Oh, and I am the "Anthony" who wrote the long one down there... finally decided to register to this site. After years.

CivalienZero wrote: Graffin says that the naturalist worldview can be a source for comfort. I think that comfort is one of the major functions of religion and that it is rational to seek comfort, especially in this day and age. I am reading a book that offer insights into society and religion; it is by Erich Fromm and called "Sane Society" (1955). Like Graffin says, he is interested in things on the SOCIETAL level so considering if an individual should be putting faith and trust into God is not the real issue. Popularizing an alternative belief system to religion that people can choose over religion, when they initially seek comfort, seems to be Graffin's aim. I don't see a need to argue over what a person has already established as his belief system. It is the "social character" in the broad sense that I consider relevant. If my son grew up and started to seek comfort in a belief system, I would want him to know that having faith and trust in God is different from submissively worshipping God and I would recommend he be wary of reducing himself to masochism. Graffin finds room for the supernatural on the interpersonal level. Is the individual's relationship to God interpersonal? Hmmm. God is infinite, unrecognizable and indefinable; God is not a "thing," yet man can relate to God almost interpersonally because man was supposed to have been created in the likeness of God. Fromm states that, "Man projects his power of love and reason unto God; he does not feel them any more as his own powers, and then he prays to God to give him back some of what he, man has projected unto God." That is submissive worship and I would be very fearful of the consequences to my son if he were to ever alienate himself in such a way. I know that I will learn about naturalism in all its practical details from Greg's book. I have always feared that becoming a naturalist means becoming super-knowledgeable about science, which I don't really want to take the time to study any further than the three years I took in the early 90's. I like Graffin and I get a good sense of him by consuming his music with fervour so it is easy for me to learn from him. I'm so excited! I wonder if Greg will offer signed copies like he did his thesis.

I was hoping to get some criticism, hahaha, even it it was from the P.C. one's ripping on my grammatical errors.

As far as your fear of naturalism requiring an unwavering focus on "the sciences", I think that (unlike with faith-based religions with all the dogma factors) you CAN be a "naturalist" with moderation. While you may not have the extent of knowledge as would a learned scientist, one could easily be a naturalist by simply recognizing the "rational" of the appraoch in theory. Although, I do think that scientific endeavors (or even just book reading on such topics that could pertain to naturalism) would offer the naturalist more solice.

Ataraxy wrote: Good points Anthony.

Ataraxy grossly understates what stunned us all silent.

CivalienZero wrote: Someone tell Doug that soap has been around for 4800 years.

4800 years is not so long. My bad.

Good points Anthony.

This discussion (the one full of ad-hominem fallacies regarding the other's arrogance, and about religion) is a little childish, not that it's a bad one, but it has been carelessly conducted. I think some people call it "kitchen-sinking" an argument, when instead of directly addressing the argument of the participant, the rebuttal attempts to bring in other, unrelated arguments, such as attacking the other person's "character" instead of "said-argument." Just a thought...

I sorta just wanna jumpin fer a minute on it.

This is very grossly stated, but religious practices are noticable in the archaeological record as far back as 35000 years ago, long before faith-based religions. As societal complexity progressed with cultural evoltuons, so did religious practices, which eventually would become the (much more complex than animistic religions of paleolithic/archaic cultures) indoctrinated faith-based religions we see today.

What naturalists try to express is this very idea of religion as a component of human cultural evolution, which is why they don't "embrace," nor "criticize" the idea of religion itself... they recognize the anthropological significance of it by understanding human cultural history through various ethnographic and archaeological analysis techniques. This is where Greg Graffin's (et.al) optimism comes in as naturalists. Although life itself is "without purpose" in refuting the supernatural sense, and in the natural sense life is recognized only by its biological functions, the fascination for these naturalists is in the THE SCIENCE; embracing the inquiry of Why's-When's-Where's-How's, etc...

It doesn't discourage or bother the likes of Graffin that we when we die, we die, or that we don't have an answer for explaining "existence"... there is no entertaining the ideas of afterlife, or (directly) how the universe was created (as do faith-based religions) other than in the scientific sense of the universe, or in the anthropological/academic sense of understanding how such ideas developed in humans... (i.e. Generator's - "The Answer")

AND, there is no "bashing" of religions either, only the bashing of those who choose to poorly represent their religions by either (1) moderately adhering to their faith (majority of American Christians) , or (2) taking their faith's to unecessary extremes (suicide bombers of the Islamic faith). READ THE BOOK "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

As far as bashing faith-based religions as a whole... I think it goes to say that naturalists bash it intellectually by simply taking the rational approach of the scientific method, regardless of how long (if ever) it may take for humans to decipher the mysteries of the NATURAL UNIVERSE.

quit attacking one another. Just think, and if you are religious, think about how truly devoted you are to your religion, because the words of "Gods" in faith-based religions are infallable, therefore all participants must adhere to the all the divine words within their scriptures literally without "moderation." As a moderate, you make a mockery of God's divine truth. There in no room for "changes in interpretation" of the scriptures, because the words of God must serve as "perfect." What is perfect CANNOT CHANGE....

do we not see a problem here, then with all faith-based religions i the modern world. NOBODY sees the scriptures as they did a millenia ago.

Relgions aren't entities. people are the entities. Religions change only as humanity changes, and with it comes changes in religion.

I can't see any arrogance in reasonable discussion. It's differend to attack someone just cause they are differend from stating that you disagree with someone and why.
I do understand that all have reasons for their beliefs, and i'm not talking personally agaisnt any religious person, just against religion in general, being one of the means to control people. People might feel better, safer, accepted by the society, happy for afterlife or whatever, so it has value to them. But this value just doesn't give any organised religion or person the slightest proof that a god exists. And especially their god they way they are tought about it. If saying that is offensive and we shouldn't even talk about it let's all sleep happy together :)

Someone tell Doug that soap has been around for 4800 years.

Doesn't anyone care to debate the question of whether or not interpersonal relationships should involve cold hard facts?

I'm Against It wrote: Believing what? I never said I believed anything.

I wasn't meaning you personally, I was just using it in the general sense.

Robo Pilgrim wrote: scientifically proven facts.

No such animal. Semenatics of the word proof in scientific context contradict this.

Robo Pilgrim wrote: Then what basis have you got for believing it?

Believing what? I never said I believed anything.

nropevolI wrote: That is very true. I am always annoyed by the fact that, let's say, Christians can look at other religions and see that they're made up. they can criticize an African tribe, Hinduism, Aboriginals etc. for their beliefs .

That is done by every sort of belief system known to man, especially atheism.

ProdigalSonBR wrote: Religious people are usually the most judgemental, and rarely reasonable. But they most times can't accept comments about themselves, even reasonable ones. Stranger is that a huge number of people (even non-religious) can't accept even mature talk about beliefs in general, like beliefs are some sacred topic that talking about should be banned. Don't know if it should be called apathy, ignorance of how beliefs lead people in their lives or hate against atheism in general, guess depends on the case.

Did you not just do the same thing religious people supposedly do? You are demonizing something without looking at it from the other side. Doesn't that put you in the same seat as them?

You're all so quick to judge and demonize religion, but do you ever look at your own beliefs and your own arrogance. Everyone is the same, nobody is different, and atheists aren't immune from the pitfalls of being human. That is all I want to say is don't judge and be arrogant unless you want to be just like those you hate.

On a side note, I do agree about the Muslim children thing. It is quite disturbing and I don't like it one bit, but I don't think a few bad apples should be a reason to hate anything.

nropevolI wrote: I see those brainwashed Muslim children on tv fighting in a war, and it really makes me want to hate religion.

They're Muslim, Christians can't be brainwashed!!!

That thing is really anoying. All people criticize others all the time, some having reasons for it and some cause of hate, ignorance, being jealus, wanting to feel better reducing others etc. Religious people are usually the most judgemental, and rarely reasonable. But they most times can't accept comments about themselves, even reasonable ones. Stranger is that a huge number of people (even non-religious) can't accept even mature talk about beliefs in general, like beliefs are some sacred topic that talking about should be banned. Don't know if it should be called apathy, ignorance of how beliefs lead people in their lives or hate against atheism in general, guess deppends on the case.

BrandonSideleau wrote: The POINT is that there is no valid reason for believing in the conventional idea of "God." I'm not hearing any reason from anyone that would give me (or anyone else) any reason to believe in what organized religion deems as "God." As I stated earlier- believing in a power is one thing, but why on Earth would you believe in the Christian "God"? What reason do you have? Is it because you were brought up that way? Because you have "faith"? Why? The problem is that there is no valid reason. Now, I'm all for tolerance and understanding- but how is believing in the Christian God any different than creating your own religion and believing in it? I could come up with any ridiculous idea for what "god" is and it wouldn't have any less validity than the idea that Christianity, Judaism or Islam preach. I honestly don't understand the hostility towards me- this is a perfectly valid point and I'm not hearing any valid counter arguments...just excuses.

That is very true. I am always annoyed by the fact that, let's say, Christians can look at other religions and see that they're made up. they can criticize an African tribe, Hinduism, Aboriginals etc. for their beliefs . But they won't ever think that their faith works the same way. it's also a very strange idea that if the Muslims are right in the end, 2 billion christians go to hell, or if the Christians were right, all the jews go to hell for not believing in Jesus as the son of God. It's really just the way you were raised. I see those brainwashed Muslim children on tv fighting in a war, and it really makes me want to hate religion.

I'm Against It wrote: First of all, science does not provide proof of anything, just a probable explanation of various phenomenon.

Scientific theories provide explanations of scientifically proven facts. Science knows it doesn't have all the answers, that's why it still goes on.

I'm Against It wrote: Second, beliefs have no "reason" behind them it is as I already said in my previous comments, you believe something because you want to believe it, not because of reason or logic.

Then what basis have you got for believing it? It's got to be more than just wanting to believe; I might want to believe in an afterlife, but that doesn't mean I do believe.

The fact of the matter is that if something has not been scientifically proven to exist the onus of proof lies with those who say it does exist.

Jesus Christ, you go back and forth more than a politician. Let me recount: "I'm not being hostile... there is nothing wrong with attacking its idiocy." I'm having trouble taking you seriously since you just want to attack something because of a visceral reaction and not because of any sort of reason.

I think it is you who is missing the point. It's not my job to give answers since the thing in question has none. I am merely pointing out your arrogance and intolerance and trying to get you to think about its effects on other people who believe the opposite of what you do, i.e. the golden rule. I'd like to think a non-believer such as yourself would be concerned with treating your fellow man well, but I gess that's where athiesm falters and the teachings of Jesus shine.

Since your first sentence is so proposterous though I will provide a response to it. First of all, science does not provide proof of anything, just a probable explanation of various phenomenon. Second, beliefs have no "reason" behind them it is as I already said in my previous comments, you believe something because you want to believe it, not because of reason or logic.

By the way, the fact that this is just a visceral reation is evident by your attack on a Christian God only, and not any other version of God. Obviously, something has given you a deep hatred of Christianity that you pass off as a hate for religion in general, it just shows how illogical beliefs can be.

Dude...you're missing the point entirely...my "beliefs" are not beliefs- they are based on scientific fact. They are observable, testable and provable beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, have REASON behind my logic. Organized religion, on the other hand, do not. I don't understand why religion is such a "sacred" subject; there is nothing arrogant or obscene about me saying that it is just flat -out nonsense and the vast majority of scientists would agree with me. And beliefs must ALWAYS be based on logical reason, otherwise how are they any different than insanity? I don't have to have "belief" in my views because they are facts....Christianity, on the other hand, has no basis in...well...in anything. I would just like one person to be able to tell me a logical reason to believe in the Christian God (other than the whole "millions of people believe" or "source of inspiration" excuses.) You're not giving me answers, you're just splitting hairs. Now I don't want to come off as overly hostile...I'm really not trying to be...but I feel this argument is one of the serious problems in our world today- it seems as though it isn't socially acceptable to point out the ridiculous nature of religion and I beg to differ...you aren't born religious, you become that way, so there is nothing wrong with me attacking it's idiocy.

You misunderstand, I'm not a believer and I was not brought up in a religious household. Also, you contradict yourself, you say you are tolerant but then you rant about how a belief in a Christian God is an invalid belief. How would you feel if a made a target of your beliefs and insulted them and told you they were ridiclulous? I did make a counter argument and that was that beliefs are, "subjective, very personal, and are not based in logical reasoning." You declaring that as invalid is an excuse not to come up with something to argue my point. You, my friend, are not God and do not have the power to judge other's beliefs as valid or invalid. Any hostility you feel is merely a result of your own hostility, tone yours down if you don't want any in return.

The POINT is that there is no valid reason for believing in the conventional idea of "God." I'm not hearing any reason from anyone that would give me (or anyone else) any reason to believe in what organized religion deems as "God." As I stated earlier- believing in a power is one thing, but why on Earth would you believe in the Christian "God"? What reason do you have? Is it because you were brought up that way? Because you have "faith"? Why? The problem is that there is no valid reason. Now, I'm all for tolerance and understanding- but how is believing in the Christian God any different than creating your own religion and believing in it? I could come up with any ridiculous idea for what "god" is and it wouldn't have any less validity than the idea that Christianity, Judaism or Islam preach. I honestly don't understand the hostility towards me- this is a perfectly valid point and I'm not hearing any valid counter arguments...just excuses.

che sus wrote: How do you actually disprove something without using proof?

Therin lies the futility of the God vs. no God argument. Neither side wins, arrogance and hate on both sides is born, and conflict ensues.

che sus makes an excellent point

How do you actually disprove something without using proof?

Graffin says that the naturalist worldview can be a source for comfort. I think that comfort is one of the major functions of religion and that it is rational to seek comfort, especially in this day and age.

I am reading a book that offer insights into society and religion; it is by Erich Fromm and called "Sane Society" (1955). Like Graffin says, he is interested in things on the SOCIETAL level so considering if an individual should be putting faith and trust into God is not the real issue. Popularizing an alternative belief system to religion that people can choose over religion, when they initially seek comfort, seems to be Graffin's aim. I don't see a need to argue over what a person has already established as his belief system. It is the "social character" in the broad sense that I consider relevant.

If my son grew up and started to seek comfort in a belief system, I would want him to know that having faith and trust in God is different from submissively worshipping God and I would recommend he be wary of reducing himself to masochism.

Graffin finds room for the supernatural on the interpersonal level. Is the individual's relationship to God interpersonal? Hmmm. God is infinite, unrecognizable and indefinable; God is not a "thing," yet man can relate to God almost interpersonally because man was supposed to have been created in the likeness of God.

Fromm states that, "Man projects his power of love and reason unto God; he does not feel them any more as his own powers, and then he prays to God to give him back some of what he, man has projected unto God." That is submissive worship and I would be very fearful of the consequences to my son if he were to ever alienate himself in such a way.

I know that I will learn about naturalism in all its practical details from Greg's book. I have always feared that becoming a naturalist means becoming super-knowledgeable about science, which I don't really want to take the time to study any further than the three years I took in the early 90's. I like Graffin and I get a good sense of him by consuming his music with fervour so it is easy for me to learn from him.

I'm so excited! I wonder if Greg will offer signed copies like he did his thesis.

You have all the answers don't you? Good God, what an incredible amount of arrogance. You are simply intolerable with your dismissal of others beliefs when yours can be disproven just as easily. Beliefs are subjective, very personal, and are not based in logical reasoning and you have absolutely no right to bash anyone else's when yours are no more right than anyone else's.

Creationism IS a ridiculous idea because there is simply no reason behind any of it. I CAN understand believing in some sort of "power" in the universe....but a God? No...that is utterly ridiculous. Here is the reason- there is no more reason to believe in the conventional Jewish/Christian God created the Universe than there is to believe that a clown or a dog or a dragon or etc etc created the Universe. Just because, at the current point, science cannot 100% explain something is not sufficient reasoning nor evidence supporting the conventional idea of "God" in any way. Believing in a "power" is not ridiculous....but believing in ANY of these religion is absolutely maniacal. Just because people have believed in them for thousands of years IS NOT a sufficient reason either- people also for thousands of years believed the world to be flat and that people of separate races were mentally inferior. The fact is that there really is no rational reason to believe in the conventional idea of God, there really is no way around it.

A rose is a rose is a rose.

I disagree. I spend quite a lot of time around Christians and it is very understandable that people believe in God - it answers the question "who made the universe?" I personally don't have a problem with the idea that no one made the universe and that it has always existed (in one form or another...), but some people do have a problem with that, so they need the 'idea' of a god to have created it; and from that filters down lots of other highly debatable beliefs. But remember: Creationism isn't ridiculous at all if an omnipotent being exists - it's very credible considering that we only have a 'human perspective' on it.

I agree 100% with what Greg is saying...but, to be honest, I've felt the same way most of my adult life. I see morality as something derived from our ability to empathize and understand (thanks to our mental capabilities), not from something ridiculous like a "god." And, as creatures with higher mental capabilities, we must create our own purpose (as, at this point, we have no purpose within the rest of the natural world- i.e. we don't naturally control populations nor do we add to the environment.) Which leads me to another point, since we no longer have natural predators to effectively limit our population, the responsibility is all our own...as is the protection of our environment and all other animals we share the planet with. I guess with our great mental capabilities comes immense responsibility and I think the total lack of that responsibility is why our world is in such a crisis right now. To put it simply, the fact that "God" is even considered by ANYONE to be anything more than a mythical fantasy is quite depressing, especially in this day & age. How can one possibly believe such nonsense? It baffles my mind....millions of people believe in creationism- something so absolutely ridiculous I'm almost at a loss for words.

Hell yeah, I second that motion.

I seem to remember Stewart's a big fan of BR.

I really hope he goes on the Daily Show once his book is published.

As always Greg have something interesting to say.