Category: philosophy/religion topics
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/respect.html
Happy debating!
Well here in the US religion (mainly christianity) has been on the decline for the first time in this countries history. Fewer and fewer people are going to church, which means churches are closing their doors, while at the same time non-religious numbers are up, by some estimates to 20%.
I'll read this later, but that is kind of sad, as it was kind of founded on crhistian principals, now I won't deny that.
Sad? It's wonderful. The fact that more and more people think for themselves, instead of submitting themselves to an invisible unverifiable master.
And it wasn't founded on christian principles. Saying that would actually piss off most of the founding fathers. Read some of jefferson's or madison's letters some time. You'll find out the last thing they wanted was christian principles.
I read the article, and on the subject of religion and respect, I suppose I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I respect all people in general because I'd like to believe I was raised with manners, plus I tend to mostly have a live-and-let-live attitude towards most people. However, I really don't know if I can give religious folks some kind of special respect for being who they are or even existing as a majority. In that case, respect has to be earned, just like everybody else. You manipulate, you treat people like garbage, you use your religion as a platform for bullying and hate, nope, I just can't respect that, not at all. I understand you're human and sometimes you screw up, but if you screw up consistently in the ways I mentioned, nope, makes it hard to respect that.
Precisely. People have no problem criticizing each other's political leanings, so why should religion be any different?
I could raise a Dr. Pepper or a root beer to that.
I want to bring this topic back up because I think it is applicable this time of year, at least here in America. I don't know about other countries and other faiths, but I can at least offer up some observations about American Christians. See, for probably most of the history of this country, Christians have been catered to and otherwise given preferential treatment. Now that people with other points of view want a voice and some recognition, some of these Christians feel they are being spat upon and persecuted unless their ways and beliefs are put front and center and considered the default position. They can seem rather possessive about Christmas, for example, while they forget many of the rituals and symbols of Christmas are not Christian, and much as they might kick and scream and froth at the mouth, Christmas has become more of an American tradition and less a holiday that is exclusive to Christians. Lots of people celebrate it their own way, call it Christmas, and wish people merry Christmas, even if they are not Christian. But you have some people who define persecution as not being catered to or given preferred status above all others.
It really frustrates me when certain individuals say those who believe in god can't think for themselves. I suppose it appears that way, but it takes a conscious effort to believe in anything. Certainly some people follow religion blindly, but as the scriptures and other materials are now widely available, I think this is the case less and less. As a whole, we are no more "brainwashed" by religion then Athiests are by their own beliefs. This article may be compelling to some, but to those who aren't immediately turned off by the concept of God, there are very compelling arguements in religion's favor. It baffles me how some of the athiests on this board are so bent on disproving religion's validity with statistics, articles and compelling (or rediculous arguements). I mean if athiests ARE right, there's no consequence what-so-ever for religious people believing in God. But if God does exist ....
Right. They took the Yule celebration and ccalled it their own. The Winter Solstice (the sun disappearing and then reappearing,) or being reborn as it were, became the birth of Jesus. Same goes for Easter and the Spring Equinox, hence the reason Easter doesn't fall on the same date every year. Lol.
To the Blind Guardian: Noone twisted your arm to read this board, or the article. So no, I don't care if you're insulted or offended. That's your choice, not mine. Oh, and what are these compelling arguments in favor of your beliefs? Are you going to fall back on that fatally flawed argument from design thing?
Guardian I respect you, so please don't take what I'm about to say as disrespect.
A large reason why people say christians can't think for themselves is because many can't. I can't tell you how many times I get scriptures regurgitated at me when I ask a serious question. A lot of christians are very ignorant of the bible and even other faiths. One recent survey has shown that on average non-religious people know more about religion then christians do.
Even though the materials are easier to find, and the bible is even more available today then ever before many christians still don't read, or study it. as the survey I pointed out earlier suggests
Source
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious
I only quoted this one, cuz I'm too lazy to look up the other studies right now.
I disagree with the compelling arguments statement because most if not all the "compelling arguments" are subjective opinion and not fact based. This is where faith comes into the picture. If there were compelling arguments, or even irrefutable evidence then faith would not be needed.
On disproving religions validity. There is far more then just statistics and compelling arguments. Christians are either not willing to listen, or are not ready to listen, which also lends to the idea of being brainwashed.
Each of us must come to the conclusion of when were ready to question our beliefs, hell I did it. I was a christian for 10 years before I was finally able to question the validity of the bible, or god.
This last part I have to quote.
"I mean if athiests ARE right, there's no consequence what-so-ever for religious people believing in God. But if God does exist ...."
This is nothing more then Pascal's wager. Essentially this argument is based on the incorrect assumption theres only two choices; Belief in your god or no god at all. This assumes, rather naively that your god is the only god.
If we start taking other gods into account you will see the fallacy in this argument.
You have a 50 50 chance of being right when only the two options are taken into account, but if you add allah into the equation you now have a 33.3% chance of being right. If had yet another god like krishna you now have a 25% chance of being right. If you take all 2,000+ gods throughout human history into account you now have a 0.002% chance of being right.
The argument also assumes the person only believes in god because they would rather believe in god and be wrong then not believe and be wrong. If you only believe in god because you "might" be right, and thus lost nothing, is a false dichotomy.
It's true. Many people, religious or not will believe the first thing someone tells them. In the end our personalities, actions and experiences are, I believe what shape us. To each of us who have bothered to research our beliefs, the evidence is extremely compelling. So it is for me. I am not one who sits by idally while some preacher spouts bible verses at me. I question, contemplate and cross-reference. Thus to me, my beliefs are built upon a foundation of one part faith in what is not seen, spiritual experience stemming from events in my life, and study. DO I know everything? far from it. One could say I'm blinded by my beliefs and will not see another way. Perhaps that is partially true. But in reading articles such as this, I am asked to disregard not only the bible, but all religious scripture from all established religions. Even if Christianity turns out to be pure fiction - the bible and additional scriptures which make up my faith pure fantasy - that still can't account for all the mysteries surrounding us as human beings - the accounts of extraordinary phinominon, the legends, myths and beliefs of entire cultures. If there's absolutely NOTHING what-so-ever after this life, then our species has little purpose beyond our individual lives - our desires and the preservation of each of us as individuals. Yet most of us hold fast to family, loved ones, friends, ideals of good, charity and personal sacrifice. It's what rises us above other specieses. I can accept that people don't follow my beliefs. I can't blame them. But I can no more understand a belief in nothing at all then I suppose any of you can believe in what I do.
In my opinion it takes just as much faith to be an atheist (prove God doesn't exist) as it does to be religious.
I can't buy the idea that the bible (or any other ancient writings) is without errors, there's lots of evidence against that.
I think the only way we will ever find the truth is through science. The scientific theory is based on doubt, a theory is just that, a theory. Other investigators try to prove the original theorist wrong. Etc. etc.
Until we know the truth the only yardstick we have is Occum's razor and I fear most religions, and atheism, are low on the probability scale.
Just my opinion.
BTW: the climate change deniers and the creationists can wish all they like, but, what's that they say? "If horses were wishes then beggars might ride."
Bob
@the blind guardian, saying things like, "I find it appalling atheists claim religious people don't think for ourselves" displays your insecurities through and through. it's your choice to be offended, and in all honesty, this is exactly what we're talking about (people not being able to handle beliefs that differ from theirs).
just as you'll continue believing as you do, we'll proudly do the same. contrary to what some would wish, we won't tone our words down; we have as much a right as others to express our extreme distaste for religion. get used to it.
guardian, I just wanted to point out that you have been consistently spelling the word *atheists* incorrectly. Now, here's the question. Are you going to go by what I said and assume that I'm just giving you a pointer, or are you actually going to question it and go do some research to make sure my statement is correct?
Not only that, he's also using the word "then" improperly. It's warmer than it was yesterday, not warmer then it was yesterday. T.H.A.N.
No one is questioning your rites to free speech. Nor am I offended by your words or lack of belief. For all I know you've all had horendous experiences with religion. Certainly there's enough evidence of religious people treating people badly all over the world. I don't judge any of you for your beliefs, even if I do believe differently. But the fact that the only responses to my words were a questioning of my personal security, and an accurate, yet nit-picky comment on my spelling is rather unfortunate. Happy Heart, if you're going to question my security by quoting my own words, please ensure you quote them properly.
Getting back to the topic. I think it's fascinating that science is now able to explain many facets of our existence once atributed merely to religion. I have no doubt that in the future, advances in science will continue. And I hope they do. I think also however that there will be things science will never fully be able to explain. Or if they do, there will be differing oppinions. When it comes to science, I believe it to be no different than religion in one way. People will read a scientific article in the news, or see it on TV and never question it. We're all so eager to believe what people tell us, perhaps because we feel they're "experts" and thus can't be wrong. I don't know. You see this all over the world, in history, in news, in entertainment ... Now I'm not saying science is just as hard to prove right as religion. Quite the contrary. Science is (usually) based in fact, with plausable data and experimentation. But how many of us delve beyond that initial article we read? All I'm trying to get across is that it's easy to make something convincing to the masses if you make it sound convincing.
As I believe science and spirituality to be two sides of the same coin - an oppinion not widely shared I'll admit - I'm not concernned about science breaking down spirituality. Science is a factual understanding of existence. Religion compliments science by giving us questions to answer.
Sorry for the rambly nature of the comment.
No they are not two sides of the same coin. How many times do we have to say it. Science is based on what can be observed by the senses. Spirituality is not. In fact, noone has ever, and I mean ever, been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation of what a "spirit" or "soul" is supposed to be. If you're going to say it's "that which is not physical," then I ask, what is it then? How can there be a non-physical, non-substantial substance which is alive and conscious?
guardian, you still have yet to answer my question. I was actually going somewhere with that, believe it or not. Are you going to assume I was pointing out your misspelling of the word, or are you actually going to question that and do some research of your own to make sure I'm not just messing around?
Science is never completely correct. It is always questionable. Newton's theories were true until a clerk in a patent office came up with a better way to explain physics. Einstein is probably not totally correct, but he's a little closer than Newton was, and the next person will be a little colser to the truth than Einstein was.
On the other hand, religions and atheism start with an explanation that explains everything but really explains nothing.
Today, the scary thing is, they all want to tell me and everyone how to, or not to, celebrate Christmas, teach my kids, vote, and, finally believe.
No thanks gang, I'll think for myself.
Bob
I could be wrong here, but most atheists, in my experience, don't care what you do with your life so long as you aren't shoving it at us, while antitheists are actually against living a life with god altogether. Atheists who are not also antitheists shouldn't care.
I don't know if this makes me antitheist or not, but I feel that church buildings, mosques, synagogues, etc. should be put to other uses. People can do their worshiping and praying at home.
I'd definitely say you're an antitheist, as am I. very much so, in fact.
Sorry Ocean Dream. I really did think you were just nit-picking. In answer to your question yes, I did in fact varify your claim that I'd spelled the word Athiest rather than Atheist. ANd it's true I've spelled the word wrong a number of times. I'm not as conscientious of my spelling on the message boards as I should be I admit.
Imprecator, I'd like to point out that for many religions, their places of worship do serve other purposes. For instance, my own church hosts many functions, both religious and otherwise. We also use parts of our building for scouts and other meetings that are intended to provide service to the community. We use the chappel for worship because it is a place of peace. The whole point of a church is it is to be a place somewhat removed from the world where we can reflect, worship and meditate.
Surely such things could still be done elsewhere? And a chapel is just a place. You could call any place a place of peace. And, isn't there a verse that says something about God not dwelling in temples built by man?
It is said that "God does not dwell in unholy temples." I'm not sure if that's the one you're thinking of. If so, it referrs to us. We are the temples in which the spirit of God may dwell. No, that doesn't mean posession.
But anywayfeel free to quote the passage if you like. I'd like to point out two things however. First, the Bible suffers from the unfortunate problem of having many translations. Sometimes a word, mistranslated can make all the difference. Secondly, even if the Bible does say this blatently without any room for interpretation, it is not the only book of the only religion. In any case, for my own religion, the Church, and especially the temple are meeting houses. The church is for all kinds of things, and the temple is used for the very sacred.
Churches, temples and other places of worship are a part of nearly all religions that I've come into contact with. Ideally, it's a place where like-minded people can get together to worship, and to fellowship. Certainly one can worship wherever they choose, but there's something special about a designated place of worship which might be difficult for one who isn't a part of it to really appreciate.
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands…" (Acts 17:24).
Good stuff. It does indeed say that. What do you make of the verse in context with the rest of the chapter?
I dunno, I don't have a bible, I just remembered that verse.
Just to clarify, I was indeed once a christian. From 1995 to around 2003, at which time I realized that my braille bible, which as I'm sure you're aware is quite a bulky collection of volumes, was just sitting around collecting dust. gave it to Good Will. So yes I've read the entire thing, just not in several years.
I admit I'm impressed you remembered that passage.
I am actually about to throw a few irons into the fire here regarding Christians celebrating Christmas.
*deep breath*
I am actually moving away from the whole celebration of Christmas.
Now, before you laugh at the irony, hear me out.
I know of some Christians who do not celebrate Christmas based on its pagan origins, others who won't celebrate it because of it's "obvious" (their word, not mine) ties to Roman Catholicism, and still others who won't celebrate it because of its shameless commercialism.
Whether or not one agrees with these assertions, the thought has been percalating in the back of my mind. As a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God, can I in good conscience celebrate Christmas? Especially in the light of the fact that the Bible doesn't command us to celebrate the birth of Christ, but to remember His death and resurrection (NOT just on easter!)
I still don't have the answer to this.
I despise the commercialism of this season, the stress of "joyous" family get-togethers that we endure because we feel we have to (it's Christmas, right?), and the absolute hypocrisy about doing good at this time of the year while avoiding the poor and downtrodden during the rest of the year.
If one decides to live biblically with the freedom that entails, I don't judge anyone who decides to celebrate Christmas, but it is something I am desiring to figure out.
Let the fur fly,
Kate
Kate, hats off to you. You make quite a few valid points about the downsides of Christmas that many people seem not to notice. I love this time of year for one reason, and one reason only: the government says we all have to have the day off, with very rare exceptions, so it means I get to spend this time with many loved ones, many of which I don't get to see any other time of year. If it could happen in the summer, I would gladly do it then.
As sad as it is, I feel I must agree with you Crazy Musician. There is something about Christmas that brings out both the best and worst in people, and it's not something I like to subject myself to. Nevertheless it is also when some people's hearts become softened into hearing about Jesus Christ, his life and atonement. For that I appreciate Christmas. The fact early Christians stole the holiday and Jesus was actually born in April bothers me a bit. But that time is now for all of us. That thievery happened centuries ago, and there's no one left to blame for it. But ... a pox on the shameless commertialism.
I think everyone religious or otherwise needs a Winter holiday: most cultures celebrate one, and especially so in colder climates when people get depressed in the cold winter and dark.
The blind are not excluded in the least, just because we can't see the sun.
So I'm glad to see Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and whoever else get much-needed time off work and a chance at celebrating with other people.
There is the hectic part, yes, the family stresses and all. But for many people, Christmas and birthdays are the only time they really reach beyond themselves. To that end, the free-market commercialism may serve a purpose, along with all its foibles. Say you have an old buzzard who never does anything nice for his wife and kids, but on Christmas he gets them each something they've always wanted. Hypocritical that he only does it once? Yes I'm sure there's a case for that. But once is, as they say, better than nunce.
Kate, your careful consideration is quite admirable: you'll be going upstream both ways iff you follow up with that. You've got the current politicization of Christmas by some, and being both a Christian and taking a outward stance on a very commercial enterprise goes against the foundational grain of the American versions of Christianity. I have to say I admire your courage.
Sorry I have to answer this one.
Post 15
"In my opinion it takes just as much faith to be an atheist (prove God doesn't exist) as it does to be religious."
This is so wrong it's almost sad.
Firstly: The definition of faith is a strong belief in a god or doctrines. Atheism is a lack of faith. Using this reasoning it would take faith not to believe in allah, Odin, Zeus, Osiris or even Unicorns? Of course this is just silly and no one would say it takes faith not to believe in Unicorns, so why say you need faith not to believe in a deity?
Secondly: You can't prove a negative. It's like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist.
Thirdly: Science only explores the natural world, not the super natural. Asking for proof of a deity is just ridiculous. I could ask you the same question referring to any deity. In other words you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity.
Lastly: The burden of proof lies on the ones asserting the positive claim. In other words christians claim their is a god, therefore the burden of proof lies with them, not with the opposite assertion. Just like if I told a cop that someone stole my guitar. It would be my responsibility to prove my statement, not the person I'm accusing.
I suppose that depends on your definition of faith. Faith reaches well beyond merely religion. It's unpopular as faith is often associated with religion, but athism requires just as much faith. The application of science has very little to do with it. We put faith in our gods. We put faith in the truth scientists feed us. We put faith in the political situation, that they know what they're doing. We put faith in our friends and our family. We have faith that our house won't catch fire in the middle of the night. Faith is trust in a truth we believe to be true. I can't prove the existence of God, especially to someone unwilling to acknowledge any experiences of those who do follow a religion. But nor can anyone disprove the existence of the supernatural, and that definately includes God. You say that science never explores the realm of the supernatural. Are you sure about that? Have you ever seen those ghost hunting shows? Sure they're meant as pure entertainment, and yet there are aspects of their study which are grounded in reality. All fiction is based in some part on reality. We understand much about our bodies and minds, but biologists will be the first to admit we don't understand nearly all of it.
What is God, what are spirits, what is the supernatural but another aspect of existence we as humans don't yet understand. Personally I have absolutely no doubt that our creator utilized practical means to form this world and all it contains. There was design, planning and method I'm certain. He didn't just snap his fingers and it all appeared out of nowhere. Whether God always existed, whether he came from somewhere, somehow, some way? That's a point of diverging oppinion. But the complexities of the human body, the intricate ecosystem, the order of the natural world ... surely that can't all be born of chaos. Surely science, though it disagrees in this area is right on one thing, the universe did start from somewhere. Was it the "big bang"? perhaps. Is the earth more than six thousand years old? Undoubtedly! When you read the little the book of Genesis says about the creation, it's not altogether unreasonable to consider there to be a scientific component to creation, as well as a period of time between the stages of creation, and the creation of our first parents, Adam and Eve. We also don't know how long they were in the garden of Eden before the fall.
I think where extremists on both sides stumble is when they find themselves unable to acknowledge the presence of both science, and a hand at work. There may be no impirical evidence of God, but there's a heck of a lot of history, eye-witness accounts of spiritual matters, miracles and experiences. The Bible definately has its issues. While definately the inspired words of God, translation and tampering have taken their toll. But the bible is a single book. There's a meriad of ancient scriptures from many different cultures. And while they are vastly different in some areas, and while they tell different histories, many of the principles they teach, and even many of their stories have a great deal of "coincidental" similarities. If every single religion ever created is just part of a massive world conspiracy, or a means by which to control populations throughout history, what would be the purpose? So many people are so willing to hunt up articles and do research about all the reasons religion is a lie. But to accurately come to a conclusion, one must also take into account the other side of the spectrum. That means reading various books of scripture, cross-referencing them, learning about their origins and their similarities. Faith is a fundimental of every and all religion, but so is study, pondering and knowledge. TO blatently say "God doesn't exist" ... well I'm sorry for being contentious, but it's a little closed-minded. Are people absolutely convinced of the abscence of the supernatural in any sense, or are they no different than those closed-minded religious types - needing to be right so desperately that they'll ignore any other thought. This is why I say science and religion can and should co-exist. THey are both extremely important.
There is no basis in scripture that I'm aware of and so this next bit is the Gospel according to Remy Chartier. I believe the soul to be made up of elements of heart (feelings) and mind (thought, wisdom and inteligence.) How it all works biologically I don't know, and I'm really looking forward to finding out. I consider science to represent our minds. It's the practical study of this world as it exists for us during the mortal part of our existence. Perhaps it will still have a practical application beyond mortality, I don't know and nor does anyone else I'm sure. Religion represents our hearts. It reminds us where we came from and where we're headed, and it provides moral guidelines so that we may, not only reach our full potential during mortality, but also return to dwell within the presence of our God. And b efore anyone says you don't need religion to be moral, I agree with you. I know some absolutely wonderful athiests and agnaustics. But concepts of good and evil, law, justice, right and wrong certainly find their place in scripture. Our justice system, our laws and beliefs in good and evil were founded on religious principles.
Let the nit-picking of a single point begin.
"I suppose that depends on your definition of faith. Faith reaches well beyond merely religion."
Faith has two definitions, only the one concerning god applies here, so the other was left out.
"It's unpopular as faith is often associated with religion, but athism requires just as much faith."
Does it take faith to not believe in unicorns? no. Since I have already throughly debunked the idea in my previous post that it takes faith to not believe in god this point is moot.
"We put faith in the truth scientists feed us."
Wrong again. We view the evidence that science gives us, then either agree or disagree with said evidence.
" We put faith in the political situation, that they know what they're doing. We put faith in our friends and our family. We have faith that our house won't catch fire in the middle of the night. Faith is trust in a truth we believe to be true."
Remember how I said there are two definitions of faith? You just described definition 2, which does not apply to deities.
"I can't prove the existence of God, especially to someone unwilling to acknowledge any experiences of those who do follow a religion. But nor can anyone disprove the existence of the supernatural, and that definately includes God."
Proof from experience is obviously not taken seriously because it only benefits the person who had the experience.
Would my experience of a pink elephant named George be proof of his existence for you? What if I had personal experience to prove the Muslim god allah? would you reject that as proof for his existence, or the existence of George? I'm guessing yes.
"You say that science never explores the realm of the supernatural. Are you sure about that? Have you ever seen those ghost hunting shows? Sure they're meant as pure entertainment, and yet there are aspects of their study which are grounded in reality."
I have never seen a ghost hunting show that uses the scientific method (For your information I do personally believe there is something there, but that's for another debate) These shows use what's referred to as pseudo-science. Which means it's claims are held to be scientific but do not adhere to a valid scientific method. Example every "ghost show" I've seen uses mediums, or spirit guides. Neither are scientific.
"We understand much about our bodies and minds, but biologists will be the first to admit we don't understand nearly all of it. "
Holy shit on a shingle we can agree on something. lol
" What is God, what are spirits, what is the supernatural but another aspect of existence we as humans don't yet understand."
Thus begins the part where I admit that we don't know this stuff, we probably will never know. Is it possible gods and spirits exist? of course, however I find it improbable. Now can you show yourself to be just as open minded and admit that you to don't really know? Can you admit there may not be a god, or gods?
" Personally I have absolutely no doubt that our creator utilized practical means to form this world and all it contains. There was design, planning and method I'm certain. He didn't just snap his fingers and it all appeared out of nowhere. Whether God always existed, whether he came from somewhere, somehow, some way? That's a point of diverging oppinion. But the complexities of the human body, the intricate ecosystem, the order of the natural world ... surely that can't all be born of chaos."
This sounds oddly like creationism, which fails as both a scientific theory and a hypothesis. It fails as a scientific theory because it's non-falsifiable and it fails as a hypothesis because it's non-testable. Evolution is easily testable, and is also falsifiable. This is why creationism is not taken seriously, even by religious scientists.
once you can find a way to scientifically test for creation, which means you'll have to find a way to test for a god, since he is the mechanism then people will listen to you.
"Surely science, though it disagrees in this area is right on one thing, the universe did start from somewhere. Was it the "big bang"? perhaps. Is the earth more than six thousand years old? Undoubtedly! When you read the little the book of Genesis says about the creation, it's not altogether unreasonable to consider there to be a scientific component to creation, as well as a period of time between the stages of creation, and the creation of our first parents, Adam and Eve. We also don't know how long they were in the garden of Eden before the fall. "
I disagree with your idea that the universe having a starting point. The universe as we know it had a starting point, but as thermodynamics tells us "energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed by natural forces". Therefore the universe was always here, it only changed form, and we have only seen it's current form.
If there is a scientific component to creation then your god got a lot wrong then, creating light, oceans and vegetation before he created the sun for instance.
"I think where extremists on both sides stumble is when they find themselves unable to acknowledge the presence of both science, and a hand at work."
Again I disagree. Just because one doesn't acknowledge both sides doesn't mean they stumble. I refuse to acknowledge the "hand at work" because the idea is based on faith, no evidence and subjective opinion.
I will say that many religious people today have an innate fear of science, and it has served to stunt scientific progress.
"There may be no impirical evidence of God, but there's a heck of a lot of history, eye-witness accounts of spiritual matters, miracles and experiences."
We agree theres no empirical evidence. the so called eye witness accounts, are nothing more then the argument from personal experience all over again, there is nothing outside the bible about jesus, or his disciples, Not one of the historians who lived at the time of jesus ever wrote about him. I would think that a man performing miracles would be front page news. The only writings of jesus outside the bible (such as the Josephus writings) are nothing but forgeries dating around 300 A.D.. As far as miracles go, to this day not one recorded unaided miracle has ever occurred. Do you see blind people being able to see without the aid of medicine? nope. What about amputees growing back limbs? nope again.
This last comment is where I'm stopping since I think I thoroughly refuted your points.
"The Bible definately has its issues. While definately the inspired words of God, translation and tampering have taken their toll."
The bible has more issues then any other religious text. there is far more wrong with the bible then translation, and tampering. the bible is historically inaccurate. Jesus birth supposed to be right after King Herods death, and while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius didn't become Governor of Syria until 6 AD. 7 years is a hell of a long time to carry a child. Matthew 1, Luke 1.
There is so much more but I don't have time right now.
Heres a list of inconsistencies in the bible
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Here's another good one. http://www.religionisbullshit.net/articles/contradictions.php
I feel it's important to touch on the assumption being made that atheists are such due to bad experiences with religious people. contrary to those misconceptions, that's far from true. in fact, I've yet to meet a single atheist who turned away from religion via the influence of anyone.
as has been stated here (and various other places) time and time again, we're atheists due to lack of evidence in a deity. bad experiences have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
In my case, it was also research. Discovering things like the fact that stories of virgin births, walking on water, death and resurrection, etc. were nothing new before the time of a guy named Jesus supposedly being born.
I suppose I was just never really religious. OK, tried church when I was probably nine or ten years old, but it was just a social thing, I never really got into it. Decided I was agnostic a few years ago, but I recently decided I should stop being indecisive and make up my mind, so atheist it is.
I've been watching this thread and others on here with piqued interest. It wasn't until I read several of you self-declare as "anti-theists" that some rather oddd phenomena started to make sense to me.
Here's what I mean: The atheists I have known over my lifetime tend to be dispassionate observers, brilliant minds, engineers, scientists, etc. While I'm no longer one, I do agree with them on a lot of things, the main one being that faith and science are completely separate from one another. You can no more use one to prove the other, than you can use the principles of physics to write an English paper.
And, in my thinking, faith is the English paper, physics is the science.
I think, though, that antitheists will have their own set of problems. First, and maybe I'm showing my age here, but people tend to view atheists as dispassionate observers without zealous tendencies. So much so, in fact, the fundamentalists often mistrust my own conversion based on those tendencies. That is what they have told me.
And, frankly, some of you antitheists could get misplaced for fundamentalists. Including but not limited to the stereotypical persecution complex we find with fundamentalists.
If you have ever managed a workplace and had to discipline a fundamentalist for garish and inappropriate behavior towards colleagues you know exactly what I mean. And it's not their religion: antitheists are quickly demonstrating against their own claim that religion is the problem. Zeal is. I tend to agree with some in national security, that zealots of all sorts pose a potential threat. The reason is simple: they will excuse any and every behavior if they can place it under the umbrella of defending their beliefs.
Not all zealots will go equally far, and not all are properly set up to burn houses and explode public buildings. I disagree with some who believe for common safety concerns zealots be branded potential terrorists. However, they are in fact potential terrorists.
If you're going to be a dispassionate observer of the universe, one trait you really don't want is being subject to delusion, something zealots frequently are.
Out here where I live, about 20 years ago we had animal rights zealots burn down mink farms, killing copious amounts of mink by roasting them alive in the flames, or suffocation by smoke.
Consider the fundamentalists in America: They live under the illusion they are persecuted, a minority, kicked around, etc. Yet, the truth is they are the cool kids. Everybody's doing it. Rupert Murdock is no fool. He is one of the most ingenious business executives America has ever had in the multimedia industry. Fox deploys the most advanced social network integration technologies, has the most sophisticated equipment, I could go on and on. Would a man like that be such a fool as to align himself with a group of outsiders? Men like Rupert Murdock do not get rich rooting for the underdog. That role is left to nonprofits and social do-gooders, not successful capitalists. Fox is doing no more, no less, than anyone could possibly expect of them: giving the majority the very take on things that the majority wants to hear. To use their own expressions: they *are* the so-called mainstream media. They *are* the broad road.
It's just a matter of percentages. They have the fastest-growing sects in America. They're the ones with the so-called megachurches.
But if you listen to them, you would think they never get a voice, they've never seen an advantage in their lives, never had any influence on Capitol Hill.
Obviously anyone who watches at a distance, and can do 3rd-grade math knows it's not the case.
While your traditional atheist may not be vulnerable to such delusions, by watching this site and others, I have no doubt that the anti-theists are equally vulnerable as any other group of zealots. Nobody is successfully marketing to you yet, but that's both a numbers game and a matter of time. In my opinion, if the zeal continues among anti-theists, you could find yourselves in rather a weird no-man's-land sort of place, distanced from the brilliant Stephen Hawkings of the world, and of course distanced from the more passionate religion and humanities types.
I find this phenomenon rather unsettling personally, but have not fully figured out why yet. Perhaps it's because we've got a new batch of zealots on the horizon, and zealots tend to pose a lot of social problems. And, said zealots are coming from a quarter that used to contain mainly science and engineering folks, inventors, people who actually make things and innovate solutions for people.
Um, yeah. What he said.
I realize I may come across as harsh sometimes, but I'm truly passionate about where I stand.
in regards to antitheists being targeted, I'm honestly not concerned, worried, or what have you. that's simply part of life; we gotta roll with the punches, as they say.
I think Leo brings up an interesting point. I also appreciate the systematic dismantaling of my previous arguements. WHile I disagree in most cases, it at least shows me that someone actually bothered to read the whole post before picking it apart. SO, thank you. For now I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to win a debate, but to offer another perspective. I will say I've had many questions about various aspects of religion, and some of your arguements are spot on. but our perspectives are different. Obviously we've both done our individual researches and come up with different conclusions. I accept that.
I have to disagree with one small thing. An antitheist is not simply a more zealotous version of an atheist. That's akin to saying a baseball player is just a soccer player with a weapon. They're both athletes, but they're in different leagues, with different rules, and they do different things with their feet, but they both use a ball.
An antitheist doesn't mean that they are more vocal, or are more likely to be at a protest. In fact, I only know one outspoken person who commonly used the term antitheist, and that was Christopher Hitchens. This is the difference.
An atheist is someone who simply does not believe that god of any form exists. An antitheist is someone who A. does not believe god exists, and B. believes that if god were to exist, he would be wrong and dictatorial, and they would rebel against him/her/it/they/whatever. You can be an antitheist and never tell anyone, and you can be an atheist and scream it at the top of your lungs. Being vocal about the subject, doesn't make you one or the other.
I will agree however that zealotry in and of itself is no better than religion. If you do not stop to think, and analyze what you read, or hear, or see, then you are being religious. That is why I read the bible for myself, I read all the religious books I could, I even gutted it out through C. S. Lewis, (a feat I feel I deserve a medal and a large alcoholic beverage for). I didn't just wake up one day and say, I'm an atheist. Funnily enough, and tangentrily, it is not uncommon for someone to wake up one day and say, I'm a preacher now, and people will follow them.
If you'd like an example of this, take a look at peter poppov, look at what james randy did to him in the late eighties, and then realize that he is doing it all over again, and people are buying right into it.
Just read about Hitchens' death. R.I.P.
I was never a fan of his, but damn to lose one of the biggest voices of reason is sad.
Let's hope Dawkins has lots more time left.
thank you, Cody, for beautifully articulating what I couldn't in regards to vocal antitheists not being classified as zeluts. very well said.
also, to the blind guardian, "knit picking" as you say, is part of debating/having a discussion such as this. people are gonna constructively criticize spelling, and whatever else they see fit. sometimes it'll be woranted, and others not. however, it is what it is and getting your pants in a wad over such trivial things isn't gonna change it.
Hmm I stand corrected. And I personally do think having read all of C. S. Lewis' works as you have deserves a fine ale, or whatever is your pleasure.
Interestingly enough, he was opposed to both government-imposed religion and question the six-day belief system as to how the universe came to be. I did not know either till I read Mere Christianity. Beforehand I had read mostly his fiction. One interesting one of his is a rewrite of a pre-Christian tale called "Till we have Faces". kind of an interesting read.
One thing I can say about you Leo is you're able to admit when you are incorrect about something.
Not a lot of people can do that, so Kudos to you man.
ditto to the last poster; I was actually gonna post something similar. I have tremendous respect for you, Leo, cause even when we disagree, it's just that (a disagreement).
And I've met a disturbing number of outspokenly religious people who can't or refuse to do that. Cough cough Harold Camping anyone? Even after this latest failed Rapture he hasn't gone as far as admitting he got it wrong, only said that God hasn't given us the power to know just when the Rapture is supposed to be, which, I need hardly point out, is more or less a direct reversal of the philosophy he'd been practicing and shoving down people's throats up until now.
The problem with camping is, he's a scam artist. He preyed on peoples beliefs to make money. He got people to give him their life savings, and caused some to even kill their children. The man belongs in fucking jail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZc6UrZCvI
When you mix b usiness and religion, the results are catistrophic.
Religion itself is a business. Places of worship need money to survive.
That's a good point. And so many of the most outrageous events throughout history have had religion as a backing and a justification. The Spanish Inquisition to name one. Props to te Pythons for making fun of it. Get...the comfy chair!
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful,
all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!
I find it outrageous that many "pastors" of megachurchse start harping on tithes. "If you don't give your 10%, then you aren;t trusting God."
Horse puckies!
There is nothing in the New Testament that talks about tithing - in fact it states to give what you have purposed in your heart to give, not grudgingly but joyfully.
*rant over*
Kate
Of course, most of Christianity basically says "Believe in Jesus and no matter what, you'll be saved at the last day. Sure you can do whatever you want in the meantime. You don't "have" to be an unjudgemental, kind person. Go ahead and beat your kids, kill for your god, commit adultery. Yes I know I'm being very extreme here, but it seems there are so many Christians who believe that once you accept Jesus into your heart, "do what thou wilt" becomes the whole of the law, to borrow from another religion's saying. But some forget to take upon themselves the name of Jesus CHrist, to strive to live as much like him as possible. They grow close to him with their words. THey rely on flashy churches. It's enough that you accept him. That, to me is a strange concept. Tithing has been around since the old testament. It's a concept which I can personally attest blesses all who pay it. No that's not because I'm "brainwashed" but because every time I pay my tithing, good things come of it. It's better then that collection plate because it's not flashy. Plus, by paying tithes, it allows all jobs in the church to be volunteer positions. You lose a lot of impact on your religion when your pastors, revrends, and the like "work" for the church. It allows greed and money to take the place of worship. WHen that happens, churches can potentially become corrupt
I don't disagree to a point. I don't think giving 10% is wrong, or bad; it is simply no longer a mandatory practice. Do good things come of it? Yes.
And having been affiliated with the mormon church and the practice of callings with Scouting and such, I don't believe for a minute that all church positions are voluntary
*ducking*
Kate
Scouts are something different. No church calling I've ever come across is paid. It just isn't done. And if it is, it's on its own.
The problem I had with the whole business is you have basically two camps: One says if you are saved once, it's permanent no matter what happens later. The other camp says you can lose it at any time any place and make it sound like something extremely delicate, weak, and in need of serious protection: no security.
A junior programmer can build a system far more secure than the second group proposes, and the first group proposes something so improbable it's hard to believe anyone actually believes it.
But here's how I've figured it thus far: You get converted, and the results of that conversion is what demonstrates how real that conversion was. It's a lifelong process, like they all say, which makes sense when you stop and think about it. However, people usually take a snapshot of a life, their own or someone else's. That snapshot may look good, or not so good, but it's just a snapshot or a freeze-frame. If the general tendency in your life is towards improvement, toward admitting when you're wrong and making reparations, not repeating mistakes, then those are indicators of your conversion. Basically if your overall aim is to become more like the way Christ lived you're on track.
Basically if I claim I'm following Christ, but then continually cheat on my taxes, be unfaithful to my wife, treat employees cruelly, that doesn't make any sense. Not to other christians, not to atheists, not to anyone. So why could I expect it to somehow make sense to God?
On the other extreme, it's equally preposterous that you could be permanently damned because you died in the middle of committing a sin, like unjustly losing your temper at your kids, when your whole life and perspective were pointing a different direction. That doesn't make sense either.
Look at our own system of justice: People understand the difference between first-degree, pre-meditated murder and reckless endangerment that results in manslaughter. Unless you're in a Russian Gulag, people don't treat all offenses the same, and in fact, when that does happen, travesties and injustice are the result.
So if we claim there is a God who is both infinite and ultimately good, He would be far better at it than we are, and so I don't see the delicate argument holding water either. Even your traveler's check is more secure than that. I think any Father and Son who agreed the Son was going to go and sacrifice himself for us would create a far more secure system than we do when protecting a traveler's check. On the other hand if a conversion doesn't ultimately change my thinking it wasn't worth a whole lot, was it?
Even something relatively simple, like me having sworn allegiance to my nation, my the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and the community, all of which I did when joining the Coast Guard, has caused me to seriously retrain my thinking in a lot of ways. Not the day I took the oath, as solemn as that occasion was, but in all of my duties and training afterwards.
Because part of my responsibility as a Guardian is to the people in my immediate influence, I look at floods and other events you see on the news with completely new eyes. There's nothing at all mystical about it: you get trained for it, tested when they do a call-up drill, etc. I really experienced that the last time they did one: my wife and I were walking on the beach, my phone went off, I stepped away to get the text. Guess I'm no good at poker face: she said "What's wrong?" It was our system, telling me I was to report in immediately. The reason that is there is so if there are instructions for emergency action - like a tidal wave on the west coast or you name it, we're to organize the people in our circles of influence, getting them to comply and to safety. That's part of us being volunteer guardians.
Now, the first time I ever got that call, I responded, but as a new member didn't understand what it all meant. After this last time, when we were at meeting, I told one of the commanders in charge that when I got the call, the first thing on my mind was figuring out where everybody was. He said: "Good. Starting to sink in."
Now what sort of guardian would I be if I had taken the oath, even went to meeeints, won a few stripes for training and education, but had no such dedication? I'd be pretty useless. Disenrolled right away? No. There are some major things that could get me disenrolled right off, yes, but those are hard to commit.
I'm sure there's holes in my understanding of the situation, but this is how I've got it so far.
Leo, I can't speak for all Christians, but as far as me and my church goes, you've hit the nail right on the head. I agree with you completely. In my own church, there are prerequisits for salvation, certainly. Baptism is one of them, and that is a concept many Christian churches disregard entirely.
Yet the journey to attaining a Christ-like life stretches from birth, to death (and we believe also beyond). There are certainly ways to lose one's salvation, but they are quite extreme, and many of them can be recovered from in time as long as one has a sincere desire to repent, make amends and improve. In the end, that's what Christianity is. It's a belief in Christ, but also a sincere desire to "strive" to emulate who and what he was. The key word here is strive. We all have faults, character flaws and trials to overcome. Some trials will manifest differently for different people. But the Christian who says they believe in Christ, then goes off and commits all manner of boundless iniquity, he's going to have a harder time in the end. As for those people who never had the oppertunity to hear of Christ, how can they possibly be damned for such a thing? That to me is proposterous. The problem I have with most Christian teachings is the severe extremes of heaven and hell, and the inability to agree on what those two outcomes actually are. I'm not saying my church is the only way, but I was once a skeptical agnaustic at best. The LDS church answered many of the questions I had, and embodies many of the principles I've always believed in. But a Catholic, a Seventh day Adventist, a baptist they'll all have different interpretations of the infowlible word of God, and different translations of said word. So who is right? That's the real question. Personally I think Christ put it best when he said "By their fruits shall ye know them." Thus I reiderate what I've always said. If you must judge the religion, judge the Christian, not Christianity. Or judge the Muslim, not Islam . Judge the jew, not Judaism. And so on. By their works will ye know them - how they treat people, how they carry themselves, what they do. One who truly believes in Jesus Christ will do their best to strive to be like him.
I can respect the Jews, they're not out there trying to cram their doctrine down people's throats, and I'm pretty sure I've never heard of Jewish terrorist attacks. Lol
Have you ever heard of the masad? However you spell it?
Israel's badass counter terrorist group.
Bob
Must confess I haven't. But still...
My apologies. I didn't stop to consider the Israeli/Palestinian issue and other such things.
I won't go into my opinion on the Israel territorial debate, its irrelevant. However, I will say this, I see a vast difference between going out and committing violent acts for a god, and doing it for a state. I know several people who are in the special forces, and none of them do it for the reward, none of them do it for a god, none of them do it for heaven or hell or any of that, they do it for their country. In this case that happens to be our country, but in the case of the special forces of Israel, its for their homeland. They do it so their mothers don't have to worry about a scud missile attack while they go out to buy groceries, or their sister won't have to wonder if the bus she's riding on is going to explode at any moment. They do it for their homes.
Now, I am not saying that those who oppose them don't do it for their homes also, there is a war over territory going on, and that certainly has some implications. However, I personally see a difference between a military strike force, and terrorism. Terrorism, at least in this day and age, is most often done in the name of Allah. Not all muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are muslim, however the ones in this instance are. That, for me, is the deciding difference.
In addition to that, a military strike force like the mosad, take out a target, that is their job. They go in, they kill or capture, and they leave. yes, there is colateral damage, there always will be, but it is not usually purposeful. They don't strap on explosive vests and blow themselves up, killing innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the war. That, to me, is wrong.
I am not saying that israel has never killed innocent civilians, certainly they have, war is not a precise art. However, never once has israel purposefully attacked civilians for the purpose of killing civilians. Terrorists use that as a calling card. That is just how I see it, feel free to disagree with me.
I suppose it depends on what kind of violence. I mean there's a difference between using appropriate force (whatever that is for a given situation) and senseless killing. Case and point: Viatnam. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain America wasn't fighting that war to defend their country. Where do you draw the line? That's another debate entirely