"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[Alex]

Originally Posted by David E

Come on, believing in an afterlife doesn't mean you don't do what you can to sustain yourself physically.

It certainly can. Or that you don't do everything you might otherwise. But I'm not saying my choice is real. Just that it is as flawed and incomplete as the one you presented.

You do have a body and have incarnated for a reason after all. It's real impact is in alleviating the mental burden of the things you CAN'T change.

You're imposing what you believe on everybody else. Who will decide which version of this belief is the one that is best for everyone to be tricked into believing (because they do have to be tricked; you can't just choose to believe something).

And I never meant that non-believers all have a bad attitude, only that it is more likely for them to, and for logical reasons.

I disagree with the logic you've presented in this thread.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

The Israelis repeatedly say they want peace and a two state solution. They have put their money where their mouth is and have done various "land for peace" deals including the Gaza pull-out of 2005 where their army forcibly removed Jewish settlers.

BTW, that would be the leftist, secular, forces in Knesset that have made negotiation with Palestinians the predominant position of Israel. The right wing religious parties continue to insist that force is the only answer.

[Strangler Lewis]

The existence of earthly phenomena like insurance and modern medicine affect human behavior, generally for the worse. I don't see why belief in an afterlife and forgiveness wouldn't do the same. Indeed, as I've argued repeatedly, a lot of our biggest and most charming Christians have the sin/forgiveness/repeat cycle down pat

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

BTW, that would be the leftist, secular, forces in Knesset that have made negotiation with Palestinians the predominant position of Israel. The right wing religious parties continue to insist that force is the only answer.

I didn't say they didn't think force might be necessary, only that they want a two-state solution and peace. As you say, they differ among themselves as to how to achieve that. The problem with this leftist ideal is that negotiation only works when both parties have a similar frame of reference/values. Gandhi and MLK's peaceful resistance worked with the British Empire and in the US because they were appealing to a common sense of decency of those regimes, whereas it would not have worked against a Hitler or at Tiannaman Square.

So too negotiation alone can't work with Hamas - what is there to negotiate when they want nothing less than the destruction of Israel (as they themselves say), and are willing to die for their cause?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

So too negotiation alone can't work with Hamas - what is there to negotiate when they want nothing less than the destruction of Israel (as they themselves say), and are willing to die for their cause?

Their religious cause.

But that's exactly my point. Israel knows full well they can claim they want peace until they are blue and white in the face and never have that bluff called. But rest assured that if it ever came down to it, there'd be more than enough of them wanting to wipe Palestineans off the map right back at them.

ETA: Restating my point slightly and succinctly - if the truly religious segment of Israel held the power, there would be no talk of a two state solution.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Restating my point slightly and succinctly - if the truly religious segment of Israel held the power, there would be no talk of a two state solution.

There are some hard-core religious settlers, but as far as I know they are within the 1948 borders and do not advocate the genocide and destruction of any Palestinian nation. Do you have some representative quotes or news stories to back up your charges of this?

I am not saying there is not bad religion; there obviously is. I am saying that the fix for this is good religion, not no religion.

Recent news item on the subject for those of you who rely on scientific studies (80 yrs in this case) to state what is obvious to many of us:

By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: NY Times, December 29, 2008

If I’m serious about keeping my New Year’s resolutions in 2009, should I add another one? Should the to-do list include, “Start going to church”?

This is an awkward question for a heathen to contemplate, but I felt obliged to raise it with Michael McCullough after reading his report in the upcoming issue of the Psychological Bulletin. He and a fellow psychologist at the University of Miami, Brian Willoughby, have reviewed eight decades of research and concluded that religious belief and piety promote self-control.

This sounded to me uncomfortably similar to the conclusion of the nuns who taught me in grade school, but Dr. McCullough has no evangelical motives...His professional interest arose from a desire to understand why religion evolved and why it seems to help so many people. Researchers around the world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally happier.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

To be sure the existence of God(s) would be a much easier sell if he/she/they actually showed up now and then - I find their absence telling.

Many religious people think God reveals himself to them all the time. They attribute phenomena to him that science can’t explain - everything from the mathematically improbable coincidences we all experience, to ghosts to past life regressions...these may not all point to the existence of God, but they are supernatural and they are glimpses of something.

Of course the main argument for limited revelation is one you probably know about: moral choice and free will. If God were visible and were to unequivocally show the consequences of bad behavior, it would be easy to be good and we would essentially be automatons. If you were to design a video game and populate it with your creations, it would be pretty boring to have them behave according to what the rules you have coded, which you have already predicted; as opposed to introducing some algorithms that would set in to motion some more interesting interactions...

[€uroMeinke]

I wonder what "good" religion is - especially when competing God's and their prophets seem to claim they're the right one. It would seem off the bat that the real dangerous religions are the one's that seek converts,since that's what seem to lead to all these conflicts and fears of infidels.

Of course, the only sure way to eliminate bad religions is to destroy them, I suppose that means we must allow genocide in those cases - I mean, it's just to root our evil after all. Our God's will forgive us this trespass.

May our polytheistic love triumph over the haters and converters, for our religion is the one that is good.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

It seems odd to be doing such a utilitarian analysis of Christianity/religion - it seems to presume that Utilitarianism is the true objective morality by which to evaluate other moral systems.

Why is that odd, shouldn't utility actually be the main reason to adopt a system of beliefs, secular or religious? Why subscribe to them if they are not useful to you in guiding your life?

Today above, I quoted a NY Times article about how multiple studies find that religious people are generally happier. People seek happiness through all sorts of means from yoga to consumerism. Some things work, some things are empty and temporary. Why rule out trying the means of religion that seems to work?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by David E

Many religious people think God reveals himself to them all the time. They attribute phenomena to him that science can’t explain - everything from the mathematically improbable coincidences we all experience, to ghosts to past life regressions...these may not all point to the existence of God, but they are supernatural and they are glimpses of something.

Of course the main argument for limited revelation is one you probably know about: moral choice and free will. If God were visible and were to unequivocally show the consequences of bad behavior, it would be easy to be good and we would essentially be automatons. If you were to design a video game and populate it with your creations, it would be pretty boring to have them behave according to what the rules you have coded, which you have already predicted; as opposed to introducing some algorithms that would set in to motion some more interesting interactions...

So God did God create us to be good, or just entertaining. And if the Good One's bore God, why would he ever invite them into Heaven. Methinks perhaps we mixed up this heaven and Hell thing - perhaps it's Satan we should worship, at least then we'd be guaranteed a good time.