect, they only sought positive reassurance about the Divine, things that would reinforce the beliefs they already held, not pro- and con- arguments about its existence.

People whose families weren't as religious overwhelmingly said they had tried to figure things out for themselves. Yes, they spoke with nonbelievers and studied up on scientific findings that challenged traditional beliefs, but they also discussed things with friends who believed in God and they talked with their parents (almost all of whom believed in God). They exposed themselves to both yea and nay arguments, and then made up their own minds.

What is it about a strong religious upbringing that makes people only seek out biased data that confirms their current beliefs? Are they scared of what they might find, and the resultant social stigma that might arise if they lose faith? Also, what did you fine people of R&S do?

A full PDF about the sociological and psychological trends he was studying can be found here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

The Milgram experiments of 1951 and countless other experiments since have confirmed that roughly two thirds of people will undertake actions which violate their own moral codes so long as they feel they've been told to do so by a legitimate authority.

In the stereotypical experiment, an authority would tell a person to press a button that would give electric shocks, even shocks severe enough to kill, to another (third) person (who in reality is an actor, and not really receiving shocks at all), and they would do so, so long as they were told to, and not acting under their own volition. They would even continue giving shocks after the recipient has appeared to die from the shocks they've received.

This willingness to harm when commanded is a well established fact. Now, when we look at history of Christianity, it is replete with examples of times where otherwise good and moral people committed truly horrid and despicable acts because the church told them to. The Crusades, the Inquisition, conversions forced on pain of death, witch hunts, trials, and burnings, etc..

The unquestioning respect for authority has functioned in times where others besides Religious leaders were in charge as well, but in those instances it can be recognized that they were motivated by political ideologies (generally fascist and communist ideals), not religious beliefs.

When men are the ones giving orders, they can be deposed, their claims and assertions debunked, their political or economic ideas refuted, etc.. But when faith is the basis for the authority in question, it's not so easy.

When the authority figure that is urging horrid acts claims to be speaking (or inspired by) God, questioning their authority can be seen as an act of heresy against God himself, and that much harder to do.

The practice of adhering to the authority of religious leaders or holy texts because you believe (on faith) that they accurately represent the whims and will of God can be one of the most insidious and powerful motivators for death and immorality humanity has yet come up with, even if you believe that actions taken by your faith were justified, look at the actions of another faith, it still holds true.

As a moral argument against faith, this has some legitimate basis, but that's not what I want to ask about.

What I want to know is: Do you believe that unquestioning submission to authority, whether to a man claiming to speak for God or a text which claims to espouse Gods desires, to a man positing political solutions, is ever truly justified when it can be (and has been) abused so readily?

Should there not always be a contingent level where we cease, and refuse to submit, no matter how powerful the authority?

The reason I ask, is because when it's asked here in R&S how we would react if given the same choice Abraham was with his son Isaac, I am appalled to see so many theists piously proclaim that they wouldn't hesitate to kill their loved ones for God.

Is there nothing that could not be demanded of you so long as it was justified by your beliefs and put forth by someone or something you feel is a legitimate authority?

She's moving to a new city for a new job, and she'll be working with computer animation / CG (or whatever the proper term is) and I would like to get a her a laptop for her to use until she gets settled and can afford the "hot-rod" laptop she'll need for the heavy duty work.

The only problem is that finances are tight right now and I'm not computer literate, can anyone give me any recommendations for a <$800 laptop with a decent graphics card?

Not looking to be converted, I've been here long enough to have heard all your religions pitches and none of your arguments or assertions interest me, I'm just curious about you, the believer.

So..

Did you do any research into the beliefs of other faiths before you settled on your current faith?

Have you researched the history of your current faith?

Have you honestly and open-mindfully examined the questions and views espoused by skeptics to your faith?

Have you truly examined the base assumptions upon which your faith rests?

For example, have Christians examined how the books that make up the Bible were selected, by whom, when, and why? What evidence there is for whether those books were truly "inspired", etc..

Or did you just accept unquestioningly the first faith you were exposed to?

Just wondering.

Basically, here in Y!A, I see theists of all stripes using emotional appeals all the time. From the basic attempt at a guilt trip (Christ died for you!), to the appeal to incredulity (How could all this happen by accident?), to the more blatant emotional appeal (God is love, don't you want to be loved?).

Now, I'm sure that those of you who use these kinds of appeals do it out of good intentions, really, it's fairly obvious to me that everyone here in R&S (with the exception of the more dedicated trolls) are here because you honestly feel that the opposing side of the debate is doing harm to themselves or society.

But the simple fact is that most atheists become atheist as an intellectual discovery, not an emotional reaction (contrary to popular belief, we don't "hate God") so such emotional appeals will simply never work.

From what I've seen, the number 1 request from atheists is objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence, or at the very least, a logically sound argument for God. But all we get is the same baseless claims and assertions, and logically flawed arguments. It's all well and good for YOU to take your holy text as a factual history book, but we don't, so repeating it's claims without backing them up with evidence does no good. Getting evidence from biased sources, again, does no good, refusing to understand science when we do, does no good.

And contrary to the popular understanding, "what makes sense" isn't always logical, so just because YOU see it as a valid question/argument, doesn't mean it actually is. We want an argument that's logical under the rules of /formal logic/ when we ask for logically valid arguments.

But my question is this: Do you believe God approves of you using the same ineffective tactics over and over again?

Sure it feels good, but do you actually think your God approves?

Persistence isn't doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results, that's insanity, persistence is having the same goal over and over again.

Does that mean that my own LACK of such "confirming" subjective emotional experiences when doing the exact same things (praying, reading holy texts, etc..) when I was younger (and believed) should be taken as evidence against the proposition of God?

In 1955 Darwins seminal work "Origins of the Species" was published, in it, Darwin predicted that there would be a species of whale discovered that would be a bottom feeder, sucking up mud and small creatures from the sea floor for food as a transitional adaptation between teeth and baleen plates.

Today, more than a hundred and fifty years later, researchers have published a study which concludes that Mammalodon, a now-extinct variety of whale that lived off the coast of Australia, did exactly this.

If Creationism/ID is scientific, what predictions about future scientific discoveries does Creationism/ID make, and have any of them been verified to be true?

Do you agree with me that religions should be like your genitals?

It's fine to enjoy them, it's fine to be proud of them, just keep them to yourself unless invited to share?

Many theists on here say that our "souls" are what give us everything from our ability to feel emotion to our cognitive ability (the process of thought itself).

What I'm wondering is:

Can physical injury affect the soul?

If so, what makes you believe it survives death?

If not, how do you explain people who have experienced traumatic brain injury and experienced sudden changes in their emotions (including what they feel emotion about) thought process', memories, and attitudes (pretty much everything the soul is supposed to be responsible for)?

What about people who suffer amnesia? Does their soul get wiped like a hard drive? Is it that they have one soul before the event, and one after?

What about people who experience recurrent memory loss? Does their soul "reset" every so often?

Some theists say that the soul is what gives us our sense of "self" and the understanding that other people are "other selves" individual from us.

Autistic individuals don't naturally have that sense, it has to be learned, are they soul-less until they do?

I'm trying to understand your viewpoint here, I'm not interested in conversion, it's an intellectual curiosity.

And arguments from ignorance (How do you think _____ happens, eh? Can't answer, can you? So there /must/ be souls!) incredulity (I don't see how we could _____ without souls!), & popularity (~large number~ believe in souls, how could that many people be wrong?) will just get thumbed down to get them out of the way.

I have no patience for logical fallacies.

To be angry or upset because someone else has the gall to publicly and vocally disagree with your religious opinions seems kind of immature to me.

I mean, not to sound childish myself, but sticks and stones may break bones, you know?

What does the R&S community think about efforts by heavily theocratic countries in the UN to try and push a worldwide blasphemy law that would limit free-speech in sovereign countries?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate respect, but respect is earned, it's not automatically ceded as if it were a right.

If someone is preaching hate, shouldn't it be our right, or even our duty, to defame and ridicule their teachings?

And even if they're not preaching hate, if there's truth to someones assertions, shouldn't it be able to stand up to ridicule, insults, and defamation on it's own merits?

On that note, I feel compelled to point out that even as religious believers rally and campaign to prevent ridicule of their beliefs, they openly try to silence teachings like Evolution, Abiogenesis, Climate Change, and the Big Bang, while scientists themselves seem confident that the facts cannot be dimmed by ridicule, that the reality of their conclusions need no defense but honest integrity on their part.

..maybe Satan doesn't exist, and it's really God messing with things when he's drunk?

I ask because here in R&S I often read Creationism/ID proponents claim that their "theory" has legitimate scientific basis and should be taught alongside of (or in place of) evolution.

Now, for something to be considered a scientific theory, it has to explain all applicable facts, be testable by currently possible experimentation, be falsifiable, and, last but not least, be peer-reviewed and published in scientific literature.

Now, I've often heard Creationism/ID proponents claim that scientists are biased and refuse to publish their articles, so in place of a published article, I will accept a link to an article that was submitted and rejected, so long as it has reviewer comments to show it actually was submitted.

Oh, by the way, articles from Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creationism.org, TrueOrigin.org, DrDino.com (actually, pretty much anything from Ken Hovind, I'm very well aware of his claims and why they're nonsense), or CreationMuseum.org do not count, all of them admit their bias in that they ignore any facts which contradict their hypotheses, a legitimate scientific theory has to include and explain ALL relevant facts, not cherry-pick which ones it deals with.

I ask this question here because this is where the Creationists are, and thus I am more likely to get a response.

In every holy text I've ever read, miracles have been pretty amazing, people stood up and asked their god to make the impossible happen, and the impossible fricking happens!

It's not coincidence, or highly unlikely natural events or things working out in a beneficial manner.

Miracles are events and phenomenon where something truly impossible happens, resurrections, days that last 48 hours, splitting seas, things which, by any modern science, simply can't happen.

Why is it that your standards for what makes up a miracle have dropped so much?

By the way, no example of spontaneous or faith healing has ever been confirmed, in fact, one of the most well known examples of faith healing, when Katherine Kuhlman "healed" a woman with cancer in her spine, the woman who threw her crutches away and ran across the stage? Remember her?

The next day her spine collapsed, she died in agony four months later. You don't hear about those parts when you listen to them preach, do you?

Louis Rose, a British psychiatrist, investigated hundreds of alleged faith-healing cures. As his interest became well known, he received communications from healers and patients throughout the world. He sent each correspondent a questionnaire and sought corroborating information from physicians. In "Faith Healing" (Penguin Books 1971), he concluded, "I have been unsuccessful. After nearly twenty years of work, I have yet to find one 'miracle cure'; and without that (or, alternatively, massive statistics which others must provide) I cannot be convinced of the efficacy of what is commonly termed faith healing."

So, why no real miracles in modern times?

So here you go, two vids from You-tube which present lists of things that would convince me of a particular religions truth.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E

Is there anything listed by these vids that you find unreasonable?

(BTW, a direct follow up question to the answer given by another Y!A poster is the listed exception to the chatting rule)