Arian Foster Breaks Ground By Admitting He Doesn’t Believe In God

[Deputy Fife]

Do you believe that people with religious beliefs can be as "right thinking" as an atheist or are they always a few bricks short?

It's a case by case thing.

 

[volinbham]

It's a case by case thing.

Fair enough.

Do you believe humanity would be better off without religious belief?

(I ask since your long post and response to Gramps implied that it should be phased out via conversation - maybe I'm misinterpreting your view on religion)

 

[Deputy Fife]

It seems the critique often follows this formula: Belief in "God" = Highly Religious = Belief in every word of "x" religious text.

Next step, criticize beliefs linked to religious text and extrapolate to members of religion then extrapolate to any believer of a God.

Being a Deist is like drinking one glass of wine and stopping. The discipline necessary to avoid slipping into the oblivion of theism is uncommon. Of course the enlightenment has helped matters, but a lot of people still hate uncertainty.

 

[volinbham]

Being a Deist is like drinking one glass of wine and stopping. The discipline necessary to avoid slipping into the oblivion of theism is uncommon. Of course the enlightenment has helped matters, but a lot of people still hate uncertainty.

Personal experience or belief?

Given the vast array of orthodoxy within almost all religions implies to me that it is a continuum from near agnosticism to full on religious zealotry with plenty of folks all across the spectrum

(or in your terms acknowledging that maybe you might like to try wine some time to Warren Zevon level imbibing)

 

[Deputy Fife]

Fair enough.

Do you believe humanity would be better off without religious belief?

(I ask since your long post and response to Gramps implied that it should be phased out via conversation - maybe I'm misinterpreting your view on religion)

Improved via conversation is a better way of putting it. Of course many will argue that improvement is nothing more than seduction on the part of Satan, thus "improve" = "kill."

 

[Deputy Fife]

Given the vast array of orthodoxy within almost all religions implies to me that it is a continuum from near agnosticism to full on religious zealotry with plenty of folks all across the spectrum

The fact that violent Buddhists and peaceful, liberal Muslims exist is a testament to the influences of ubiquitous factors of human nature.

 

[volinbham]

Improved via conversation is a better way of putting it. Of course many will argue that improvement is nothing more than seduction on the part of Satan, thus "improve" = "kill."

Not sure I follow - if the human race converses it's way to zero religious beliefs you think that will be better?

 

[volinbham]

The fact that violent Buddhists and peaceful, liberal Muslims exist is a testament to the influences of ubiquitous factors of human nature.

So the non-Kim Davis' or Westboro-folk are the outliers and merely part of the human mosiac that escaped the clutches of religious extremism?

 

[MercyPercy]

Just seems your starting point is that Christians are either very socially conservative and thus legislating morality = bad

or

they are defying their religion if they don't conform to the very socially conservative stereotype.

I understand what you're saying. There is some truth in how you're reading me. I do in fact believe that the very loose interpretation Christians aren't being very faithful to the scripture(but are correct about social issues), and I also believe the fundamentalists are just downright wrong on social issues(but are correct in interpreting the bible in most circumstances).

There are only so many ways one can interpret "Homosexuality is an abomination." If the bible explicitly says homosexuality is an abomination, and a self proclaimed Christian says it isn't an abomination(good for him/her, btw), would you not consider that defiance?

I'd suggest that it is nothing new for Christians (or any religious group to have a wide ranging set of views while the core of the religion (Jesus in the case of Christians) is the only consistent link.

I don't disagree. That doesn't mean we can't analyze which views more accurately represent the text and which do not.

So I don't think there is some sudden change in people defying their religious tenants since all along there has been tremendous variety within a religion on said tenants.

I haven't been on this planet all that long, but I've noticed a tremendous change from childhood to adulthood regarding not only the nature of belief but the attitude towards religion of those around me. Maybe my generation has skewed my perception. I do understand your point though. You're saying there has always been variation in belief, and progressive Christians aren't a new phenomenon. I accept that, but I don't think it refutes the claim of declining religiosity in America.

It seems to me your line of argument is grounded in showing that if not all conform to the strictest interpretation that they are somehow leaving their religion, disaffected by their religion or even worse, being untrue to their religion.

Do you think interpreting the bible literally is the strictest interpretation possible? Curious, it ties in to how I'll address this point.

Am I off in thinking you think religious people are somehow misguided?

No more or less than anyone else at an individual level. I do believe some people have a greater genetic predisposition for faith than others.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Not sure I follow - if the human race converses it's way to zero religious beliefs you think that will be better?

Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone, but I don't have all the answers.

I'd like to know if religion is in any way necessary. I'm more than open to those arguments, but I wish people could stop conflating perceived utility with truth.

Even if Christianity were absolutely necessary for the development of civil society, that wouldn't in the slightest contribute to any argument for its truth.

 

[volinbham]

Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone, but I don't have all the answers.

I'd like to know if religion is in any way necessary. I'm more than open to those arguments, but I wish people could stop conflating perceived utility with truth.

Even if Christianity were absolutely necessary for the development of civil society, that wouldn't in the slightest contribute to any argument for its truth.

I don't have a problem with any of this and I certainly would never argue it as the truth. I guess Deism is the closest thing to describe me but I would never argue that is the truth either.

Most of this stems from you post that implied (if I read correctly) that we' be better off when religion disappears. In addition, the quote you provided and some of your other comments gave me the impression you view most religious people as being on the "highly religious" end of the spectrum. I don't have the answer to the first point but do disagree with the second. It is comments about the second that seem like stereotyping to me.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Every effect needs a cause, and to think otherwise requires one to reject a basic fundamental of the scientific method (causality). And you think it's logical to reject this in one case, that being the universe?
The universe (space, time and matter) cannot cause itself to exist, since existence must preceed. So, the explanation of a material world, must be immaterial, timeless, and transcendent. Since the cosmos is governed by laws, then the cause also must be intelligent.


You see, this isnt a gaps argument. Its the MOST reasonable inference based on the evidence and what we KNOW. If you have any evidence that matter can pop into existence from nothing, please do tell. Existence cannot manifest from non existence, therefore the cause of the universe, or multiverse, or string theory, whatever, must be God. This is Aquinas's God of nature.

Admittedly, whether the God of the bible and this god are the same is a separate argument.

Indolent thinking. It only necessitates an absurdity based on current understanding. Nothing more.

Not at all, and not to be rude but it is an amature objection. God is being and existence. Anything that begins requires a cause. God is uncreated and transcends time. So, yes, to deny this creator is logically inconsistent and untenable.

"Amature objection" is rich on mutiple levels.

First, if you're going to insult someone, you might want to spell your insult correctly.

Secondly, immediately after you state such, you posit that God is being, anything which begins requires a cause, and God is uncaused. If God began, then God has a cause, but you state God is uncaused, which is a contradiction; an absurdity. If you state the God is eternal, another absurdity.

To add a cherry on top, you say that if you don't believe in your preferred absurdity, then one is logically inconsistent. Nevermind the fact that you don't recognize the blatant inconsistency of you denying absurdities from possible natural explanations while championing your own theistic absurdity.

 

[Deputy Fife]

So the non-Kim Davis' or Westboro-folk are the outliers and merely part of the human mosiac that escaped the clutches of religious extremism?

That just depends on the degree to which the specific tenets of a particular religion impact behavior in different circumstances.

I'd do anything for an accurate simulation program whereby we could test the impact of different religious texts, both real and specially contrived, on different populations, both isolated and allowed to mingle over different periods of time and under different circumstances of education, economics, technology, etc.

For example, if we introduced Buddhism to an isolated population and found them living like ISIS 1,000 years later, we'd have more occasion for surprise than had we given them the canon of Islam.

Just a thought.

 

[volinbham]

I understand what you're saying. There is some truth in how you're reading me. I do in fact believe that the very loose interpretation Christians aren't being very faithful to the scripture(but are correct about social issues), and I also believe the fundamentalists are just downright wrong on social issues(but are correct in interpreting the bible in most circumstances).

There are only so many ways one can interpret "Homosexuality is an abomination." If the bible explicitly says homosexuality is an abomination, and a self proclaimed Christian says it isn't an abomination(good for him/her, btw), would you not consider that defiance?



I don't disagree. That doesn't mean we can't analyze which views more accurately represent the text and which do not.



I haven't been on this planet all that long, but I've noticed a tremendous change from childhood to adulthood regarding not only the nature of belief but the attitude towards religion of those around me. Maybe my generation has skewed my perception. I do understand your point though. You're saying there has always been variation in belief, and progressive Christians aren't a new phenomenon. I accept that, but I don't think it refutes the claim of declining religiosity in America.



Do you think interpreting the bible literally is the strictest interpretation possible? Curious, it ties in to how I'll address this point.



No more or less than anyone else at an individual level. I do believe some people have a greater genetic predisposition for faith than others.

As to the highlighted - no. What I was trying to say is there are some who are so religiously motivated that they take all actions based on what they believe their religion commands them to do.

I just don't see those people as typical of a given religion or the standard on which a religion should be judged. It's like drawing big conclusions about Muslims based on violent jihadis. We all are told (and know) not to but some how that gets lost when it comes to discussing Christians.

Further, I don't know that there is a set of religious "traditions" or rules that are firm, enduring and inviolate so that some who don't follow them are somehow defying the religion.

Take homosexuality - I'm sure that the views on it vary widely among Christians and those on the extreme are more likely the ones defying the religion. I'd say the Bible (in my limited knowledge) is largely silent on it. Those who read into the Bible a major prohibition are different than those who treated it like most everyone treated it over time. Which group is defying Christianity?

Take birth control - a biggie for Catholics and a non-issue for Protestants. Which group is defying Christianity?

Plenty of Christians who don't buy into the eternal damnation thing, etc. etc.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Thats shortsighted. Can we say its more probable than not that the sun will come up? Yes. Can we state it with absolute certainty? No. So therefore, until you physically see the sun come up, there is a faith element in its rise.

If you get technical, it is faith. However, if you take this approach, just about all "knowledge" is faith based. The fundamental problem being the problem of induction and the fact that most all "knowledge" comes from induction rather than deduction.

Like I stated earlier in this thread, everything subsequent to cogito ergo sum is technically based on faith. Having said that, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who sincerely believes religious "faith" is remotely similar to your "faith" that your memory of two seconds ago, typing a couple words ago, is valid.

 

[volinbham]

That just depends on the degree to which the specific tenets of a particular religion impact behavior in different circumstances.

I'd do anything for an accurate simulation program whereby we could test the impact of different religious texts, both real and specially contrived, on different populations, both isolated and allowed to mingle over different periods of time and under different circumstances of education, economics, technology, etc.

For example, if we introduced Buddhism to an isolated population and found them living like ISIS 1,000 years later, we'd have more occasion for surprise than had we given them the canon of Islam.

Just a thought.

no doubt different religions send people in different directions with respect to those outside the religion.

That said, it sure sounds like you believe being a little religious is like being a little pregnant.

from an empirical standpoint wouldn't the approx 80% of our country that claims a religious affiliation be strong evidence against that?

With over 200 million self-identifying Christians the evidence looks pretty clear that what it means to hold religious beliefs even within a particular religion has substantial variability.

 

[rjd970]

Fair enough.

Do you believe humanity would be better off without religious belief?

(I ask since your long post and response to Gramps implied that it should be phased out via conversation - maybe I'm misinterpreting your view on religion)

Depends on what you mean by "Religion". If it is just sprirituality, I would say "No". If you mean specific doctrines, I say "Yes".

Believing in a higher power is one thing, the problems start when people claim specifics (Religious doctrine). I'm talking everything from suicide bombing to ID being taught in schools as legitimate science. Now, one can argue that those doctrines are not real doctrines...but the fact that there is even an argument and the numbers that believe these things are at the very least significant, should be telling. I can edit the Qu'ran or Bible in about 2 minutes and take the ambiguity away.

I don't discount having powerful spiritual experiences as part of the normal human experience. But I certainly believe regressing those out to beliefs of 1st century carpenters being crucified and prophets ascending to heaven on winged horses is a dangerous path.

 

[Deputy Fife]

In addition, the quote you provided and some of your other comments gave me the impression you view most religious people as being on the "highly religious" end of the spectrum.

I guess it depends on the extent to which my mother's side of the family represents Christians in general.

I have suspicions that many of them are like my mother in that they don't at all appear overly religious but give absurd, ultra-religious answers when pressed in a private environment conducive to candor.

 

[PKT_VOL]

As to the highlighted - no. What I was trying to say is there are some who are so religiously motivated that they take all actions based on what they believe their religion commands them to do.

I just don't see those people as typical of a given religion or the standard on which a religion should be judged. It's like drawing big conclusions about Muslims based on violent jihadis. We all are told (and know) not to but some how that gets lost when it comes to discussing Christians.

Further, I don't know that there is a set of religious "traditions" or rules that are firm, enduring and inviolate so that some who don't follow them are somehow defying the religion.

Take homosexuality - I'm sure that the views on it vary widely among Christians and those on the extreme are more likely the ones defying the religion. I'd say the Bible (in my limited knowledge) is largely silent on it. Those who read into the Bible a major prohibition are different than those who treated it like most everyone treated it over time. Which group is defying Christianity?

Take birth control - a biggie for Catholics and a non-issue for Protestants. Which group is defying Christianity?

Plenty of Christians who don't buy into the eternal damnation thing, etc. etc.

Agreed. Throw the Mormons in there as well.

I find the bold to be the most interesting as a non-theist. More and more people are coming out as either universalists or for deeds-based judgement. It seems to be the last major faux pas in Christianity which fundamentally separates Christians from non-theists.

 

[Deputy Fife]

no doubt different religions send people in different directions with respect to those outside the religion.

That said, it sure sounds like you believe being a little religious is like being a little pregnant.

from an empirical standpoint wouldn't the approx 80% of our country that claims a religious affiliation be strong evidence against that?

With over 200 million self-identifying Christians the evidence looks pretty clear that what it means to hold religious beliefs even within a particular religion has substantial variability.

I think a lot of Christians are only so because it's a culturally acceptable answer that can confer a sense of belonging and community.

What percent of Christian parents would actually worry about the eternal fate of an apostate child vs just worry what everyone else will think?

The ones who don't actually worry about their children going to Hell are, to me, fake Christians, atheists with respect to Yahweh.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Depends on what you mean by "Religion". If it is just sprirituality, I would say "No". If you mean specific doctrines, I say "Yes".

Believing in a higher power is one thing, the problems start when people claim specifics (Religious doctrine). I'm talking everything from suicide bombing to ID being taught in schools as legitimate science. Now, one can argue that those doctrines are not real doctrines...but the fact that there is even an argument and the numbers that believe these things are at the very least significant, should be telling. I can edit the Qu'ran or Bible in about 2 minutes and take the ambiguity away.

I don't discount having powerful spiritual experiences as part of the normal human experience. But I certainly believe regressing those out to beliefs of 1st century carpenters being crucified and prophets ascending to heaven on winged horses is a dangerous path.

Exactly.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Depends on what you mean by "Religion". If it is just sprirituality, I would say "No". If you mean specific doctrines, I say "Yes".

Believing in a higher power is one thing, the problems start when people claim specifics (Religious doctrine). I'm talking everything from suicide bombing to ID being taught in schools as legitimate science. Now, one can argue that those doctrines are not real doctrines...but the fact that there is even an argument and the numbers that believe these things are at the very least significant, should be telling. I can edit the Qu'ran or Bible in about 2 minutes and take the ambiguity away.

I don't discount having powerful spiritual experiences as part of the normal human experience. But I certainly believe regressing those out to beliefs of 1st century carpenters being crucified and prophets ascending to heaven on winged horses is a dangerous path.

Pertaining to your last paragraph, why? What is so wrong in believing in Jesus Christ, what he did, his death and angels? Why is that a dangerous path?

 

[Deputy Fife]

The ones who don't actually worry about their children going to Hell are, to me, fake Christians, atheists with respect to Yahweh.

Correction: atheists with respect to the Trinity.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think a lot of Christians are only so because it's a culturally acceptable answer that can confer a sense of belonging and community.

What percent of Christian parents would actually worry about the eternal fate of an apostate child vs just worry what everyone else will think?

The ones who don't actually worry about their children going to Hell are, to me, fake Christians, atheists with respect to Yahweh.

My litmus test has always been the sadness and grief over the passing of a Christian by another Christian. I can't conceive of ever being sad over another (deserving) person going to Paradise, forever.

 

[Deputy Fife]

My litmus test has always been the sadness and grief over the passing of a Christian by another Christian. I can't conceive of ever being sad over another (deserving) person going to Paradise, forever.

Guessing is interesting but I'm not sure that or any "test" could reliably predict the sincerity of professed beliefs. Grief intensity to me seems an especially poor tool given the sheer complexity and diversity of responses.

Maybe hardly anyone actually believes, maybe most do, maybe most actually don't but really think they do. It's probably a big jumbled mess.