Religion anyone?
-
Kwistenbiebel,
God has no preference (for atheists):
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
(2 Peter 3:9)Cornel
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
@rickw said:
I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
Why do a lot of religious people categorise those who don't believe as 'atheists'?
As if you get an automatic subscription to the atheist club when you don't recognise a god.In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
You're joking, right? "a-" = no, none, without; "theos" = god; "-ist" = person professing a belief system. So, yes, by the definition of the word, one who believes there is no god is an atheist. The membership cards are in the mail.
And has already been mentioned, the Communists in Russia, who were staunchly atheistic, killed over 20 million people in the past century. In the US, they were frequently referred to as "the godless Communists", which is the same as using the word "atheistic". In history, wars have been started by groups consisting of atheists. The word "atheist" in the group's name is unnecessary. Their ideology included atheism, and that is what they killed to spread - similar to how Islam was originally spread (and still is, in some places). In contrast, Christianity was not originally spread by violence (nor was it intended to be), but in the face of it.
@unknownuser said:
...it still takes a brave man to look past the ancient hyperbolas and stand on the side of reality.
I guess I'm not there yet. I can't even get past the ancient parabolas...
@alan fraser said:
With respect, Rick. Much of that argument is specious.
Really? I don't remember mentioning species in my post...
(read on)@remus said:
Talk about dodgy numbers! Your assuming that their was a constant change in the age of the earth (the theorised ages, that is) which is wrong.
Apparently my LOL smiley & channel-surfer joke didn't do their job of injecting the intended humorous tone into my post.
The point was that science can only offer its best guess. In 10 years, that best guess may be different still. In which case, we still won't know for sure, so why be dogmatic about 4.6 billion years now? -
@rickw said:
In contrast, Christianity was not originally spread by violence (nor was it intended to be), but in the face of it.
No, not originally. But it got up to speed later on. That said, being a cause of violence is not a unique trait of christianity. Any old ideology is quite enough reason for some of us to get the clubs out. Sadly, we are a moronic and violent bunch, at times.
While an atheist, I feel the need to point out that the various religions we've come up with so far have given us some cool sh*t as well - Bach, anyone? Michelangelo? Religion, though I personally find it weird, isn't all bad.
The current entanglement of religion and politics worries me, though. That's an explosive combination right there. I'm fairly certain that's something both the atheists and (the largest part of) the God Squad can agree on. Furthermore, I believe that it is exactly this entanglement that's got atheists screaming bloody murder these days. Under more normal (or at least: desirable) circumstances most of us godless types would just go: "Worship away, old chap. Beer?"
-
clapping smilie
Well said, sentiment shared.
-
The greatest artists of the time were the one's who rebelled against the church, so in that regard I suppose you are right.
-
Nothing wrong with my spelling. Specious is what I wrote; specious is what I meant.
In any case, I think there's way too much polarisation in this thread. While, on logical and scientific grounds, I totally agree with the atheists here, it's perfectly possible to be a (reasonably) regular church-goer and still think anyone who believes the Earth to be only 6012 years old...in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to be more than a little misguided.
Everyone is entitled to their own view and anyone's religion is their own affair, but Creationists changed the rules when they decided to push for their belief to be classed a science and taught in schools as such.If I still had a child at school and found that they were being offered Creationism as an 'antidote' to genuine science, I wouldn't have a moment's hesitation in withdrawing that child and pressing for that teacher's dismissal.
Creationism and Science should not be used in the same sentence...accepting the fact that you can't say that without using them in the same sentence.
The separation of church and state is essential. The separation of faith and science is equally essential. Any faith that regards itself as the true faith should not be afraid of skeletons in the cupboard...should not be afraid that scientific progress will unmask it as a fraud. Because if it is, genuinely, the true faith such a debunking will prove impossible.
What is possible is that science will unmask some of the baggage that such a faith has accumulated over the years as just myth and fantasy, but that is something quite different. Any faith that is afraid of what science might discover next has something to hide....or is being misinterpreted.You can argue that many scientists and artists throughout history were inspired to produce either great works of art or crucial scientific breakthroughs, but when that faith actually starts to get in the way of science, you're on a completely different track. It's a track that led the Islamic world from world dominance in science and medicine to its present position in which, without oil, it would be a complete irrelevance to the modern world. It's not impossible that the USA could head down precisely the same anti-intellectual, dogma-bound path already trodden by the more fundamentalist states.
The world is littered with the remains of once-great civilizations. I'm absolutely sure that every single one of them...when at the height of their power...would have found the idea that one day they would lose that dominance and be reduced to some cultural backwater, utterly inconceivable.
BTW. The same people that bought you the idea of creation occuring in roughly 4000 BC....Bede, Newton, Ussher etc....also equally firmly believed that it would end 6000 years later, quoting, just like Cornel, the Bible verse that equates a single day with a thousand years in God's sight. They believed that 6000 years equated to the six days of creation.
According to Ussher (4004 BC, early hours of Oct 23rd) the world should have ended in 1996. The idea was quietly dropped in 1997.
-
hear, hear! phantastic post, Alan.
you really summed up the essence of this whole discussion very well. your separation of religion and science and (hopefully) politics is in my opinion the right point of view.
it was a joy to read!
-
@rickw said:
"a-" = no, none, without; "theos" = god; "-ist" = person professing a belief system. So, yes, by the definition of the word, one who believes there is no god is an atheist. The membership cards are in the mail.
You're right.
But you got some things mixed up.
Being without a God doesn't necesarily means hating the ones with a God.
That is the point.
As I said earlier: people that don't have a car aren't car haters per definition.There is a difference between 'Atheism' , 'Agnosticism','Ignosticism', 'apatheism'...etc.
While I for instance don't believe in God, I don't have bad feelings towards religious people.
Actually I prefer not being categorised at all.
It's not because I do not join a certain club, I would automatically become member of the opposite club.So, that membership card that is in the mail? Return to sender
-
@unknownuser said:
Gee ..that's pretty smart Rick. You got us on the spellin there. You might wanna review the grammer. I don't seem to need it to communicate either. Keep me posted will ya.
Easy there, friend. I wasn't trying to attack anyone's spelling, I was just having fun with our crazy language (I enjoy puns, what can I say?). As I said before, just trying to inject some humor amidst the seriousness.
@paris said:
The greatest artists of the time were the one's who rebelled against the church, so in that regard I suppose you are right.
Not necessarily, if you count musicians as artists - Bach didn't rebel, nor did Handel, and they are two of the greatest composers. Nor did Haydn. Others were unconventional, true, and may have bucked tradition, but were deeply spiritual and devout in their faith.
@alan fraser said:
The separation of faith and science is equally essential.
I must disagree, at least in part. As mentioned earlier, it was faith that informed men of science and spurred them to explore creation. They had no problems with their faith driving their science - and it is their science that we build on today. Similarly, about 10-15 years ago, atheistic scientists were hyping "junk DNA" as evidence of evolution - leftover stuff from a previous form. Theistic scientists didn't buy it (obviously), and researched the "junk" strands. Their research, spurred by their faith, led to a greater scientific understanding of DNA and how some chains previously considered "junk" actually do have a purpose.
I also disagree with the separation of faith and politics, but it's too late tonight (this morning?) to go there... [please note I did NOT say I disagreed with the separation of church and state, so no comments about that]
@kwistenbiebel said:
You're right.
But you got 2 things mixed up.
Being without a God doesn't necesarily means hating the ones with a God. That is the point.I never claimed it did. I said I have personally witnessed some atheists who were extremely hateful. I did not claim that all were hateful.
What was the second thing?
-
@paris said:
The greatest artists of the time were the one's who rebelled against the church, so in that regard I suppose you are right.
Examples?
Great post, Alan. I concurr with everything you wrote.
-
@rickw said:
[please note I did NOT say I disagreed with the separation of church and state, so no comments about that]
well, that is exactly how I understood Alan.
we have to be careful. it is quite easy to misunderstand one's text, because we can't clarify the meaning of ceratain words ("faith" for example, which can be used meaning "religion" in a certain context, but can be interpreted differently).
I almost fucked up a relationship once because of misunderstandings in text-messages -
You misunderstand me, Rick, regarding personal faith driving scientists and artist alike. I have no problem with that. Michelangelo produced all his works quite literally "For the greater glory of God." and we might never have had them if not for that imperative.
But that is personal faith driving personal achievement. What I object to...very strongly...is someone else's PERSONAL faith being delivered in schools as PUBLIC science.
Scientists are fallible, but they do tend to get there in the end. There are hundreds of examples of theories that have been abandoned or dismissed coming back to bite them in the butt. You don't need a theistic or atheistic agenda to make that happen, just an unbiased assessment of the evidence.
-
Alan,
Following “the Bible verse that equates a single day with a thousand years in God's sight”, we aren’t limited to those "6,000 years"…!
Behold some times, based on that ‘phrase’:
Common year (y.) – 365,000 days (d.)
Lunar y. – 354,3700 d.
Gregorian y. – 365,2425 d.
Julian y. – 365,2500, same as Sothic y.
Ecliptic y. – 346,6201 d.
Tropical y. – 365,2422 d.
Sideral y. -365,2564 d.
Animalistic y. – 365,2596 d.
Fiscal y. - !! (vary?)
ETC. y. …
(For 6 "days", multiply please 6 times…!)
Cornel
-
I know that, Cornel. My point was that the people who did believe that are the same people who believed the world to be 6000 years old.
Personally, I think we've got about 5 billion years left...give or take a few days. -
Does the atheism necessarily reject existence of spiritual world?
Does it alway come together? Can an atheist say: 'I do not believe in any god, but I think we are spiritual beings'? I am simply curious..Is it not very 'empty' and sad there?
-
@unknownuser said:
Certainly not...it is a very colorful spirituality. No Gods are necessary. Gods only place man made parameters on spirituality.
Interesting statement.
-
@unknownuser said:
it is a very colorful spirituality. No Gods are necessary.
It is good. It leaves space for a dialog.
So exploring a soul within us by a meditation is not a complete nonsense for an atheist?!
Interesting.
Going further.. All gods are man-made? They are made up? Am I right? -
@alan fraser said:
You misunderstand me, Rick, regarding personal faith driving scientists and artist alike. I have no problem with that. Michelangelo produced all his works quite literally "For the greater glory of God." and we might never have had them if not for that imperative. But that is personal faith driving personal achievement.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
@alan fraser said:
What I object to...very strongly...is someone else's PERSONAL faith being delivered in schools as PUBLIC science.
And yet, evolution is some people's personal faith. I, for one, find the lack of evidence for macroevolution to be extremely serious (and yes, I've researched a lot of the arguments on both sides, including endogenous retroviruses, etc., so no need for anyone to start that argument either, since neither of us will convince the other). The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
So, to me, macroevolution is as much person's personal faith as Creationism is to you. Thus, in a strange, rather backwards sort of way, we agree on disliking personal faith presented as public science.
With that said, I'm content to acknowledge we have differing beliefs. I'm all for letting people examine the evidence for both arguments and decide for themselves. That is why I would support ID alongside evolution in the classroom - provided each is presented honestly (and yes, I'm sure someone will want to say ID can't be presented honestly, but it can - just as much as evolution can be presented dishonestly: Piltdown Man, anyone?).
A toast to differences...
Kind regards,
-
@unknownuser said:
The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Evidently your claim to have studied is not very serious.
-
@rickw said:
And yet, evolution is some people's personal faith. I, for one, find the lack of evidence for macroevolution to be extremely serious (and yes, I've researched a lot of the arguments on both sides, including endogenous retroviruses, etc., so no need for anyone to start that argument either, since neither of us will convince the other). The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
Evolution may be some peoples personal faith, but it shouldn't be taught as that. As fr the lack of evidence, that doesnt mean the theory is wrong, its just the best we can do at the moment with the current evidence. Give it a few hundred years and a mountain of new evidence is likely to have been uncovered and a new theory will be in place that hopefully better suits the evidence.
The basic point im trying to get across is a lack of evidence isnt evidence for god.
@unknownuser said:
A toast to differences...
Cheers
Advertisement