Atheists roll out ad campaign: "In the Beginning, Man Created God."

[Noop]

Atheists roll out ad campaign
"In the Beginning, Man Created God."

This provocative twist on the Bible’s opening line was plastered on the side of 25 Chicago buses this week as part of an advertising crusade by the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign.

The ads have been cruising between downtown and the city’s North and South sides, including the No. 56 Milwaukee route, since the beginning of the week and will run through June.

"The intent of the campaign is to stimulate discussion of religion and its place in our society," said Charlie Sitzes, a spokesman for the Indiana group who with help from the American Humanist Association has collected more than $10,000 in private donations to buy the ad space in Indiana and Illinois.

The group brought its message to Chicago after a similar campaign in Indiana – to post the slogan "You can be good without God" – was rejected by transit authorities in Bloomington and stalled by officials in South Bend, who didn’t want the ads posted in time for President Barack Obama’s speech at Notre Dame.

Indiana's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation on the atheist group's behalf. Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan has denounced his own transit system, saying he does not condone government censorship.

"It would appear that where there is more opposition to the message that maybe that would be the place where we needed dialogue more," Sitzes said, maintaining that the slogan is a simple fact.

"All non-believers believe God is a creation of man," he said. "We used to have thousands of gods. Now we’re down to one. We’re getting closer to the true number."

Among the guidelines for determining if an advertisement can run on the CTA is a requirement that the ad be truthful and is "not directed at inciting imminent lawless action."

Last year, eight religious organizations advertised on the city’s mass transit including Muslims, Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists. Trinity Christian College is the only religious organization currently advertising on CTA.

Sitzes regrets that the ad campaign– inspired by similar signs in Europe– has encountered so much opposition in his home state. British ads sarcastically consoled passengers with the message: "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Last November, the American Humanist Association plastered buses in the nation’s capital with pictures of a man in a Santa suit asking: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake."

"[Chicago’s] slogan makes the point that religion is a social, man-made creation – like literature, art, politics, and science – and as such, it should be subject to debate like everything else," Sitzes said. He said the perspective of atheists, agnostics and secular humanists are often ignored in the public square

"Atheists, agnostics and secular humanists have a unique perspective on the topic that usually gets ignored in public discussion, and we’d like to make ourselves heard," he said. "The ads aren’t an attack on religious people but an affirmation of a different point of view."

What do you think? Conversation starter or attack ad?

Atheists roll out ad campaign | The Seeker (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2009/05/atheist-bus-campaign.html)

[Passacaglia]

"All non-believers believe God is a creation of man," he said. "We used to have thousands of gods. Now we’re down to one. We’re getting closer to the true number."


God-ocide.

[Kodos]

Speaking as an atheist / agnostic, I don't think this is a good way to get people over to our point of view. Are they gonna have similar things for Santa and the Easter Bunny soon?

[Noop]

I don't see what is wrong with the ad its no different then having a big cross outside of your church to me.

[Sun Tzu]

I don't see what is wrong with the ad its no different then having a big cross outside of your church to me.

If this ad is wrong, then every religious icon outside of church premesis (meaning more than 100 yards away from a church) is equally wrong.

[DanGarion]

Speaking as an atheist / agnostic, I don't think this is a good way to get people over to our point of view. Are they gonna have similar things for Santa and the Easter Bunny soon?

The holidays can exist without the need for religion included in them. Trust me there is a good percentage of households in the US and around the world that rarely celebrate the religions part of those holidays.

[ISiddiqui]

If this ad is wrong, then every religious icon outside of church premesis (meaning more than 100 yards away from a church) is equally wrong.

Agreed. Personally I like the wittiness of this.

[Kodos]

The holidays can exist without the need for religion included in them. Trust me there is a good percentage of households in the US and around the world that rarely celebrate the religions part of those holidays.

I was thinking more along the lines of other fake things that some people believe in, not the religious aspect of Santa and the Easter Bunny.:)

On another point, I'd prefer not to see religious advertisements on busses or whatever either.

Oh, and no more drug commercials, please.

[DanGarion]

I was thinking more along the lines of other fake things that some people believe in, not the religious aspect of Santa and the Easter Bunny.:)

Ah! :)

[wade moore]

Speaking as an atheist / agnostic, I don't think this is a good way to get people over to our point of view. Are they gonna have similar things for Santa and the Easter Bunny soon?

I don't see what is wrong with the ad its no different then having a big cross outside of your church to me.

If this ad is wrong, then every religious icon outside of church premesis (meaning more than 100 yards away from a church) is equally wrong.

While there's nothing "wrong" with it, I think that supporters of organized religion would be well within their rights to be pissed, protest, complain, boycott the bus company, etc. This is pretty clearly a marketing attack on organized (specifically bible-based) religions.

[ISiddiqui]

I think if religious people want to act foolish about these ads, that would help out the atheist group even more, no? :D

[Noop]

Organize religion doesn't attack non-believers?

[Kodos]

Yeah, it really seems unneeded and pointless. If other people want to believe in religion or what the Bible tells them, great. As long as they don't try to force those beliefs onto others, I have no qualms with religious people.

[Tekneek]

While there's nothing "wrong" with it, I think that supporters of organized religion would be well within their rights to be pissed, protest, complain, boycott the bus company, etc. This is pretty clearly a marketing attack on organized (specifically bible-based) religions.

So?

[Tekneek]

Yeah, it really seems unneeded and pointles. If other people want to believe in religion or what the Bible tells them, great. As long as they don't try to force those beliefs onto others, I have no qualms with religious people.

If it gets just one person to apply critical thinking to religion, it would be worth it to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Speaking as an atheist / agnostic, I don't think this is a good way to get people over to our point of view.

In what really really really needs to be my only appearance in this thread (and God willing, will be), I'm going to use your comment as a springboard for my observation: I hope this campaign will help put to rest the notion that gets put forth from time to time that "all atheists really want is to be left alone". I'll grant that some who feel that way do exist but by & large I've never found that to be the case and it usually strikes me as kind of silly to hear those claims.

As far as the campaign itself, meh. I think I'm pretty consistent about not having a problem with honesty about conflicts, this is one that has obviously always existed and I have a hard time getting worked up on some group just being honest about it. As wademoore pointed out however, I hope anyone who accepts the ad finds it backfiring in the most painful fiscal ways, rendering aid to the enemy & all that.

And now hopefully by the power of the great pasta monster on the tree limb I'll bid this thread adieu.

[flere-imsaho]

I hope this campaign will help put to rest the notion that gets put forth from time to time that "all atheists really want is to be left alone".

I think that depends on who you define as atheists. If you're talking about atheists who feel a need to "spread their message" and are in some way anti-God (as in more than just not believing in a God), then I'd probably agree with you. However, I would think that a large percentage of people who don't believe in a god (and are therefore atheists) don't really think about it that much and so aren't particularly militant about it.

I mean, I don't really believe in a god, but if people want to believe in and worship a god, that's fine with me. I'm glad they're doing something that makes them feel fulfilled.

[Kodos]

I was typing something along these lines earlier, but then for some reason opted not to post it. But basically, I don't see a need for atheists to try to convince religious people that they are wrong. Honestly, religion seems to make a lot of people happy. Why would I (or any other atheist) want to take that away? But, just like in any walk of life, there are people who can't stand other people having a point of view that is different from their own, and all too often, those people try to force their own belief systems onto others.

[Tekneek]

As wademoore pointed out however, I hope anyone who accepts the ad finds it backfiring in the most painful fiscal ways, rendering aid to the enemy & all that.

Rendering aid to the enemy? :lol:

[Kodos]

Speaking as an atheist / agnostic, I don't think this is a good way to get people over to our point of view. Are they gonna have similar things for Santa and the Easter Bunny soon?


I don't know if this post conveyed the idea that I think atheists should try to win religious people over, but if it sounded like that, my bad. My intention was more along the lines of this: if atheists want to be respected more by religious people, stunts like this are not the way to go about getting that respect.

[Tekneek]

Honestly, religion seems to make a lot of people happy. Why would I (or any other atheist) want to take that away?

When it is routinely used as a reason to deny civil rights, it is about more than that individual's happiness.

But, just like in any walk of life, there are people who can't stand other people having a point of view that is different from their own, and all too often, those people try to force their own belief systems onto others.

Running an advertisement is hardly forcing a point of view. I suspect most atheists would be more than willing to stop this if they could get the other side to stop as well.

[Kodos]

Oh, I'm with you. When I say why not leave religious people alone, I'm only speaking about the ones who don't try to force their beliefs on others or try to deny others rights based on those beliefs. The Jimmy Falwells of the world can go screw themselves.

Basically, ads like this have little motivation besides pissing off religious people. My feeling is, why do that? It's just lowering yourself to the level of the Jimmy Falwell crowd.

[Tigercat]

Its insensitive, and only effective in that it will anger people. It is like a specific religion advertising on a massive scale "The TRUE word/message/whatever of God." Do some advertise like that? Sure, but that doesn't make it the right way to advertise your beliefs.

The original idea of "You can be good without God," is much better, and potentially much more effective of a message.

[King of New York]

Its insensitive, and only effective in that it will anger people. It is like a specific religion advertising on a massive scale "The TRUE word/message/whatever of God." Do some advertise like that? Sure, but that doesn't make it the right way to advertise your beliefs.

The original idea of "You can be good without God," is much better, and potentially much more effective of a message.

+1

[Tekneek]

I don't know if this post conveyed the idea that I think atheists should try to win religious people over, but if it sounded like that, my bad. My intention was more along the lines of this: if atheists want to be respected more by religious people, stunts like this are not the way to go about getting that respect.

At this point, I don't think anything short of converting to the faithful would get this "respect" anyway. It seems like a fool's errand. You're better off forcing people to think about religion, and at least consider that there could be another explanation.

[molson]

If this ad is wrong, then every religious icon outside of church premesis (meaning more than 100 yards away from a church) is equally wrong.

But wouldn't a lot of athiests agree with that - that having ads for the Church posted on dozens of city buses is wrong?

Athesim is really no different than any religion - it's a specific belief system based on faith that can't be proven or disproven through science. They have a lot more in common than they think.

[Tekneek]

Its insensitive, and only effective in that it will anger people. It is like a specific religion advertising on a massive scale "The TRUE word/message/whatever of God." Do some advertise like that? Sure, but that doesn't make it the right way to advertise your beliefs.

Insensitive? Do you know that the devoutly religious have been far more insensitive over the years than the non-believers? I don't think we are getting close to balancing that scale any time soon (nor should we).

The original idea of "You can be good without God," is much better, and potentially much more effective of a message.

Probably so. Anything that gets people to think about it works for me. At least it isn't threatening eternal torment as a reason to agree with them.

[Radii]

I hope this campaign will help put to rest the notion that gets put forth from time to time that "all atheists really want is to be left alone". I'll grant that some who feel that way do exist but by & large I've never found that to be the case and it usually strikes me as kind of silly to hear those claims.

You can open up any thread regarding religion on this board to find out that isn't the case. The number of people who will jump at the chance to attack religious beliefs are just as bad, if not worse, than devoted/zealous Christians who believe their religion requires them to try to convert non-believers to their faith.

I assure you that the atheists who want to be left alone, are being left alone and are just fine that way. You just don't know about it because they're keeping their mouths shut and going about their business instead of spewing hatred all over the place every time someone professes a belief in god. ;)

[Tekneek]

Athesim is really no different than any religion - it's a specific belief system based on faith that can't be proven or disproven through science. They have a lot more in common than they think.

At least science appears to lean in their direction. That's why many, even Richard Dawkins, draw the line just short of being 100% sure there is no God. Until we can get evidence of the existence of God(s), we are better off assuming they are not there.

[molson]

At least science appears to lean in their direction. That's why many, even Richard Dawkins, draw the line just short of being 100% sure there is no God. Until we can get evidence of the existence of God(s), we are better off assuming they are not there.

There's a necessity of faith when the known evidence merely "appears to lean in their direction". Humans have only known the earth was round and that the sun was the center of the universe for the most recent 0.1% of their existence.

There's a big difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheism is a belief. And possibiliy a religion.

But I don't have problem with any people of faith, including atheists, getting their word out there. And I'm sure if this thread was about an advertising campaign of the Catholic church, the reaction would be different.

[Arles]

I don't have a problem with the ad, but I agree there will be a backlash. It would be like H&R Block posting a sign throughout Chicago saying "You deadbeat homeless people need to get off your lazy butts, get jobs and stop being a dredge on society."

Now, without emotion, one could say H&R block is simply trying to stimulate critical thinking by the homeless in Chicago and have them realize they need to find a job. Then, maybe H&R Block gets a new customer from the effort. ;)

But, realistically, it's a somewhat stupid idea as the backlash/boycotts from such an ad would more than cancel out any new clients for taxes. I see the same thing here. If people want to raise awareness about how a life without religion is possible and morale, more power to them. I just don't think this is the right way.

[Tekneek]

There's a necessity of faith when the known evidence merely "appears to lean in their direction". Humans have only known the earth was round and that the sun was the center of the universe for the most recent 0.1% of their existence.

And where did most of the opposition to these views come from? The religious, or the non-religious?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

There's a necessity of faith when the known evidence merely "appears to lean in their direction". Humans have only known the earth was round and that the sun was the center of the universe for the most recent 0.1% of their existence.

There's a big difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheism is a belief. And possibiliy a religion.

But I don't have problem with any people of faith, including atheists, getting their word out there. And I'm sure if this thread was about an advertising campaign of the Catholic church, the reaction would be different.

I agree with your point for the most part, but I think there needs to be some distinction between religion and atheism. One says something with questionable evidence exists, while the other says why should I believe in something if there is no solid evidence of it existing? As you say, both require leaps to some degree, but I would say the leap for the atheist is not quite as long.

I'm agnostic FWIW, and I don't comprehend how anybody can state anything without doubt.

[molson]

And where did most of the opposition to these views come from? The religious, or the non-religious?

There was definitely religious opposition. I'm just saying its silly to assume we have all the answers to the secrets of the universe figured out in 2009. If humans are still around, we'll be far more enlightened in 100,000 years. That enlignement may reveal new ideas that we can't even contemplate right now. That's why atheism to be has always been sillier than a religious belief. The religious can admit that their beliefs are based on faith. The atheists think they've figured everything out.

[Tekneek]

As you say, both require leaps to some degree, but I would say the leap for the atheist is not quite as long.

Indeed. Full agreement there. Both require you to close the gap, but to say they are on equal footing and the leap of faith is the same for either view is absurd. There is no evidence of the existence of any God, other than works from humans proclaiming that these deities exist.

The clincher for me is when the Bible contains nothing that was not already known at the time. There is no divine knowledge shared, such as going ahead and revealing that the Earth is round. This could have saved us a lot of trouble. No explanation of gravity, which would've really made a difference. No scientific principles to improve and advance civilization. On the other hand, it seems to promote views that we now know are flawed, but yet were commonly held beliefs at the time. Wouldn't the creator already know how it all worked? Why would God be restricted to what was already known? Was God restricted by the Prime Directive?

I'm agnostic FWIW, and I don't comprehend how anybody can state anything without doubt.

For sure, and the vast majority of atheists just ask for evidence/proof of God. They're still waiting.

[CamEdwards]

And where did most of the opposition to these views come from? The religious, or the non-religious?

Of course this statement implies that men like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and countless other natural philosophers weren't religious. That's hardly the case.

[molson]

I agree with your point for the most part, but I think there needs to be some distinction between religion and atheism. One says something with questionable evidence exists, while the other says why should I believe in something if there is no solid evidence of it existing? As you say, both require leaps to some degree, but I would say the leap for the atheist is not quite as long.

I'm agnostic FWIW, and I don't comprehend how anybody can state anything without doubt.

Right, it's really a philosophical difference I guess, where atheists refuse to grant the possibility of existence to anything that hasn't yet been proven by science. Which is ridiculous, IMO, because it's 100% guaranteed that we'll know more about the universe in the future. That philosophy of athiests would have denied the possibility of other planets, of modern medicine, of black holes, etc, until there was scientific proof.

An athiest can't say, "I don't know" because then they'd be agnostic. So they think they KNOW something. About the origin and destiny and structure and meaning of the universe. But they don't know anything more than anyone else.

[Tekneek]

The religious can admit that their beliefs are based on faith. The atheists think they've figured everything out.

Who says that? Even Richard Dawkins says he does not know with 100% certainty, and he is Evil Atheist #1 in the eyes of many. It tends to be the religious who "think they've figured everything out" and are ready to wield the power of government to force others to stay in step with their religious dogma. I've not known of any atheist who wants the government to proclaim there is no God. They just want the government left out of the religious discussion altogether.

[Tekneek]

Of course this statement implies that men like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and countless other natural philosophers weren't religious. That's hardly the case.

Maybe it does to you. It doesn't to me.

[molson]

The clincher for me is when the Bible contains nothing that was not already known at the time. There is no divine knowledge shared, such as going ahead and revealing that the Earth is round. This could have saved us a lot of trouble. No explanation of gravity, which would've really made a difference. No scientific principles to improve and advance civilization. On the other hand, it seems to promote views that we now know are flawed, but yet were commonly held beliefs at the time. Wouldn't the creator already know how it all worked? Why would God be restricted to what was already known? Was God restricted by the Prime Directive?


All that tells you is humans didn't have it all figured out 2,000 years ago. They still don't. Including atheists.

There's more possibilites of "god", or really anything unknown, than what some Europeans laid out back in the day. To prove that people 2,000 years ago didn't have the answer isn't evidence that supports the atheist faith.

[Tekneek]

All that tells you is humans didn't have it all figured out 2,000 years ago. They still don't. Including atheists.

There's more possibilites of "god", or really anything unknown, than what some Europeans laid out back in the day.

Wait a minute... If the Bible is not the word of God, but rather human invention... Why is God not a human invention? If the Bible is the word of God, why does it not teach something that only God would have known at that time?

[molson]

Who says that? Even Richard Dawkins says he does not know with 100% certainty, and he is Evil Atheist #1 in the eyes of many. It tends to be the religious who "think they've figured everything out" and are ready to wield the power of government to force others to stay in step with their religious dogma. I've not known of any atheist who wants the government to proclaim there is no God. They just want the government left out of the religious discussion altogether.

Dawkins is a smart atheist, though I wonder if he's the norm. (not about being smart, about the less than 100% certainty thing).

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic then?

[molson]

Wait a minute... If the Bible is not the word of God, but rather human invention... Why is God not a human invention? If the Bible is the word of God, why does it not teach something that only God would have known at that time?

I think the Bible is totally a human invention.

But that doesn't convince me that we've figured everything out there is to know about spirtuality or "god".

My best guess (though I don't "believe" anything in this area with any real conviction), is that humans, on the whole, have picked up the slightest hint of a "spirtuality", of an energy, that's beyond what we can currently understand through science. I'd describe it more as an energy than a god, since "god" sort of implies a super-human or something, and I don't think that's quite right.

But an atheist would say, no, that's wrong too, there's no proof for it, so it doesn't exist. And I just find that confidence a little odd and misplaced.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Dawkins is a smart atheist, though I wonder if he's the norm. (not about being smart, about the less than 100% certainty thing).

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic then?

"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." -Dawkins

The terms get used interchangeably, it seems. If your doubt is .000001% where does that put you?

Edit:
A more expansive quote from Dawkins on atheism vs. agnosticism:

"That you cannot prove God's non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things."

[CamEdwards]

Wait a minute... If the Bible is not the word of God, but rather human invention... Why is God not a human invention? If the Bible is the word of God, why does it not teach something that only God would have known at that time?

Have you considered the possibility that some folks may believe in God, yet may not see the Bible (or any other religious book) as the "Word of God"?

[Tekneek]

Dawkins is a smart atheist, though I wonder if he's the norm.

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic then?

Not entirely sure how it breaks down in practice. I suspect an atheist is someone who weighs the evidence and makes a decision (no evidence of God = no belief in God). An Agnostic sits on the fence and says nobody knows and ever will know, so they don't have to lean in either direction. I think there is at least a little bit of agnosticism in many people.

[Tekneek]

I think the Bible is totally a human invention.

But that doesn't convince me that we've figured everything out there is to know about spirtuality or "god".

To date, do we know anything about "god" that is not human invention?

[Tekneek]

Have you considered the possibility that some folks may believe in God, yet may not see the Bible (or any other religious book) as the "Word of God"?

Sure. However, I wonder what the basis of their faith is. Would it be any different than believing in fairies and pixie dust? There is probably about the same evidence available for both.

[Pumpy Tudors]

:popcorn:

[molson]

To date, do we know anything about "god" that is not human invention?

I don't think so, but that's kind of the very definition of this field - it's the unknown.

I don't look at the possibilites of the unknown from a religous viewpoint. I look at it like any other human being would have looked at any other field of the unknown throughout history.

There's something inherent about the idea of a god, or spirtuality, or energy, or whatever that requires a lack of clear scientific explanation. Those concepts are all occurring on a "step up" from human conciousness, if they occur, so obviously you're not going to be able to put it on a map or something.

And yes, that trait makes religion a very handy tool to oppress people with. To me, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of those concepts. I'm not trying to take over a country, I'm just thinking on my own.

[Ajaxab]

I don't have a problem with the ad either. Something that provokes conversation or stimulates thought about important philosophical questions is a good thing.

I'll pull a JiMG here and post one question/thought and be out. Many toss around the idea of wanting evidence for God's existence. What constitutes evidence? Invariably that evidence is narrowly defined as scientific evidence when so many of the things we know in life hardly come from scientific evidence (the content of our dreams for example). It seems a bit short-sighted to pick and choose when to need scientific evidence for knowledge and when to set it aside. I'm out...

[Noop]

I believe in God but not religion. I am not sure what that makes me.

[sabotai]

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic then?

By definition, all agnostics are atheists. Atheism covers everything that is not "Theism" (by definition). In other words, if you are not a Theist (someone who believes in god(s)), you are an atheist.

In the past agnosticism had the same relationship with gnosticism. Somewhere along the lines, agnosticism became what people who said "I'm not sure." to the question "Is there a God?". And somewhere along the line, atheism got condensed in common usage to mean just those who said they asserted the non-existance of God(s).

So what's the difference? nothing really. (Edit: I should have said in common usage, they really isn't much difference between them. If you want to get philosophical/technical about it, they address two different things - but no one uses either in that way, at least on FOFC)

[sabotai]

If you want something that will really make you wonder what the hell agnosicism really is, read this: Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist)

[ISiddiqui]

I believe in God but not religion. I am not sure what that makes me.

You are a Theist

[Karlifornia]

"That philosophy of athiests would have denied the possibility of other planets, of modern medicine, of black holes, etc, until there was scientific proof."

I don't think anyone is saying research can't be done. Who knows? Maybe the kingdom of heaven truly exists, and one day a new Galileo will discover it through some sweet ass telescope.

Ok, probably not, but I don't think any Atheist is condemning research into the unknown. All we're saying is that the unknown is simply the unknown, and how can you believe in something if you don't what it even is that you're believing?

[BrianD]

By definition, all agnostics are atheists. Atheism covers everything that is not "Theism" (by definition). In other words, if you are not a Theist (someone who believes in god(s)), you are an atheist.

In the past agnosticism had the same relationship with gnosticism. Somewhere along the lines, agnosticism became what people who said "I'm not sure." to the question "Is there a God?". And somewhere along the line, atheism got condensed in common usage to mean just those who said they asserted the non-existance of God(s).

So what's the difference? nothing really. (Edit: I should have said in common usage, they really isn't much difference between them. If you want to get philosophical/technical about it, they address two different things - but no one uses either in that way, at least on FOFC)

I see that the dictionary lists agnostic and athiest as synonyms, but I'm not sure I see how that is true. A theist believes in one or more gods. An athiest believes there is no god. An agnostic believes that the ultimate answer in unknown and unknowable by humans. To claim agnosticism and athiesm as synonymous only makes sense from a theistic point of view.

Edit: I also believe it is incorrect to call someone who says "I don't know" agnostic. That classification should be retained only for those who say "I can't know".

[molson]

Ok, probably not, but I don't think any Atheist is condemning research into the unknown. All we're saying is that the unknown is simply the unknown, and how can you believe in something if you don't what it even is that you're believing?

That sounds like what I thought was being agnostic, but now sabotai has confused me and I don't know what words mean what.

I was dicussing the affirmative belief that there is no god. Whatever that's called.

[Tekneek]

What constitutes evidence? Invariably that evidence is narrowly defined as scientific evidence when so many of the things we know in life hardly come from scientific evidence (the content of our dreams for example). It seems a bit short-sighted to pick and choose when to need scientific evidence for knowledge and when to set it aside. I'm out...

I don't know enough about dreams, or research into them, to speak on that point. At a glance, it seems like a good point. It doesn't seem as high on the list as religion because I am unaware of its usage as a weapon against others. If religion was as benign as dreams are (overall), it wouldn't be an issue.

[Ryan S]

There's a big difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheism is a belief. And possibiliy a religion.

Atheists do not believe in a higher power. Agnostics acknowledge that they have no way of knowing if there is a higher power. Neither is anything like a religion.

[molson]

Atheists do not believe in a higher power. Agnostics acknowledge that they have no way of knowing if there is a higher power. Neither is anything like a religion.

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power". If it's the latter, it's just like religion. It's a specific view that can't be proven or disproven, and its based on faith. The only science in their favor would be the absence of knowledge.

[BrianD]

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power". If it's the latter, it's just like religion. It's a specific view that can't be proven or disproven, and its based on faith. The only science in their favor would be the absence of knowledge.

It is the latter...a specific belief in no higher power.

[Tekneek]

It is the latter...a specific belief in no higher power.

I'm more of the 'I see no evidence of God, and until I do I am not going to bother' crowd. When evidence comes forward, I will weigh that evidence.

[sabotai]

I see that the dictionary lists agnostic and athiest as synonyms, but I'm not sure I see how that is true. A theist believes in one or more gods. An athiest believes there is no god. An agnostic believes that the ultimate answer in unknown and unknowable by humans. To claim agnosticism and athiesm as synonymous only makes sense from a theistic point of view.

Edit: I also believe it is incorrect to call someone who says "I don't know" agnostic. That classification should be retained only for those who say "I can't know".

I wouldn't call them synonyms either.

And that's the main difference between atheism and agnosticism (the bolded part). Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). Someone who says "God does not exist" is an atheist, but someone who simply says "I don't believe in God but I guess it's possible" is also an atheist. Atheism vs. Theism is about belief, or the lack of in the case of the former.

Agnosticism (vs. Gnosticism) is about knowledge, not belief. An agnostic says that the existence of God(s) is either presently unknown or that it's impossible to know.

Combine them and you get a wide array of possible beliefs. "I don't believe in God but I think it could one day be proven either way." , "I believe in God but acknowledge it's on faith and that God can't be proven to exist." , "LOL, you religious nuts, God does not exist and I damn well know for sure he doesn't" , "ARH! Burn in the hell that I KNOW exists you heathen!"

Unfortunately, confusion over what the terms mean happens because there isn't a single term used for just one, set-in-stone belief and lots of people use them interchangeably/however they want to. People what all atheists to all be the same, all theists to all be the same, all agnostics to all be the same, but that's just not the case. There many, many brands to all of them, and many, many sub-brands to those. It gets messy when you try to categorize someone's belief structure...

[JediKooter]

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power". If it's the latter, it's just like religion. It's a specific view that can't be proven or disproven, and its based on faith. The only science in their favor would be the absence of knowledge.


Atheism, by definition, is 'without theism'. So, it is not a religion. If it were a religion, then there wouldn't be atheists.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in a god, gods, higher power, guiding hand, etc...not atheists.

Not sure how atheism equates to science. Atheism stops at not believing in a god or gods, that's it. People love to attach all sorts of 'extras' to atheism and atheists when there is nothing more to it than not believing in a god or gods. I think the sooner people realize that, it won't be so hard to understand atheism/atheists. It would be like me calling a catholic a jew. Why would I be wrong? You worship a god don't you?

Have people used science to become atheists or affirm their atheism? I don't think I would be wrong if I said, "Yes".

[molson]

Atheism, by definition, is 'without theism'. So, it is not a religion. If it were a religion, then there wouldn't be atheists.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in a god, gods, higher power, guiding hand, etc...not atheists.

Not sure how atheism equates to science. Atheism stops at not believing in a god or gods, that's it. People love to attach all sorts of 'extras' to atheism and atheists when there is nothing more to it than not believing in a god or gods. I think the sooner people realize that, it won't be so hard to understand atheism/atheists. It would be like me calling a catholic a jew. Why would I be wrong? You worship a god don't you?

Have people used science to become atheists or affirm their atheism? I don't think I would be wrong if I said, "Yes".

I'm not strictly addressing the term "atheism", I'm addressing those who affirmatively believe that there is no higher power. And to me, that's a belief. Which apparently there isn't a word for.

And who decides who has the "burden of proof"? I would say anyone with affirmative belief, including that there is no higher power, has a "burden of proof". Though I'm not entirely sure what exactly they're proving, and to whom.

[Tekneek]

And who decides who has the "burden of proof"?

This is simple. How do you prove the non-existence of anything?

If you cannot prove the non-existence of purple dragons, does that mean it is likely that they exist?

[molson]

I'm more of the 'I see no evidence of God, and until I do I am not going to bother' crowd. When evidence comes forward, I will weigh that evidence.

By then it won't be "god" anymore, just like the planets and healing power of modern medicine have "advanced" into science.

I think it's just a different way of thinking. If I lived 5,000 years ago, I might wonder what's on the other side of an ocean, or in the sky. Today, the primary "unknowns" involve topics with spirtual connotations.

[molson]

This is simple. How do you prove the non-existence of anything?

If you cannot prove the non-existence of purple dragons, does that mean it is likely that they exist?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the existence of purple dragons, or god, or that they're "likely".

But yes, you can't prove the non-existence of anything (I guess, I mean, you can sometimes. I can prove there's no other people in my house right now). You also can't prove the existence of god (depending on your interpretation of god). That's the very nature of god. If you could prove it, it wouldn't be god anymore. It'd be "science".

"God" (to me, and many others), IS the unknown.

[sabotai]

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power".

Either. They both are, just two different types of atheism. The same way as someone who says "I believe in one god." and someone who says "I believe in many gods" are both Theists, just two different brands of theism.

Think of it this way. Atheism begins where someone just lacks a belief in a higher power. Where they go from there is up to them, but where ever they end up, even if it's at "God does not exist", they are still on the atheist side of the line.

[Dutch]

I don't have a problem with the ad, but I agree there will be a backlash. It would be like H&R Block posting a sign throughout Chicago saying "You deadbeat homeless people need to get off your lazy butts, get jobs and stop being a dredge on society."

Now, without emotion, one could say H&R block is simply trying to stimulate critical thinking by the homeless in Chicago and have them realize they need to find a job. Then, maybe H&R Block gets a new customer from the effort. ;)

But, realistically, it's a somewhat stupid idea as the backlash/boycotts from such an ad would more than cancel out any new clients for taxes. I see the same thing here. If people want to raise awareness about how a life without religion is possible and morale, more power to them. I just don't think this is the right way.

Good analogy, Arles.

[Tekneek]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the existence of purple dragons, or god, or that they're "likely".

But yes, you can't prove the non-existence of anything (I guess, I mean, you can sometimes. I can prove there's no other people in my house right now). You also can't prove the existence of god (depending on your interpretation of god). That's the very nature of god. If you could prove it, it wouldn't be god anymore. It'd be "science".

"God" (to me, and many others), IS the unknown.

So you asked who has the burden of proof, and then answered your own question. Clearly, those who think God does not exist do not have the burden of proof since no one can prove the complete non-existence of anything. Therefore, those who believe God (or purple dragons, or whatever it may be) exists have the burden of proving its existence.

[molson]

So you asked who has the burden of proof, and then answered your own question. Clearly, those who think God does not exist do not have the burden of proof since no one can prove the complete non-existence of anything. Therefore, those who believe God (or purple dragons, or whatever it may be) exists have the burden of proving its existence.

I don't get the relevance of the burden of proof thing still.

Obviously, to atheists, everyone has the burden of proof to change their mind. That's why they're athiests.

But to me, an atheist would have the burden of proof to change my mind, and to prove to me that there's no possibility of god. You say that's not possible, and I agree (that's why I'm not an atheist). I'd also say that it's impossible to prove the existence of god. Imagine a hypothetical world where there IS a god, or at least, some kind of spirtuality that humans can't comprehend but can vaguely perceive. How would you prove it's existence?

Athiests demand prove, but when you ask them to prove their affirmative position, they say, "it's not possible!".

So the athiest can't possibly be wrong, when it's framed like that. And for some, that's the reason to be an athiest, to me, that's the reason not to be.

[Tekneek]

But to me, an atheist would have the burden of proof to change my mind, and to prove to me that there's no possibility of god. You say that's not possible, and I agree (that's why I'm not an atheist).

I'm not following you here, but it doesn't have to make sense to me.

I'd also say that it's impossible to prove the existence of god. Imagine a hypothetical world where there IS a god, or at least, some kind of spirtuality that humans can't comprehend but can vaguely perceive. How would you prove it's existence?

Not my problem. I don't care what you think is out there, as long as you don't use your belief in it as a reason to control me, ultimately. Also, I'm curious why I would even need to care about this "...kind of spirtuality that humans can't comprehend but can vaguely perceive." Your burden of proof only matters if you want to believe that the existence of it requires me to conform to your religious dogma.

Athiests demand prove, but when you ask them to prove their affirmative position, they say, "it's not possible!".

You act like the inability to prove the non-existence of something is a cop-out. It is reality. Unlike the existence of God, it is a known truth that you cannot prove the complete non-existence of anything. The inability to prove the non-existence of something does not mean that it has any likelihood of existing. So, as pretty much any reasonable atheist would claim, it is very unlikely that God exists.

Like I've said before, I only demand proof from those who think their religious beliefs entitle them to force others to abide by their religious dogma. For instance, if I am supposed to believe that gay couples cannot wed because God does not approve, you need to prove to me that this God even exists. Otherwise, you might as well be asking me to accept laws based on what Gandalf the Wizard wants.

[JediKooter]

I'm not strictly addressing the term "atheism", I'm addressing those who affirmatively believe that there is no higher power. And to me, that's a belief. Which apparently there isn't a word for.

Well, here's the difference for me...I affirmatively believe that there is no higher power. However, my definition of higher power is no different than saying god, Thor, L Ron, etc... I don't attribute the unknown as a higher power, the unknown is just that, the unknown. I am an atheist because I do not believe in a higher power. However, there is a bit of symantics being used for the word believe. It's not the same 'believe' that is used by theists. My use of the word believe is more like using the word 'affirm', where as, a theists use of the word believe, is a 'feeling' or 'gut instinct' or 'it just seems right'.

And who decides who has the "burden of proof"? I would say anyone with affirmative belief, including that there is no higher power, has a "burden of proof". Though I'm not entirely sure what exactly they're proving, and to whom.

I don't think it's a matter of who decides, it's a matter of what's falsifiable, and in the context of theist vs atheist, it is the theists that have to bring the evidence.

My belief in the lack of the existence of a higher power, isn't from a gut feeling or a life time of brain washing or dogmatic principles, it's from actual evidence and that evidence leans more towards the non existence of a higher power. Just because we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean 'god did it' and if you are claiming that 'god did it' you better show some proof. Unfortunately, (well for the believers anyway) not one single shred of evidence has been put forward that can be attributed to 'god did it', for anything that we know.

Logically, the whole idea of a god or gods or higher power, just doesn't add up when you look at the available evidence. If someone wants warm and fuzzies, they can have at it. Doesn't change anything in the real world though.

[Tekneek]

So the athiest can't possibly be wrong, when it's framed like that. And for some, that's the reason to be an athiest, to me, that's the reason not to be.

The atheist can be wrong. However, it is likely that many would alter their views when provided with additional evidence. So far, nobody has found any good evidence (unfortunately). Maybe it will happen someday. However, history would appear to indicate otherwise. Throughout history, the number of Gods generally believed to exist has declined. The amount of events observed by humanity that is attributed to God(s) has also declined over time. The trend is certainly to believe in fewer deities and attribute less to them.

[JediKooter]

The atheist can be wrong. However, it is likely that many would alter their views when provided with additional evidence. So far, nobody has found any good evidence (unfortunately). Maybe it will happen someday. However, history would appear to indicate otherwise. Throughout history, the number of Gods generally believed to exist has declined. The amount of events observed by humanity that is attributed to God(s) has also declined over time. The trend is certainly to believe in fewer deities and attribute less to them.

I agree with Tekneek here. An atheist can be wrong and like Tekneek said, if presented with some evidence, I think an atheist would be far more open minded to change.

I highly doubt many thesits are as open minded as atheists are simply because a theist relies on dogmatic principles and being told what to think. Those are two very hard things to over come. From the hard core fundamentalists to the christmas christians, even when presented with valid scientific evidence to the contrary of their religion, they will not change their minds.

[molson]

I highly doubt many thesits are as open minded as atheists are simply because a theist relies on dogmatic principles and being told what to think. Those are two very hard things to over come. From the hard core fundamentalists to the christmas christians, even when presented with valid scientific evidence to the contrary of their religion, they will not change their minds.

Well if the only two choices are atheist and theist, I'm an atheist too, but there's pretty clearly a huge difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. And I don't fit into your lumping here about being closed minded.

I'm not talking about atheist v. theist or atheist v. dogma. I'm talking about people who affirmatively believe that the universe is a highly specific way and won't accept any other possibility without scientific proof v. those that don't have such a specific belief about how the world is, and believe that the current state of science does not give us all the answers. So to me, it's atheist/theist together v. what I'm saying.

[Tekneek]

And I don't fit in to your lumping here about being closed minded.

I suppose it also depends on your definition of what being "open minded" is. Open minded means you're willing to weigh the evidence and alter your existing view based on it. Not the likelihood that you will buy into something with no evidence. That's more akin to being gullible than open minded.

[CamEdwards]

Sure. However, I wonder what the basis of their faith is. Would it be any different than believing in fairies and pixie dust? There is probably about the same evidence available for both.

Does the basis of their faith really matter? Does the basis of your atheism matter? It seems to me the conflict is in arguing over why someone should believe differently, rather than simply accepting that others will believe differently.

Atheists, I have found, have a tendency to look down on those with faith in a deity as less intelligent or capable of reason. It's a ridiculous argument when you consider the sheer number of geniuses throughout history that have had real faith in a god or gods, but that's ultimately the atheist message to believers: don't be so gullible and stupid.

The evangelical Christian might tell me I'm going to hell if I don't change my ways. The evangelical atheist will just tell me I'm a dumbass. Some people may choose to get more upset over what the Christian says, but to me that can be dismissed as prophecy. What the evangelical atheist says is just an insult.

Of course atheism offers its own salvation. Just don't believe, and you can be part of the Self-Chosen Ones. If you're an atheist, you're automatically intellectually superior to believers. It's a pretty seductive message... maybe even as seductive as believing in an eternal hereafter.

I guess this is the long way of saying that when atheists think they're asking probing and insightful questions to believers, they're really just coming off as douchey as a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep.

How's that popcorn, Pumpy? :)

[molson]

I suppose it also depends on your definition of what being "open minded" is. Open minded means you're willing to weigh the evidence and alter your existing view based on it. Not the likelihood that you will buy into something with no evidence. That's more akin to being gullible than open minded.

Fair enough, I think open minded means more than a willingness "to weigh the evidence and alter your existing view based on it". I think true open mindedness is more open that that, it means a willingness to accept the possibility that you might not have all the evidence, or that the evidence might not exist or be available to us.

To me, it's not being open-minded to say, "It doesn't exist, but if you scientifically prove it to me, I'll change my mind". (especially when there's no possibility of that kind of "scientific proof" in this particular field, and our current level of human understanding of the universe).

And like Cam said, it's certainly not open-minded to look down upon others who, IMO, often achieve benefits from more traditional dogma that atheists don't really understand. It's not always about faith or believing the literal words of a book.

[CamEdwards]

I agree with Tekneek here. An atheist can be wrong and like Tekneek said, if presented with some evidence, I think an atheist would be far more open minded to change.

I highly doubt many thesits are as open minded as atheists are simply because a theist relies on dogmatic principles and being told what to think. Those are two very hard things to over come. From the hard core fundamentalists to the christmas christians, even when presented with valid scientific evidence to the contrary of their religion, they will not change their minds.

An atheist, by definition, is just as dogmatic in their unbelief as a believer is in theirs.

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after? Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness? Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith? By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Sorry... I digressed.

[Tekneek]

Does the basis of their faith really matter? Does the basis of your atheism matter? It seems to me the conflict is in arguing over why someone should believe differently, rather than simply accepting that others will believe differently.

As I have said before... Ultimately, I do not care what you believe in as long as you don't force your religious dogma onto me or the rest of society. Keep it voluntary and out of everybody else's business and we'll do just fine.

Atheists, I have found, have a tendency to look down on those with faith in a deity as less intelligent or capable of reason. It's a ridiculous argument when you consider the sheer number of geniuses throughout history that have had real faith in a god or gods, but that's ultimately the atheist message to believers: don't be so gullible and stupid.

I have a hard time with this one, as you should as well. The mere fact that so many brilliant people lived in a time before science could explain so much more is a sufficient explanation to me (and it should be for you as well). After all, they are only humans trying to make sense of the world. I don't blame people for thinking the Earth was flat before it was proven to be round. I will blame you for believing it to be flat AFTER we have the evidence otherwise. I won't blame you for not knowing about evolution before Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but I WILL blame you AFTER it. I don't fault people for their silly views before science could explain it. Once there is a viable scientific explanation, it is time to move on. It explains why less and less has been attributed to deities over time. Is there any reason to expect that trend to change?

The evangelical Christian might tell me I'm going to hell if I don't change my ways. The evangelical atheist will just tell me I'm a dumbass. Some people may choose to get more upset over what the Christian says, but to me that can be dismissed as prophecy. What the evangelical atheist says is just an insult.

I won't call you a dumbass. You sure make a lot of generalizations.

Of course atheism offers its own salvation. Just don't believe, and you can be part of the Self-Chosen Ones. If you're an atheist, you're automatically intellectually superior to believers. It's a pretty seductive message... maybe even as seductive as believing in an eternal hereafter.

It isn't about just not believing. It is about looking for evidence. It is about doing more than just imagining that a God did this or that, it is about questioning it and looking for evidence. It is far easier to just say "God did it" and move on. That is easy to see.

I guess this is the long way of saying that when atheists think they're asking probing and insightful questions to believers, they're really just coming off as douchey as a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep.

How? What have I said that is "douchey" at all? I'm not trying to convert anybody. I'm comfortable knowing that the available evidence indicates that the existence of a God is extremely unlikely. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Tekneek]

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after?

Many do. If you had any insight into the non-believing community, you'd know that much.

Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness?

Sounds silly enough to me. I won't worry much until they start trying to push legislation forcing their dogma onto the rest of us, though. I guess that gets right to the heart of the matter for me.

Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith?

It is done all the time. There are more than a few blogs out there, ran by self-professed atheists, who are doing a complete analysis of the Qur'an. It is pretty evil shit, if you ask me. Again, your ignorance reveals itself.

By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Sorry... I digressed.

Your ignorance of this activity does not mean it is not happening. Learn to put together a decent Google search string, and you will find the activity you seek. :)

[Groundhog]

The atheist can be wrong. However, it is likely that many would alter their views when provided with additional evidence.

Bingo.

[Arles]

This is a very interesting debate. My two cents on this is that Religion is not made to be proven or dis-proven. It has always been a way to explain the unknown and involves faith in something that has no "provable" method. Once it is defined enough to be proven, then you lose the faith aspect to it.

It's like asking someone who is alive what it feels like to be dead. Just because no alive person explain it, doesn't mean they won't ever be dead or have a certainly feeling right after being dead. It is just unknown. That's what religion is and why I don't see why it should bother people if person A thinks there is no God and person B thinks there are 50 Gods all wearing pink pajamas. It's also why a logical discussions on whether god exists are fairly useless. For people who believe in God, that belief is based on non-scientific faith and belief they choose to have to explain aspects of the unknown. Those who don't believe in God will never be shown scientific proof he exists so there's little reason for them to change their mind.

[Tekneek]

It's like asking someone who is alive what it feels like to be dead. Just because no alive person explain it, doesn't mean they won't ever be dead or have a certainly feeling right after being dead.

We know they will very likely die because everyone else that we know about has died. You don't have to believe in death, but it is extremely likely to occur for you anyway. We have the data.

That's what religion is and why I don't see why it should bother people if person A thinks there is no God and person B thinks there are 50 Gods all wearing pink pajamas. It's also why a logical discussion on whether god exists are fairly useless. For people who believe in God, that belief is based on non-scientific faith and belief they choose to have to explain aspects of the unknown. Those who don't believe in God will never be shown scientific proof he exists so there's little reason for them to change their mind.

Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

[Groundhog]

An atheist, by definition, is just as dogmatic in their unbelief as a believer is in theirs.

This is absolutely 100% false. I take a great interest in all religions and if anything came out of any of them that hinted at some sort of basis in reality, I'd be forced to alter my views.

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after?

Because Christians make up the highest % and are most visible in the countries most of us are in? As Tekneek says though, it's not that it doesn't exist, it's just that for most of us it's Christianity that gets on our nerves enough to be vocal about. ;)

Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness?

The Earth Godess is no more or less silly an idea than any other god I've ever read about.

Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith?

Yeah, they're silly too, and a good example of what happens when the fundies have too much power.

By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?


Would be only too happy to. Scientology anyone??? :D

[Radii]

Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your response to a person in power abusing that power to push faith-based legislation is to argue that their belief structure doesn't make sense? That's no time at all for a philosophical debate, its time for a discussion on the constitution and separation of church and state.


Also, stating that this is the reason that atheists respond is complete and utter bullshit. Just read any thread on religion on this forum. No one has to push their beliefs on anyone, all it takes is someone mentioning in passing that they are at peace with their faith and someone is going to come out of the woodwork and provoke them and tell them they believe in fairies and magic and that they are stupid.


Pretending that this kind of thing is one sided or is only about separation of church and state really takes a lot out of any argument you make.

[CamEdwards]

We know they will very likely die because everyone else that we know about has died. You don't have to believe in death, but it is extremely likely to occur for you anyway. We have the data.



Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

What religious dogma is getting pushed through the government?

Also, I do apologize for my ignorance of the unbelieving community. I try, as you have implored believers to do, to not pay much attention to you. :)

[Radii]

dola, and I should point out that I agree with pretty much everything Cam has said, and he and I are almost 100% certainly on the opposite side of things as far as the philosophical debates go.

[Arles]

We know they will very likely die because everyone else that we know about has died. You don't have to believe in death, but it is extremely likely to occur for you anyway. We have the data.
You missed the point above. I was talking about what it feels like to be dead. Just because we know people die doesn't mean we know what it is truly like to be dead. It is unknown.

Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.
What type of "religious dogma" in our government really bothers you? I guess this is what I don't understand. I'm not overly religious (rarely go to church) and am not even sure what religion I would be (certainly not Catholic), but I don't see a ton of persecution because I choose not to give up things for Lent, go to confession or take communion.

[Tekneek]

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your response to a people in power abusing that power to push faith-based legislation is to argue that their belief structure doesn't make sense? That's no time at all for a philosophical debate, its time for a discussion on the constitution and separation of church and state.

What? Of course. I am answering the question as to why people care about another's religious views. I care very much when someone promotes their religion with government force.

Also, stating that this is the reason that atheists respond is complete and utter bullshit. Just read any thread on religion on this forum. No one has to push their beliefs on anyone, all it takes is someone mentioning in passing that they are at peace with their faith and someone is going to come out of the woodwork and provoke them and tell them they believe in fairies and magic and that they are stupid.

That has more to do with the culture of FOFC than reality. No matter what a thread here is about, somebody will eventually try to stir up some controversy.

Pretending that this kind of thing is one sided or is only about separation of church and state really takes a lot out of any argument you make.

Really? Is there suddenly more evidence for the existence of God now?

[Tekneek]

What religious dogma is getting pushed through the government?

Give me a secular argument for not allowing same-gender marriage. Give me a secular argument for no alcohol sales on Sunday (which is still a reality in some areas of this nation). Those come to mind immediately.

[Tekneek]

You missed the point above. I was talking about what it feels like to be dead. Just because we know people die doesn't mean we know what it is truly like to be dead. It is unknown.

So? Not sure I understand what your point is anyway. Do we really need to know? What impact will it have? Maybe one day we will find out. Maybe not. Who knows?

What type of "religious dogma" in our government really bothers you? I guess this is what I don't understand. I'm not overly religious (rarely go to church) and am not even sure what religion I would be (certainly not Catholic), but I don't see a ton of persecution because I choose not to give up things for Lent, go to confession or take communion.

Same gender marriage. Please give me an entirely secular argument for not allowing it. Give me a secular argument for teaching "creationism" in a science class.

[JediKooter]

Well if the only two choices are atheist and theist, I'm an atheist too, but there's pretty clearly a huge difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. And I don't fit into your lumping here about being closed minded.

I'm not talking about atheist v. theist or atheist v. dogma. I'm talking about people who affirmatively believe that the universe is a highly specific way and won't accept any other possibility without scientific proof v. those that don't have such a specific belief about how the world is, and believe that the current state of science does not give us all the answers. So to me, it's atheist/theist together v. what I'm saying.

I'm definitely not saying that you specifically are close minded. Why give what you belive in a lable? If you don't know, then you don't know. I think that is a perfectly acceptable position. If you don't want to be called an atheist because you don't think you fit that definition, that's ok too. Maybe you fall more in line with deism?

Science has never claimed to give us all the answers. Are you looking for some form of unified answer to everything or is it a rhetorical question? :) But, what science has given us, has opened up so many more questions, which is a good thing. Heck, we don't even know exactly how gravity works, but, we do know that some devine intervention is not what's keeping us from flying off this planet.

However, religion DOES claim to have all the answers, especially the christian religion. They seem to take great pride in telling everyone that.

What other proof is there than scientific proof? I mean, there's ancedotal evidence and things like that, but, in regards to the mechanics of the universe, any joe schmuck can make up whatever they want, however, if it doesn't stand up to the scientific method, what is it at that point?

If I claim that unicorn piss cures cancer, how do I prove it? Well, first, I need a unicorn...and there starts the problems. If I claim praying to god cures cancer, some how that carries some form of value because so many people buy into it, yet, no one can produce anymore evidence for it than for the unicorn piss. So, other than the scientific method, how do we prove things or figure out how things work in this universe that we live in?

[CamEdwards]

This is absolutely 100% false. I take a great interest in all religions and if anything came out of any of them that hinted at some sort of basis in reality, I'd be forced to alter my views.

I think you're confusing religion with a deity or deities. I haven't said any religion has (or is capable of) gotten it right.



Because Christians make up the highest % and are most visible in the countries most of us are in? As Tekneek says though, it's not that it doesn't exist, it's just that for most of us it's Christianity that gets on our nerves enough to be vocal about. ;)


I think that's the most sincere statement in all of your answers. From where I agnostically sit, I see a lot of atheists that ultimately not only don't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, but the "rules" that come with Christianity. To me, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Yeah, they're silly too, and a good example of what happens when the fundies have too much power.


This is where you really lose me. There are individuals out there who cheered on the death of your countrymen at a nightclub in Bali, and who would be thrilled at the sight of your best friend killed in the name of their god.

They're not silly. They're murderers, and they are a far more populous and growing group than the Fred Phelps' of the world. But because Christians "annoy" you the most, they're going to be your #1 target. That strikes me as an immature and self-centered position based solely on your own experience rather than that of a shared humanity, which isn't a great selling point for letting your conscience be your guide.

[JediKooter]

An atheist, by definition, is just as dogmatic in their unbelief as a believer is in theirs.

Incorrect Cam. Being dogmatic implies that I would be unwilling to change my views when presented with evidence to the contrary. THE definition of an atheist is: the non belief in a god or gods. That's it. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after?

What's that James Brown song? "Living in America". :)

Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness?

I have no idea how fast it's growing. Wicca is an f'ing joke though. It's for women who don't like to shave their legs or arm pits and for guys who are into Dungeons and Dragons, but don't like western religions.

Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith?

That is one religion I actually would not mind going away forever. They worship a pedophile... 'nuff said. However, 'they' are doing fine just by themselves by showing the world how feaking bat shit crazy they are.

By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Oh I do spread it around. However christians are rather prevalent here in America. And by christians, I lump mormons, jehova witnesses, catholics, protestants, baptists, and all the other christian sects into one.

Unfortunately, it is the christians trying to mold legislation and public education. I don't see jews trying to get bar mitzva classes in schools. I don't see muslims trying to get ramadan in schools. I don't see scientologists trying to get thetans in schools. I don't see wiccans trying to get the tree fairie into schools.

Sorry... I digressed. No need to apoligize. You spoke your mind.

[CamEdwards]

Give me a secular argument for not allowing same-gender marriage. Give me a secular argument for no alcohol sales on Sunday (which is still a reality in some areas of this nation). Those come to mind immediately.

First of all, I hardly think that "no alcohol sales on Sunday" are being pushed throughout the country. Maybe the repeal of those laws, but when was the last time a law like that was actually enacted?

As for the actual argument, the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program says researches at the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest found that in New Mexico, after the law was changed to allow Sunday alcohol sales:

-Both alcohol-related crashes and alcohol-related crash fatalities occurring between noon on Sunday and noon on Monday increased (by 29 and 42 percent, respectively) after the 1995 law allowed packaged alcohol to be sold on Sundays.

-Counties whose largest communities exercised the legislative option to disallow Sunday packaged alcohol sales had the lowest relative increase in alcohol-related crashes on Sundays.

Don't ask me if I think it's a worthy argument, but it's pretty clearly a secular argument against Sunday alcohol sales.

The same-sex marriage legislation is again largely an attempt to maintain the status quo, not set new law. Legally speaking, there have always been laws on the books providing who can and cannot get married, and not all of them have been based on Scripture (the eugenics movement in the 1920's is evident of that), but on a desire over what is best for "society". That is ultimately what today's argument over same sex marriage is about: two competing views of what is best for society. Again, you may not like the argument or find it persuasive, but the secular argument in favor of traditional marriage can be found in various places.

With that, I've got to get ready for work. I'll try to check in later tonight.

[CamEdwards]

dola, and I should point out that I agree with pretty much everything Cam has said, and he and I are almost 100% certainly on the opposite side of things as far as the philosophical debates go.

BTW, just wanted to say thanks. For whatever reason, we may disagree politically but seem to get along just fine philosophically. We need to investigate this further over alcohol (perhaps even on a Sunday) sometime!

[Arles]

So? Not sure I understand what your point is anyway. Do we really need to know? What impact will it have? Maybe one day we will find out. Maybe not. Who knows?
My point was that, like the beginning of life and whether a higher power is at work, what death "feels" like is something that is unknown to us. I see no harm in allowing a religious explanation to that unknown.

Same gender marriage. Please give me an entirely secular argument for not allowing it. Give me a secular argument for teaching "creationism" in a science class.
I'm for same gender marriage and ambivalent towards creationism being taught in classes. Civil unions are already being recognized and inroads are being made for actual recognized marriages down the road. I have school teachers, school psychologists and superintendents all in my family and we can't find any public school where "creationism" is taught. And even if it is, as long as other explanations are given - what's the harm?

Gay marriage is a legit issue, but it's more cultural than specific to any religious faith. As for creationism being taught, that seems like a red herring akin to me being afraid of asbestos outbreaks. Not too many instances out there now days.

[JediKooter]

I see no harm in allowing a religious explanation to that unknown.

I have to disagree with you on this. If left up to religion explaining the unknown, we would not have a polio vaccine or sent people into space and thousands of other discoveries and inventions.

ambivalent towards creationism being taught in classes. I have school teachers, school psychologists and superintendents all in my family and we can't find any public school where "creationism" is taught.

Not yet. However here's a list of states within the last year that have tried:

Mississippi
Oklahoma
Iowa
New Mexico
Florida
Alabama
Missouri
Texas

Luckily, each one of the proposed bills did not make it. Besides the fact that it would violate the separation of church and state, why would you not care that your child could potentially be taught non science in science classes? It would be no different than having astrology or tarot card reading taught in science class as if they were a legitimate science.

Gay marriage is a legit issue, but it's more cultural than specific to any religious faith. As for creationism being taught, that seems like a red herring akin to me being afraid of asbestos outbreaks. Not too many instances out there now days.

I think it's not only cultural but also a sign of civilization progressing. Creationism is not a red herring at all, it is a legitimate threat to the public education system being spearheaded by the Discovery Institute. Teach all the creationist stuff you want in private christian schools, leave it out of public education.

[Groundhog]

I think that's the most sincere statement in all of your answers. From where I agnostically sit, I see a lot of atheists that ultimately not only don't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, but the "rules" that come with Christianity. To me, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well, I obviously can't speak for all atheists, but I don't follow that line of thinking. I just happen to think that the "rules" are common sense, and, cultural differences aside, pretty much exist in all organised religions. Do you need the bible to tell you not to kill or steal? No. These are cultural rules.

This is where you really lose me. There are individuals out there who cheered on the death of your countrymen at a nightclub in Bali, and who would be thrilled at the sight of your best friend killed in the name of their god.

They're not silly. They're murderers, and they are a far more populous and growing group than the Fred Phelps' of the world. But because Christians "annoy" you the most, they're going to be your #1 target. That strikes me as an immature and self-centered position based solely on your own experience rather than that of a shared humanity, which isn't a great selling point for letting your conscience be your guide.

I see where you are coming from, but really, what's the point of me hammering on and on about Islamic fundamentalists on this message board? What kind of discussion would that generate? It would be me saying "gee, these guys are crazy killers" and everybody agreeing. Of course what they've done is horrible, and they'll probably do many more horrible things as well in the years to come.

Christianity is by and large the one religion just about everyone on this message board (an extending beyond) is going to be familiar with, so it's makes the most sense to generate discussion.

I'm not saying it's worse than Islam or anything like that. Nor am I saying that Islam is worse than Christianity. It just gives us a topic that we can all talk about because we all know a little about it, unlike the other major religions in the world.

[Tekneek]

First of all, I hardly think that "no alcohol sales on Sunday" are being pushed throughout the country. Maybe the repeal of those laws, but when was the last time a law like that was actually enacted?

Do not know.

As for the actual argument, the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program says researches at the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest found that in New Mexico, after the law was changed to allow Sunday alcohol sales:

...

Don't ask me if I think it's a worthy argument, but it's pretty clearly a secular argument against Sunday alcohol sales.

Thanks for going through the exercise. This is interesting data, although it does nothing to explain the existence of these laws. It may help explain reluctance to remove them, though.

The same-sex marriage legislation is again largely an attempt to maintain the status quo, not set new law. Legally speaking, there have always been laws on the books providing who can and cannot get married, and not all of them have been based on Scripture (the eugenics movement in the 1920's is evident of that), but on a desire over what is best for "society". That is ultimately what today's argument over same sex marriage is about: two competing views of what is best for society. Again, you may not like the argument or find it persuasive, but the secular argument in favor of traditional marriage can be found in various places.

I will try to take a deeper look at this, time permitting, perhaps next week. I am curious how much of the funding for Prop 8 came from secular sources, as well.

[Arles]

I have to disagree with you on this. If left up to religion explaining the unknown, we would not have a polio vaccine or sent people into space and thousands of other discoveries and inventions.
We're talking about afterlife/post death and understanding the universe. This is not the same as saying the world is flat or leeching blood heals disease. Maybe in 100 years, we'll be able to explain the concept of "after death" and know more about the universe to have other explanations. But, for now, there's no reason that people can't use religion.

Not yet. However here's a list of states within the last year that have tried:

Mississippi
Oklahoma
Iowa
New Mexico
Florida
Alabama
Missouri
Texas

Luckily, each one of the proposed bills did not make it.
Again, this is a cultural issue. There are plenty of people who believe in God that think gay marriage should be allowed (myself included) and who do not believe in God that don't like the idea of gay marriage. The arguments made against them state that a 2-parent (man and woman) home is better for society because (among other reasons) they can reproduce. I don't agree with the argument, but it is a cultural/family claim. Still, as you cite, these bills haven't even been passed or shown to stand up in court.

Besides the fact that it would violate the separation of church and state, why would you not care that your child could potentially be taught non science in science classes?
I am worried about the quality of class material taught to my son and I can tell you "creationism" ranks about 30th behind such trivial things as reading, writing and math. Quite honestly, I would be thrilled with having a critical thinking exercise for my son in the middle grades discussing the merits of creationism vs. evolution.

It would be no different than having astrology or tarot card reading taught in science class as if they were a legitimate science.
Again, I see much creationism as astrology in the curriculum's that I've been exposed to in public schools. Quite honestly, most struggle with such concepts as basic math and writing. Worrying that my son will get a week of creationism and destroy his learning potential is like a 300-pound man with high cholesterol worrying that eating the olive in his martini will make him fat as he chows down on a 20-pound steak.

Again, I just doesn't see this as a realistic fear and even if someone spent a few weeks talking to my son about creationism in his middle grades, I'd enjoy the parent-son discussions with him about it (and the pros of evolution).


I think it's not only cultural but also a sign of civilization progressing. Creationism is not a red herring at all, it is a legitimate threat to the public education system being spearheaded by the Discovery Institute. Teach all the creationist stuff you want in private christian schools, leave it out of public education.
Again, have you been to a public school? I'm pretty sure the last thing on a public teacher's mind is whether their 12-year old students grasp the difference between creationism and evolution. Middle school science class is basically field trips, looking at frogs and understanding which planets come first. Even if a week of creationism were taught (which would be "crucified" in the current public education climate), I think I'd be OK with them taking a week off the stringent scientific syllabus in 5th grade science.

[molson]

Again, have you been to a public school? I'm pretty sure the last thing on a public teacher's mind is whether their 12-year old students grasp the difference between creationism and evolution. Middle school science class is basically field trips, looking at frogs and understanding which planets come first. Even if a week of creationism were taught (which would be "crucified" in the current public education climate), I think I'd be OK with them taking a week off the stringent scientific syllabus in 5th grade science.

Ya, that whole debate is so overrated. It's actually funny how much respect public schools are given in that debate, like they have all the power to shape a kid's view of the world forever after.

Maybe my experiences are extreme in the other direction, but maybe 0.5% of my knowledge comes from school, the other 99.5% comes from reading, TV, books, movies. Except maybe math, I wouldn't have learned that on my own.

[CamEdwards]

I have to disagree with you on this. If left up to religion explaining the unknown, we would not have a polio vaccine or sent people into space and thousands of other discoveries and inventions.


Two of the Apollo astronauts actually became evangelical Christians after going to the moon. I've seen second hand accounts (none firsthand unfortunately) that Salk, when asked about evolution versus intelligent design asked, "why do I have to choose one or the other?" Guess they didn't get the memo.

I think [creationism is] not only cultural but also a sign of civilization progressing.

I misread your topic... I'll have to come back to this.

[RendeR]

There is no reason to debate "creationism vs Evolution" one does not require the existence or non existence of the other, they are entirely separate ideas and can co-exist just fine.

Evolution is the process by which species grow and change over time. It has been shown to exist as a process.

Creationism tries to explain how EVERYTHING came to be. Something Evolution does NOT try to do.

[Tekneek]

By the way, I think some of you should read about the Butler Act, the Scopes Monkey Trial, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Daniel v. Waters. You can probably find information on Wikipedia, as well as numerous other places on the web.

[RendeR]

The other point that bothers me about creationism in school is that creationism, by definition is a purely religious viewpoint. As such it doesn't belong in school, it belongs in church. Teach educational topics in schools. Teach Religion in church.

[Arles]

Hey, if people want to make a petition to stop the handful of public schools still teaching creationism in science class (which I think is about as likely as a purple elephant), I'll be glad to sign it. I just don't see this issue as a reason to rail against people who have embraced a certain religion (be it Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, whatever). It seems to me that we are at a point where anything that can be remotely construed as religious gets significant criticism (even crosses on state seals and Christmas Trees in public parks).

Really, the only way to hurt the anti-religion movement at this point is to stir up the silent majority of religious people by running silly ad campaigns like this one.

[Toddzilla]

As an agnostic, atheists piss me off.

[JediKooter]

We're talking about afterlife/post death and understanding the universe. This is not the same as saying the world is flat or leeching blood heals disease. Maybe in 100 years, we'll be able to explain the concept of "after death" and know more about the universe to have other explanations. But, for now, there's no reason that people can't use religion.

Regardless if it's the after death question or making the lame walk again, 'god did it' solves nothing other than give people warm fuzzy happy feelings. It doesn't solve a thing other than piece of mind maybe.


Again, this is a cultural issue. There are plenty of people who believe in God that think gay marriage should be allowed (myself included) and who do not believe in God that don't like the idea of gay marriage.

I do not disagree with that. However, it is the ones who believe in god that have cried the loudest against it.

The arguments made against them state that a 2-parent (man and woman) home is better for society because (among other reasons) they can reproduce. I don't agree with the argument, but it is a cultural/family claim.

I don't agree with that argument either. However strong that cultural/family claim is, it is wrong.

Still, as you cite, these bills haven't even been passed or shown to stand up in court.

That is a list of states in the 21st century (within the last year) trying to get creationism in public schools science classes. The 21st century for crying out loud. :banghead:

I am worried about the quality of class material taught to my son and I can tell you "creationism" ranks about 30th behind such trivial things as reading, writing and math. Quite honestly, I would be thrilled with having a critical thinking exercise for my son in the middle grades discussing the merits of creationism vs. evolution.

It should worry you more than that. Yes, a lot of public schools are lacking in math, reading and writing, no argument here. Unfortunately, it is not a critical thinking exercise that the creationism proponents are trying to inject into public schools. Besides critical thinking and the church sounds like a oxymoron to me.

Again, I see much creationism as astrology in the curriculum's that I've been exposed to in public schools. Quite honestly, most struggle with such concepts as basic math and writing. Worrying that my son will get a week of creationism and destroy his learning potential is like a 300-pound man with high cholesterol worrying that eating the olive in his martini will make him fat as he chows down on a 20-pound steak.

And this is where you are wrong (not about basic math and writing). It isn't a week or two of creationism being taught. The creationist proponents want it on equal footing as real science and given equal time. This isn't just a "Oh and there's others that believe that a designer made everything..." paragraph in a text book. It's not a blurb, it's all the time they want it taught.

Again, I just doesn't see this as a realistic fear and even if someone spent a few weeks talking to my son about creationism in his middle grades, I'd enjoy the parent-son discussions with him about it (and the pros of evolution).

Again, it's not a few weeks talking about it, it's every freaking day until they graduate high school. This isn't like the sex ed portion of science class where they talk about it for a few weeks, show a film and then move on.

Again, have you been to a public school? I'm pretty sure the last thing on a public teacher's mind is whether their 12-year old students grasp the difference between creationism and evolution. Middle school science class is basically field trips, looking at frogs and understanding which planets come first. Even if a week of creationism were taught (which would be "crucified" in the current public education climate), I think I'd be OK with them taking a week off the stringent scientific syllabus in 5th grade science.

I am a product of the public education system. From your statements about creationism in schools, you seem to have this perception that it's a small segment of an 8th grade science class. Unfortunately, this is the furthest thing from the truth. Creationists want it taught on a daily basis in every single science class through 12th grade. It's not some field trip for a day.

Besides the fact that it would violate the separation of church and state, it has ZERO business being in a science class. If there is some sort of cultural development class that discusses as many different world views of how we got here, go for it, but don't try and pass it off as an actual legitimate science and try and teach it in science class.

It isn't the teachers that want this, it is elected school board officials that are (99% of the time) christians that try and get it ramrodded into schools. Dover vs Kitzmiller is one of the best examples I can reference.

Public schools have enough problems as it is and throwing in this creationist garbage would be nothing but a disservice to the kids as it is NOT trying to teach critical thinking, but, trying to inject christianity into science classes.

Has it reached some sort of critical level where parents need to start worrying that their kids are being dumbed down by creationist bovine scatos? No, but, it is picking up steam and I blame elected school board officials and legislators that have an agenda to get christianity into public schools. I think the teachers have done an amazing job in fighting back against the creationists and I hope they keep on fighting. It shows me that they care about our kids and our kids' education.

[JediKooter]

As an agnostic, atheists piss me off.

I guess that's better than being pissed on. :)

[CamEdwards]

This thread clearly needs more insults and perhaps some dog on cat on neighbor violence thrown in for good measure.

[dwardzala]

I'll jump in here. I don't usually post in these religious argument threads but I will put this out for people to ponder as far as evidence of intelligent design (existence of a god):

The Universe.

Think about it from a scientific perspective - the universe if governed by the laws of physics, some of which we understand very well (e.g. gravity) and others which we don't (e.g. string theory?, big bang?).

Where did these laws come from? I posit, that an intellegent being developed them, much the same way a systems engineers specifies a complex system.

The argument between creationism and Darwinism goes away - Darwinism is the method that the "creator" used to create life.

The Big Bang theory is basically the initial events of the creation of the universe which were set in motion by a "creator".

Aethists tend to point to the laws of physics, evolution as evidence that there is no god, where I point to them and say, some higher being must have thought these things up.

Of course I have as much proof as everyone else does.

[Arles]

Regardless if it's the after death question or making the lame walk again, 'god did it' solves nothing other than give people warm fuzzy happy feelings. It doesn't solve a thing other than piece of mind maybe.
And this is a horrible thing to you, for some reason? When dealing with complex concepts above our current level of understanding, why not have a way to explain that gives piece of mind? Again, when there is a more plausible way to explain it, that can be provided as an alternative. For now, this seems harmless.

I do not disagree with that. However, it is the ones who believe in god that have cried the loudest against it.

I don't agree with that argument either. However strong that cultural/family claim is, it is wrong.
The argue the issue with them on the merits of contract law, equal protection and explain why same-sex households are just as strong as dual-sex. None of this involves slamming someone's religious beliefs. This would be like me taking a math class from a teacher who said that triangles have 4 sides. And, instead of convincing me that the triangle has 3 sides, you bash the professor for an hour.

That is a list of states in the 21st century (within the last year) trying to get creationism in public schools science classes. The 21st century for crying out loud. :banghead:

It should worry you more than that. Yes, a lot of public schools are lacking in math, reading and writing, no argument here. Unfortunately, it is not a critical thinking exercise that the creationism proponents are trying to inject into public schools.

And this is where you are wrong (not about basic math and writing). It isn't a week or two of creationism being taught. The creationist proponents want it on equal footing as real science and given equal time. This isn't just a "Oh and there's others that believe that a designer made everything..." paragraph in a text book. It's not a blurb, it's all the time they want it taught.
Again, please cite examples where this actually happens. I'm sure there are groups that want no churches within a city mile of public schools or desire that kids wear Wicca robes to school. That doesn't mean I am going to spend all my time railing on them as they are irrelevant. The sect of society that wants daily creationism classes is irrelevant and has no impact on the public school curriculum.

Besides critical thinking and the church sounds like a oxymoron to me.
This isn't the 1600s where the church sets our education system. You need to realize that we're in the 21st century (as you cite above) and the Vatican isn't going to be rounding up scientists and burning them at the stake. Church worship is completely independent of what is taught at public schools and universities and it's been that way for a while.

I am a product of the public education system. From your statements about creationism in schools, you seem to have this perception that it's a small segment of an 8th grade science class. Unfortunately, this is the furthest thing from the truth. Creationists want it taught on a daily basis in every single science class through 12th grade. It's not some field trip for a day.
But how often does this really happen and how many people feel this way? It seems like you are building up this creationism strawman in a way that makes it seem like every Christian wants 4 hours of Creationism taught each day at school. 75% of religious people probably don't even know what Creationism means, let alone are lobbying their state government to add a class on it.

It isn't the teachers that want this, it is elected school board officials that are (99% of the time) christians that try and get it ramrodded into schools. Dover vs Kitzmiller is one of the best examples I can reference.
It's a crackup that this is your best example. For those that don't know, a few years ago, a few idiots in a Pennsylvania school district got upset because evolution was taught in biology but not intelligent design. Here's what happened, the case went to federal court and the court stated that teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because intelligent design is not science. Then, six months later, none of the members of the school board who voted for the intelligent design policy were re-elected, and a new school board, which rejected the policy, took office.

Yeah, sounds like a massive movement sweeping the nation.

Has it reached some sort of critical level where parents need to start worrying that their kids are being dumbed down by creationist bovine scatos? No
And it never will. The ACLU would be against it, most of public education would be against it, most Christians wouldn't care either way and many churches would probably not want it. A small, fringe minority would be the only proponents. And, like in the above case you cited, the courts would strike it down and that fringe would probably be removed from their positions of power.

I think the teachers have done an amazing job in fighting back against the creationists and I hope they keep on fighting. It shows me that they care about our kids and our kids' education.
I'll join the fight against this terrible enemy. I think there's a guy in Southern Montana writing a petition for intelligent design right now - let's go get him!

[CamEdwards]

I do think it should be noted that once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et. as opposed to the belief in a deity or deities.

[AENeuman]

I only demand proof from those who think their religious beliefs entitle them to force others to abide by their religious dogma.

Would you also say:I only demand proof from those who think their political beliefs entitle them to force others to abide by their political dogma.

I assume you are being forced to abide by others political beliefs, it's just you happen to agree with liberty, capitalism, democracy...

[molson]

Dola: I do think it should be noted that once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et. as opposed to the belief in a deity or deities.

The atheists always take it in that direction. I'm not sure if it's whether they just can't comprehend this concept that spirtuality and beliefs in the possibility of god goes beyond the established man-made religions, or if they're just so defensive against religion that they attack it even when it's not part of the discussion.

[Arles]

It's the easiest strawman for them to create: "All these religious nuts want us to throw out reading and writing so we can teach intelligent design 8 hours a day. We have to stop this before it's too late!"

The reality is that very few people care about intelligent design being taught and of those that do, even fewer are willing to push it onto others. It's as realistic a fear as the spaghetti monster appearing in a public school classroom and handing out copies of the Bible. But, without something like this to latch on to, there's little religious impact in public schools for opponents to drum up outrage about.

[Passacaglia]

This thread clearly needs more insults and perhaps some dog on cat on neighbor violence thrown in for good measure.

Plus we need the long-awaited grudge match between wade's cat and LS's dog.

[sabotai]

I do think it should be noted that once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et. as opposed to the belief in a deity or deities.

The atheists always take it in that direction. I'm not sure if it's whether they just can't comprehend this concept that spirtuality and beliefs in the possibility of god goes beyond the established man-made religions, or if they're just so defensive against religion that they attack it even when it's not part of the discussion.

It's the easiest strawman for them to create: "All these religious nuts want us to throw out reading and writing so we can teach intelligent design 8 hours a day. We have to stop this before it's too late!"

You know what's funny about these three posts? If you go back and reread the last page (or the whole thread), you'll see that it was Cam who forced the thread in the direction of being about about Christians and Creationism with this post: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Atheists roll out ad campaign: "In the Beginning, Man Created God." (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2035628&postcount=82)

[Bigsmooth]

Nuns do it out of habit.

[wade moore]

Plus we need the long-awaited grudge match between wade's cat and LS's dog.

Whaoh, random..

I haven't been watching this thread and randomly clicked on it ;).

But since you mentioned it..

The dog I've had the longest (not the mean one)... LS and I were both home at our mother's house... the dog was sleeping.. the fat-ass cat (probably weighed about 15 lbs to the dog's 10) walked up, balled up its fist, and punched him in the head. The dog wakes up, looks around, and goes back to sleep.

That's the closest we've come to a dog on cat brawl in our family.

[Solecismic]

Aethists tend to point to the laws of physics, evolution as evidence that there is no god, where I point to them and say, some higher being must have thought these things up.


That's an odd assumption. I wouldn't do that.

I've seen a lot of assumptions about atheists made on this thread. I think we forget that atheism is simply a lack of faith in a supernatural solution to the "what's out there" question. You don't prove atheism. The burden is on those who propose one particular supernatural solution. Atheists don't subscribe to any one book or theory.

As such, atheists usually don't have a high degree of vested interest in one solution. Let's say that, tomorrow, someone actually proved the existence of a god of some sort. That would be terrific. Just because I have no faith it could happen doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy it if it did happen. It would be nice if there were something supernatural out there. Comforting.

Of course, he'd probably be a raging Democrat or dog owner, so I'd probably end up complaining about Him all the time.

Going back to the original topic... Yes, these campaigns annoy me because they promote stereotypes. No atheist "group" can speak for me at all. Atheism is a non-group. Personally, I'd rather not shake pointy sticks at religious people. Their faith usually does me no harm, and they are in the majority. Let them have their slogans on the money and the buses.

I will fight on creationism in a classroom, however. Creationism is not a science, and it's confusing to students to present it as a valid scientific theory.

[JediKooter]

And this is a horrible thing to you, for some reason? When dealing with complex concepts above our current level of understanding, why not have a way to explain that gives piece of mind? Again, when there is a more plausible way to explain it, that can be provided as an alternative. For now, this seems harmless.

Did I say it was horrible? No. I said, "god did it" is not an explaination other than to make people feel good. It is a cop out in my opinion. If someone wants to say, 'god did it, but, I'm still looking for the answer', I have no problems with that. The problem I have is when people stop at the 'god did it' part and don't bother trying after that.

The argue the issue with them on the merits of contract law, equal protection and explain why same-sex households are just as strong as dual-sex. None of this involves slamming someone's religious beliefs. This would be like me taking a math class from a teacher who said that triangles have 4 sides. And, instead of convincing me that the triangle has 3 sides, you bash the professor for an hour.

Well, I'm not scared to slam someone's religious beliefs when warranted. The mormon church was one of the biggest investors of the Prop 8 movement here in California, it wasn't some independent non religious organization that doesn't like gay marriage. So, bashing the professor in this instance is correct in my opinion.

Again, please cite examples where this actually happens. I'm sure there are groups that want no churches within a city mile of public schools or desire that kids wear Wicca robes to school. That doesn't mean I am going to spend all my time railing on them as they are irrelevant. The sect of society that wants daily creationism classes is irrelevant and has no impact on the public school curriculum.

I'm sure there are, however, I have seen no legislation with those proposals by those groups of people or wiccans. Big difference than the creationists.

It's relavent when it's trying to be legislated and school boards trying to implement it.

This isn't the 1600s where the church sets our education system. You need to realize that we're in the 21st century (as you cite above) and the Vatican isn't going to be rounding up scientists and burning them at the stake. Church worship is completely independent of what is taught at public schools and universities and it's been that way for a while.

I'm sure there's a few in the church that long for the 'good ol days'. However, I'm sure that's not the point either one of us is trying to make.

Not sure what church worship has to do with any of this. I didn't once mention church worship being taught in public schools or universities. I'm talking about a specific element of christianity being taught in science classes. It has evolved from, wanting creationism being taught along side evolution in science class to, anytime a part of the science curiculum may oppose what the bible says, the creationist point of view is to also be taught. Not all of those states bills have that language and not all school boards are trying to do that.

But how often does this really happen and how many people feel this way? It seems like you are building up this creationism strawman in a way that makes it seem like every Christian wants 4 hours of Creationism taught each day at school. 75% of religious people probably don't even know what Creationism means, let alone are lobbying their state government to add a class on it.

In my opinion, it's happened too many times and I think a lot of christians do feel that way, but, don't voice their feelings on it. I never once said that this is of epidemic proportions that every christian wants it taught in schools. I DID say that it is christians who do want it taught in schools. Haven't read or heard of any jews, muslims, or buddists trying to get anything like creationism put into public schools and if they did, I would hope that it is laughed at just as much as creationism is.

It's a crackup that this is your best example. For those that don't know, a few years ago, a few idiots in a Pennsylvania school district got upset because evolution was taught in biology but not intelligent design. Here's what happened, the case went to federal court and the court stated that teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because intelligent design is not science. Then, six months later, none of the members of the school board who voted for the intelligent design policy were re-elected, and a new school board, which rejected the policy, took office.

Why is it a crack up? I said it is one of the best examples that I can think of. The preceeding sentence said, "It isn't the teachers that want this, it is elected school board officials that are (99% of the time) christians that try and get it ramrodded into schools." It was some of the school board members that created (no pun intended) the mess in Dover AND they are christians. It is a good example of what has been attempted.

Yeah, sounds like a massive movement sweeping the nation.

I said that where?

And it never will. The ACLU would be against it, most of public education would be against it, most Christians wouldn't care either way and many churches would probably not want it. A small, fringe minority would be the only proponents. And, like in the above case you cited, the courts would strike it down and that fringe would probably be removed from their positions of power.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the part about most christians wouldn't care either way and many churches would probably not want it. I think, much like prop 8 in California, that those christians that you speak of, their ambivalence to the issue could cause an issue that affects many people in a negative way to get approved. I think many churches wouldn't mind it being in public schools and would put up no resistance to it.

I'll join the fight against this terrible enemy. I think there's a guy in Southern Montana writing a petition for intelligent design right now - let's go get him!

You forgot to disengage your sarcasm emitter.


It's the easiest strawman for them to create: "All these religious nuts want us to throw out reading and writing so we can teach intelligent design 8 hours a day. We have to stop this before it's too late!"

That's funny, never once, have I head anyone say that. Your strawman is clearly looking in a mirror.

However much you want to paint a chicken little view of what I'm trying to say, my point is, creationism has no scientific standing at all and has no place in public schools as science. Your 'whatever' attitude and your point of trying to make it seem like it's harmless, in my opinion, only helps keep people to try again and again to get it into public schools, which wastes money and time that could be better spent on improving kids' education.


I'll jump in here. I don't usually post in these religious argument threads but I will put this out for people to ponder as far as evidence of intelligent design (existence of a god):

The Universe.

Think about it from a scientific perspective - the universe if governed by the laws of physics, some of which we understand very well (e.g. gravity) and others which we don't (e.g. string theory?, big bang?).

Where did these laws come from? I posit, that an intellegent being developed them, much the same way a systems engineers specifies a complex system.

Scientific laws came from many many years of research by scientists of verifying and reverifying over and over again.

The argument between creationism and Darwinism goes away - Darwinism is the method that the "creator" used to create life.

Darwinism has nothing to do how life was created. Abiogenesis would be it. Darwinism/evolution is what happened after life appeared. But, your statement begs the question, who created the creator?

The Big Bang theory is basically the initial events of the creation of the universe which were set in motion by a "creator".

Who created the creator that you speak of? And then who created the creator that created your creator?

Aethists tend to point to the laws of physics, evolution as evidence that there is no god, where I point to them and say, some higher being must have thought these things up.

Yes, because that evidence has proven over and over that it is more and more less likely to be divine intervention causing all that we know.

Of course I have as much proof as everyone else does.

Actually, you have a lot less proof than what science has given us. All I can suggest is read. Stay away from Richard Dawkins, he'll just piss you off. Heck, stay away from any atheist writtings and stick with the stuff that scientists have put out. Yes, many scientists are atheists, but, there are scientists that do have some sort of religiousness, but, it doesn't get in the way of their research. Some it does, but, there's rogues in any career field that's out there.

However, like someone pointed out, this thread has been derailed and I'm not helping it. So, I'm out. If someone wants to start a relavent thread to the recent postings, you'll find me there.

[lordscarlet]

Plus we need the long-awaited grudge match between wade's cat and LS's dog.

Other way around, although I can see where you would get confused.

Whaoh, random..

I haven't been watching this thread and randomly clicked on it ;).

But since you mentioned it..

The dog I've had the longest (not the mean one)... LS and I were both home at our mother's house... the dog was sleeping.. the fat-ass cat (probably weighed about 15 lbs to the dog's 10) walked up, balled up its fist, and punched him in the head. The dog wakes up, looks around, and goes back to sleep.

That's the closest we've come to a dog on cat brawl in our family.

I think there's some revisionist history here. :) The cat was still young then and I do not believe he had come near his full potential. I believe the dog was a puppy as well.

I could be wrong, though.

FEAR THE WRATH

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/5/9511544_b512d123a3.jpg

[lordscarlet]

dola: the dog had been chasing the cat around the house all day, thus the punch during sleep.

[wade moore]

I should have known I'd see that picture.

[CamEdwards]

You know what's funny about these three posts? If you go back and reread the last page (or the whole thread), you'll see that it was Cam who forced the thread in the direction of being about about Christians and Creationism with this post: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Atheists roll out ad campaign: "In the Beginning, Man Created God." (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2035628&postcount=82)


That's nonsense. As early as the 35th post in this thread Tekneek was already specifically complaining about people believing the Bible.

My little tangent, btw, was based on JediKooter's use of the phrase "Christmas Christians" in an earlier post. But of course, I must be using my powerful talk show host mojo to "force" the conversation in the direction of Creationism... which is weird, since I never even mentioned Creationism in the post you cited. Guess I don't know my own strength. :)

[Passacaglia]

Other way around, although I can see where you would get confused.




I actually had no idea which was which, but decided to just take a guess, and not let facts get in the way of a good joke! :p

[sabotai]

That's nonsense. As early as the 35th post in this thread Tekneek was already specifically complaining about people believing the Bible.

After the 35th post, the thread did not devolve into a thread just about Christianity. Nor did it become a thread specifically about Christians after the several other times someone mentioned the Bible, Christianity, etc. before the post by JediKooter. "once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et." happened when you asked a bunch a questions, and people responded to you. And back and forth the two sides went until you pointed out about how "once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et."

You don't get to steer the conversation one way and then bitch about where it ends up later as if you had no part in it. Or are you going to try and pretend you've made an effort to steer the thread back to what it was a page ago before you started posting in it?

[Arles]

I think the point comes back to what is the harm in a large portion of society choosing the have religion? The response from those that feel put upon is that these religious people are constantly pushing religion on them and their kids. The two examples provided were gay marriage and creationism.

My point is that I think gay marriage is more of a cultural/family thing than a "religious people hate it/others like it" and something that should be argued on the merits of equality and substance - not used as a stick to bash over the entire group of religious people. For creationism, I think it's a red herring as I can't think of any situation in recent history where a public school was forced to teach creationism (or even chose to).

At the end of the day, I think it's as insulting for Atheist groups to make public campaigns to poke fun at religious people as it is for Catholics/Jehovah's witness/Jewish/[insert religion here] to make a public campaign that people who don't believe in God are going to hell. Both are in poor taste and do nothing to further either agenda. That was what I was trying to have come across ;)

[CamEdwards]

After the 35th post, the thread did not devolve into a thread just about Christianity. Nor did it become a thread specifically about Christians after the several other times someone mentioned the Bible, Christianity, etc. before the post by JediKooter. "once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et." happened when you asked a bunch a questions, and people responded to you. And back and forth the two sides went until you pointed out about how "once again the argument has turned into a thread about christians, creationists, et."

You don't get to steer the conversation one way and then bitch about where it ends up later as if you had no part in it. Or are you going to try and pretend you've made an effort to steer the thread back to what it was a page ago before you started posting in it?

I wasn't bitching, I was making an observation... an observation, strangely enough, about where the topic was veering off into anti-Christian arguments rather than arguments about atheism. I suppose you can think that somehow my ignoring it would have somehow changed the course of the thread, but I really think you're crediting me with far too much influence.

[dwardzala]

Scientific laws came from many many years of research by scientists of verifying and reverifying over and over again.

Acutally, the understanding of scientific laws came from many years of research by scientists. Gravity existed before Newton formulated the mathematical expression (the law - if you will) explaining it.


Darwinism has nothing to do how life was created. Abiogenesis would be it. Darwinism/evolution is what happened after life appeared. But, your statement begs the question, who created the creator?

A bit of symantics here, but yes technically life was created by abiogenesis and the abundance of species propogated by the theory of evolution. These mechanisms could still have been "engineered" by higher being.



Who created the creator that you speak of? And then who created the creator that created your creator?

Given that I do not have any idea what type of intelligence created the universe, I cannot answer the question - it may be a type of intelligence that just exists and does not need to be created. A great question to spend a lifetime pondering if you are a philosopher.

Yes, because that evidence has proven over and over that it is more and more less likely to be divine intervention causing all that we know.

You are making a bit of an assumption of the theory I am proposing - I am not talking about divine intervention in the daily lives of mankind. I am talking about an intelligent "being" who "engineered" (for lack of a better term) the universe.

Actually, you have a lot less proof than what science has given us. All I can suggest is read. Stay away from Richard Dawkins, he'll just piss you off. Heck, stay away from any atheist writtings and stick with the stuff that scientists have put out. Yes, many scientists are atheists, but, there are scientists that do have some sort of religiousness, but, it doesn't get in the way of their research. Some it does, but, there's rogues in any career field that's out there.[/QUOTE}

You're asserting that science and a belief in intelligent design are mutually exclusive. I am asserting that science is the method by which the intellegence created the universe. All good scientists focus on the facts and data which their research reveals.

[QUOTEHowever, like someone pointed out, this thread has been derailed and I'm not helping it. So, I'm out. If someone wants to start a relavent thread to the recent postings, you'll find me there.

That's unfortunate, because civil discussions between dissenting views lead to broader minds. Its how I got to the belief system I have.

[dwardzala]

That's an odd assumption. I wouldn't do that.

I've seen a lot of assumptions about atheists made on this thread. I think we forget that atheism is simply a lack of faith in a supernatural solution to the "what's out there" question. You don't prove atheism. The burden is on those who propose one particular supernatural solution. Atheists don't subscribe to any one book or theory.

As such, atheists usually don't have a high degree of vested interest in one solution. Let's say that, tomorrow, someone actually proved the existence of a god of some sort. That would be terrific. Just because I have no faith it could happen doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy it if it did happen. It would be nice if there were something supernatural out there. Comforting.

Of course, he'd probably be a raging Democrat or dog owner, so I'd probably end up complaining about Him all the time.

Going back to the original topic... Yes, these campaigns annoy me because they promote stereotypes. No atheist "group" can speak for me at all. Atheism is a non-group. Personally, I'd rather not shake pointy sticks at religious people. Their faith usually does me no harm, and they are in the majority. Let them have their slogans on the money and the buses.

I will fight on creationism in a classroom, however. Creationism is not a science, and it's confusing to students to present it as a valid scientific theory.

Good point about the assumptions.

I also think that this is funny that it is occurring in Bloomington, IN which is most liberal town in the state of Indiana.

I will not say I am a proponent of teaching creationism in the classroom as scientific fact, but I will say that giving students alternative viewpoints on controversial topics and letting them reason out their own beliefs system is very beneficial. Of course, not everyone agrees with this course, which is one of the fundamental problems with our educational system - not everything can be packaged into an neat little box marked (A) (B) (C) or (D).

[KWhit]

A few people have asked the question "What's the harm if some people have religion?"

It's the little things that our government does embracing religion (combined with the not so little things) that bother me.

Stuff like this, for instance. Praying for rain?

Not only is it a waste of the Governor's time and taxpayer money (IMO, since I really don't think rain is caused by people praying for it), but it sends a terrible message regarding science. "Just pray it away."


Perdue asks crowd to 'pray up a storm' | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/11/13/rainprayer_1114.html)

Perdue asks crowd to 'pray up a storm'

Drought is message from God to conserve better, governor says

Gov. Sonny Perdue wasn't the least bit discouraged Tuesday after his hourlong state Capitol prayer vigil for rain ended with the sun shining through what had been a somewhat cloudy morning.

"God can make it rain tomorrow, he can make it rain next week or next month," Perdue told reporters who asked him if a miracle was on the way.

"We come here very reverently and respectfully to pray up a storm," Perdue told those in attendance.

About a dozen TV cameras representing local and national stations and more than a dozen print reporters and photographers captured the ceremony. At one point a TV helicopter threatened to drown out much of the sound.

The Rev. Gil Watson, pastor of Northside United Methodist Church, urged those in attendance to "pray believing we should have all brought umbrellas.

"We have not been good stewards of our land. We have not been good stewards of our water," he said. "Lord, have mercy on your people, have mercy on us and grant us rain. Oh God, let rain fall on this land of Georgia."

There were none of the dramatics of 1986, when then-Gov. Joe Frank Harris remembers that drops started falling right after a prayer service held in hopes of quenching that era's historic drought.

But the National Weather Service said there was a fair chance that some light rain might fall in North Georgia on Wednesday.

"We're not going to break any drought," said meteorologist Robert Beasley. "But it's better than nothing."

Twenty-two protesters were forced to stay more than a block away, out of earshot and out of sight of the prayer service, on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. They were members of the Atlanta Freethought Society. Signs include "Hail Priest-King Perdue" or "Pray on the Church Steps, not the Capitol Steps."

A few minutes before the service a man police later identified as Robert D. Rothlisberger Jr., 44, of Clarkston, was arrested in front of Central Presbyterian Church, across the street from the Capitol.

Police pulled a small sign from his hands which on one side read "Ten Commandments" and the other side "H.R. 536." The latter was a reference to a measure before the state Legislature that would declare human life to begin at the moment of conception. He was later released by Capitol police after being given a trespassing warning.

Perdue said after the event that Georgians have not done "all we could do in conservation" and that the drought was an attempt by God to "get our attention."

"Hopefully we will be better conservators of the blessings God's given us as he gives us more [rain]," the governor said.

[miked]

Oddly enough, he's been quiet all year and we've had good rainfall. Good riddance to that idiot.

[panerd]

I happen to agree with the atheist side of things but I really think a lot of atheists go about it the wrong way...

What seems to usually happen : "Well I can't prove there isn't a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster either" All this does to a believer is give them the impression that they are a zero IQ and are complete retard douche-bags. You will never win over one believer by starting out implying they are an idiot and you are superior.

The topic that should be discussed after the first part(Richard Dawkins): "Well, what if I’m wrong? I mean, anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot. You happen to have been brought up, I presume, in a Christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim.

You’re not a Hindu. Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not India. If you were brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu.

If you were brought up in Denmark during the time of the Vikings, you would’ve believed in Woton and Thor.

If you were brought up in classical Greece, you’d believed in Zeus.

If you’d been brought up in Central Africa, you’d be believing in the great JuJu up the mountain.

There is no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god which in the sheerest accident you happened to have been brought up under and ask me to question ‘what if I’m wrong’.

What if you’re wrong about the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea?"

The part after the pink unicorn stuff is not offensive at all, just makes you think really deeply about what you believe. A lot of people believed(believe) in all of these things. It isn't mocking them with something that never had anyone believing it. (Like a pink unicorn) Unfortunately any non-believer has given up by sentence three.

[dubb93]

I will not say I am a proponent of teaching creationism in the classroom as scientific fact, but I will say that giving students alternative viewpoints on controversial topics and letting them reason out their own beliefs system is very beneficial.

I am not saying this to be a smart ass but more because I am very curious. I was not under the impression that there was a debate in the scientific community about creationism being a science and/or having any scientific basis at all. I would be very interested in being pointed towards material that is peer reviewed by the scientific community that points towards this being a debate or suggests that creationism is a science.

[RedKingGold]

A few people have asked the question "What's the harm if some people have religion?"

It's the little things that our government does embracing religion (combined with the not so little things) that bother me.

Stuff like this, for instance. Praying for rain?

Not only is it a waste of the Governor's time and taxpayer money (IMO, since I really don't think rain is caused by people praying for it), but it sends a terrible message regarding science. "Just pray it away."

Take away religion, and politicans will just find other stupid reasons to waste taxpayer money.

Also, do things like this really "send a terrible message regarding science?" Sorry, but I think most reasonable people (including those who follow religion) aren't ready to abandon the Weather Channel to pray around a flag poll. Those who are ready to "abandon science" probably get lost on their way to election day polling places anyway.

[molson]

I happen to agree with the atheist side of things but I really think a lot of atheists go about it the wrong way...

What seems to usually happen : "Well I can't prove there isn't a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster either" All this does to a believer is give them the impression that they are a zero IQ and are complete retard douche-bags. You will never win over one believer by starting out implying they are an idiot and you are superior.

The topic that should be discussed after the first part(Richard Dawkins): "Well, what if I’m wrong? I mean, anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot. You happen to have been brought up, I presume, in a Christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim.

You’re not a Hindu. Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not India. If you were brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu.

If you were brought up in Denmark during the time of the Vikings, you would’ve believed in Woton and Thor.

If you were brought up in classical Greece, you’d believed in Zeus.

If you’d been brought up in Central Africa, you’d be believing in the great JuJu up the mountain.

There is no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god which in the sheerest accident you happened to have been brought up under and ask me to question ‘what if I’m wrong’.

What if you’re wrong about the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea?"

The part after the pink unicorn stuff is not offensive at all, just makes you think really deeply about what you believe. A lot of people believed(believe) in all of these things. It isn't mocking them with something that never had anyone believing it. (Like a pink unicorn) Unfortunately any non-believer has given up by sentence three.

You make good points about approaches, but again, all the second part does is cast credibility doubts on the literal truths of particular organized religions (and I understand now, that under the correct meaning of "atheist", that's really all that's required.)

But to the extent that I can entertain the possibility of a god (which is less than affirmative belief), I would believe that all of these people, from different countries, different religions, are really all getting in touch with the very same life energy, they're all moved in similar and dramatic ways, and they're just attaching their unique culture to it and creating stories to help explain these otherwise unexplainable spiritual experiences.

I would disagree with the subset of atheism that would tell me affirmatively, that this this can't possibly have any merit whatsoever (because it can't be proven with science), and that would look down upon me for entertaining the possibility.

[Solecismic]

You make good points about approaches, but again, all the second part does is cast credibility doubts on the literal truths of particular organized religions (and I understand now, that under the correct meaning of "atheist", that's really all that's required.)

I would disagree with the subset of atheism that would tell me affirmatively, that this this can't possibly have any merit whatsoever (because it can't be proven with science), and that would look down upon me for entertaining the possibility.

Why does atheism need to be defined? It's not like there's an anti-pope in anti-Rome issuing position papers.

I consider myself an atheist because I have no faith in supernatural explanations for various events I don't necessarily understand. I refuse to ascribe to any belief system, and reserve the right to challenge any person's views and interpretations.

This is a very different paradigm than religion. And it gives me a viewpoint that some religious people may find offensive. Or others, for that matter. For example, while I certainly would agree that climate change deserves extensive study, I see many similarities between religion and the current practice of Global Warming.

I would never tell anyone that their beliefs have no merit. However, I do think people need to understand the difference between faith and science. And I'm not limiting that criticism to religion alone.

[SCgoatman]

I'm going to not post any religious opinions in this thread, cuz, well, I've learned my lesson.

But wouldn't it be nice if Jim spent that time he spent on this thread on TCY2?

[molson]

I refuse to ascribe to any belief system, and reserve the right to challenge any person's views and interpretations.



I would never tell anyone that their beliefs have no merit.


Not sure how those things are consistent. Look at this thread - aren't atheists all about telling others that their beliefs have no merit? They're just "reserving the right to challenge any person's views", after all.

I know atheists (and religious people) would see a distinction there. And they something like, "Hey, I'm just telling you why I don't believe that". But that's not what they're doing, not at the core. You can see the dismissive tone. And what atheists don't understand is that unlike what you say later in the post, many non-atheists DO understand the difference between faith and science. So how do you expect to change their faith (or in my case, less-firm speculation about a complete unknown) with science? You can't. They're two different things.



However, I do think people need to understand the difference between faith and science. And I'm not limiting that criticism to religion alone.

This is the most arrogant part of atheism. You don't have to be an enlightened atheist to understand the difference between faith and science. I understand that you're not saying that all non atheists make that error. But I do think that's the main part of the superiority complex of atheists. They do see that as the main distinction, and it's just not accurate. And it's kind of snobby. And it show ignorance about what other people think.

[Passacaglia]

I'm going to not post any religious opinions in this thread, cuz, well, I've learned my lesson.

But wouldn't it be nice if Jim spent that time he spent on this thread on TCY2?

Seriously. Who the fuck does he think he is, having the gall to do something other than work on coding games of our choosing. While we're at it, I'd like all bars, restaurants, and shopping malls to be open at all times for my convenience.

[JMO]

I'm not sure if this has been said, but I heard it on one of my podcasts 2 weeks ago so it is current.

Right now in Texas, they are trying to change the science textbooks again to include creationism. This is important because if Texas chooses a textbook the other states tend to use the same one as textbook manufacturers are reluctant to make a Texas version/non Texas version.

As regards to Creationism vs Evolution in the classroom. This should be a non issue. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Unfortunately there is a minority of very well organized and well connected action in certain states who are religiously motivated to insert creationism into science classrooms.

I think part of the problem looking at this, is that most of us like to present two sides to a story. In science though there are often not two sides to the story. Evolution is the only game in town. Anything else that tries to finagle its way into textbooks with out the mountain of supporting evidence that evolution has, should be opposed.

[molson]

I'm not sure if this has been said, but I heard it on one of my podcasts 2 weeks ago so it is current.

Right now in Texas, they are trying to change the science textbooks again to include creationism. This is important because if Texas chooses a textbook the other states tend to use the same one as textbook manufacturers are reluctant to make a Texas version/non Texas version.

As regards to Creationism vs Evolution in the classroom. This should be a non issue. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Unfortunately there is a minority of very well organized and well connected action in certain states who are religiously motivated to insert creationism into science classrooms.

I think part of the problem looking at this, is that most of us like to present two sides to a story. In science though there are often not two sides to the story. Evolution is the only game in town. Anything else that tries to finagle its way into textbooks with out the mountain of supporting evidence that evolution has, should be opposed.

There's more ways to look at the world than atheism and creationism.

I'm not sure what your point is - that those who aren't atheist are "wrong" because creationism in schools is wrong? What do they have to do with each other?

There's no non-atheists here that have said that creationism should be taught in schools (a few have said the whole debate is a red herring).

[JMO]

I was just commenting on something that is happening right now as regards creationism in school. I found it interesting that one state can so effect other state's text books.

Creationism could be taught as a philopsophy I suppose but obviously not in a science class. That is indefensible.

I think the word 'creationism' is a bit misleading. My parents belive that God created the universe but they simutaneously believe in evolution. This is not what 'creationists' wgo are actively trying to discredit evoultion believe. They are attacking a scientific theory on religious grounds using arguments designed for non scientists and which have been discredited years ago. This is obviously a bad thing.

I'm not an athiest btw, I just have strong views on science being kept clear of religion and politics. I'm agnostic. My family of nine would range all thwe way from full on catholic-weak catholic-agnostic-athiest.


I guess the basic point is this. Creationism is not science. You let philosophies into a science classroom and you are going down a very dark road in terms of science education and critical thinking. But mainly I just wanted to share the info about what's happening in Texas.

There's more ways to look at the world than atheism and creationism.


I'm not sure what your point is - that those who aren't atheist are "wrong" because creationism in schools is wrong? What do they have to do with each other?

There's no non-atheists here that have said that creationism should be taught in schools (a few have said the whole debate is a red herring).

[Arles]

There are going to be small sections of a given population that make up the fringe. I would put the "creationism in schools" faction of the religious group as a similar fringe to those that support polygamy. They exist, but not in any significant number. To attack mainstream religious people because they support creationism in schools is akin to a religious person attacking atheists because they worship the devil (which only a small faction does).

Most religious people don't want creationism taught in schools and have no problem with people attempting scientific reasoning to explain creation and other unknown phenomena. They just don't want to be belittled because they choose to have "faith" (ie, believe in something that cannot be proven) in a supernatural force of some sort.

[RedKingGold]

Most religious people don't want creationism taught in schools and have no problem with people attempting scientific reasoning to explain creation and other unknown phenomena. They just don't want to be belittled because they choose to have "faith" (ie, believe in something that cannot be proven) in a supernatural force of some sort.

Bingo. Winner. Yahtzee.

[Chubby]

There are going to be small sections of a given population that make up the fringe. I would put the "creationism in schools" faction of the religious group as a similar fringe to those that support polygamy. They exist, but not in any significant number. To attack mainstream religious people because they support creationism in schools is akin to a religious person attacking atheists because they worship the devil (which only a small faction does).

Most religious people don't want creationism taught in schools and have no problem with people attempting scientific reasoning to explain creation and other unknown phenomena. They just don't want to be belittled because they choose to have "faith" (ie, believe in something that cannot be proven) in a supernatural force of some sort.

It's not unknown, it's called evolution.

[CraigSca]

While I agree evolution is the best guess we have right now regarding how things came to be. It is still a theory. I haven't see it referenced anywhere as the absolute, 100% fact.

[Solecismic]

Not sure how those things are consistent. Look at this thread - aren't atheists all about telling others that their beliefs have no merit? They're just "reserving the right to challenge any person's views", after all.

I haven't seen that. We disagree. Unless disagreement is tantamount to saying something has no merit, in which case everyone's doing that, religious or non-religious.


I know atheists (and religious people) would see a distinction there. And they something like, "Hey, I'm just telling you why I don't believe that". But that's not what they're doing, not at the core. You can see the dismissive tone.

I'm not seeing that at all. I think you're reading something into our posts that just isn't there.


And what atheists don't understand is that unlike what you say later in the post, many non-atheists DO understand the difference between faith and science. So how do you expect to change their faith (or in my case, less-firm speculation about a complete unknown) with science? You can't. They're two different things.

I don't expect or hope to challenge anyone's faith. I have seen arguments made here that confuse faith with science, but not by every religious person by any means.



This is the most arrogant part of atheism. You don't have to be an enlightened atheist to understand the difference between faith and science. I understand that you're not saying that all non atheists make that error. But I do think that's the main part of the superiority complex of atheists. They do see that as the main distinction, and it's just not accurate. And it's kind of snobby. And it show ignorance about what other people think.

That's not a part of atheism. What you're doing is taking something unpleasant one atheist said and calling it part of atheism. But atheism is not a belief set or a set of behaviors. It's simply the absence of faith.


I'm going to not post any religious opinions in this thread, cuz, well, I've learned my lesson.

But wouldn't it be nice if Jim spent that time he spent on this thread on TCY2?

I'll choose to take that as a compliment. But, seriously, ten minutes here or there isn't going to affect a project that requires thousands of man hours.

[RedKingGold]

I'd be really excited to see a Solecismic version of cleromancy. :D

[Chubby]

While I agree evolution is the best guess we have right now regarding how things came to be. It is still a theory. I haven't see it referenced anywhere as the absolute, 100% fact.

Since dinosaur bones cause a wee problem with creationism, evolution > creationism IMO

[Chubby]

I'll choose to take that as a compliment. But, seriously, ten minutes here or there isn't going to affect a project that requires thousands of man hours.

Proof there's no TCY2 in the making!!!













































i'm kidding obviously

[Galaxy]

This is an interesting thread.

I've started to go through that phase in life where you re-examine your beliefs, goals, ect.

I've always been turned off by the notion and actions of organized religion, but it is something that I starting to look into more. The problem, at least with my age, is the concept of organized religion. What does it mean exactly? What does it mean to be a "Christian"? Is it someone who goes to church every Sunday?

I think religion can be a wonderful thing if you have a great leader (priest, pastor, rabbi, ect.) who is involved with the community. It's also great if you balance faith with science.

[RendeR]

This is an interesting thread.

I've started to go through that phase in life where you re-examine your beliefs, goals, ect.

I've always been turned off by the notion and actions of organized religion, but it is something that I starting to look into more. The problem, at least with my age, is the concept of organized religion. What does it mean exactly? What does it mean to be a "Christian"? Is it someone who goes to church every Sunday?

I think religion can be a wonderful thing if you have a great leader (priest, pastor, rabbi, ect.) who is involved with the community. It's also great if you balance faith with science.


This is where I hit a brick wall with religion.

To me, you see, religion and spirituality are inside you, no one else can tell you how to act, how to believe, what to believe or how to enjoy/respect that belief.

Organizing religion by definition, for ME, destroys everything religion is. One does not NEED a leader, or guide to walk down a spiritual path and find the truth for one's self. That again IMO, is PURELY the created notion of the organizers of religion because it allows them control over the people that believe they need someone to find truth for themselves.

[JMO]

While I agree evolution is the best guess we have right now regarding how things came to be. It is still a theory. I haven't see it referenced anywhere as the absolute, 100% fact.


There is a massive difference between the scientific definition of the word theory and the general usage of the word.

generally speaking it is used as a synonym for 'idea' whereas in science 'idea' would me much closer to hypothesis.

A theory in science must contain certain criteria. They must explain and predict natural phenomena. They must be falsifiable. That it in it's most simple terms.

To become a strong theory, you must have several lines of evidence. Evolution has that in spades.

No scientific theory is technically 100% fact. This applies to all theories. When the lines of evidence are so strong however, it basically is fact. It is extremely unlikely that another theory will emerge to supplant Evolution, although it may change(it has already changed significantly since Darwin's time).

Anyway, what you said can be applied to any scientific theory. Would you say that about gravity, relativity, germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, game theory, plate tectonics, chaos theory, probability theory..the list goes on.


Another thing to remember is that theories do not become laws when they are accepted as fact. Laws and theories are different things. Laws are not more true than theories and can be proven wrong.

In short, technically in science terms there is no such thing as 'fact' or 100% true, but evolution is as close as you will get. It is a very, very strong theory with mountains of evidence it has been backed up by new fields(gene theory, germ theory) instead of discredited. In layman's terms, evolution is fact.

[JMO]

There are going to be small sections of a given population that make up the fringe. I would put the "creationism in schools" faction of the religious group as a similar fringe to those that support polygamy. They exist, but not in any significant number. To attack mainstream religious people because they support creationism in schools is akin to a religious person attacking atheists because they worship the devil (which only a small faction does).
.

Well these small sections could have a large influence because of how the school boards/textbook choice is set up. I am not attacking anyone for being religious. Most of my family are. Creationism in science classrooms though is a problem that the moderately religious should be wary of.


Most religious people don't want creationism taught in schools and have no problem with people attempting scientific reasoning to explain creation and other unknown phenomena

I'm not sure if it possible to explain creation scientifically. If the premise is "an entity created the universe' then any theory derived from that would be unable to be proven wrong. If something is not falsifiable, it is not science.

[SCgoatman]

I'll choose to take that as a compliment. But, seriously, ten minutes here or there isn't going to affect a project that requires thousands of man hours.

Merely an attempt at humor. Post away. but for no more than 10 minutes here or there.

[CraigSca]

Since dinosaur bones cause a wee problem with creationism, evolution > creationism IMO

Funny - I didn't mention creationism, you did. I was just saying it's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason, and while it's the best fit we have now, until it's absolutely proven there could be some potholes along the way.

I mean, hey, baseball purists thought pitchers had a huge say on BABIP up until a few years ago. (opens up another bag of worms)

[JMO]

I was just saying it's called the Theory of Gravity for a reason, and while it's the best fit we have now, until it's absolutely proven there could be some potholes along the way.


Makes the same amount of sense.

You see, this is the problem with science education. When someone can say 'A' is only a theory and have absolutely no idea what theory means in a scientific context, the however many years of science education they got was wasted.

edit: my science education failed me too of course..i didn't know this stuff til university on my own time and because my older sister is a scientist. She actually cut me off in the middle of 'evolution is only a ...' and educated me on the subject.


edit again. this says it better than I can in a nutshell.

This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

theory (http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html)

[JPhillips]

There are going to be small sections of a given population that make up the fringe. I would put the "creationism in schools" faction of the religious group as a similar fringe to those that support polygamy. They exist, but not in any significant number. To attack mainstream religious people because they support creationism in schools is akin to a religious person attacking atheists because they worship the devil (which only a small faction does).

Most religious people don't want creationism taught in schools and have no problem with people attempting scientific reasoning to explain creation and other unknown phenomena. They just don't want to be belittled because they choose to have "faith" (ie, believe in something that cannot be proven) in a supernatural force of some sort.

Teaching creationism isn't nearly as fringe as you might think. From a 2005 Pew Poll.

...most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula.

[Warhammer]

I'd be very intereted in seeing the demographics on that poll.

[panerd]

I'd be very intereted in seeing the demographics on that poll.

Yeah I am not really that passionite about the topic but I was going to post the same exact thing. I have no idea what the Pew Poll means but it sounds like it is getting results that I have never seen anywhere in my life before. Its gotta be some sort of religious group, right?

[JPhillips]

Pew's People and the Press polls are very well respected. It's a little old(2005), and like any poll it could be wrong, but it's the only poll I found that uses a random national sampling and specifically asks about teaching creationism.

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,000 adults, 18 years of age or older, from July 7-17, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

[Arles]

If it's that pervasive, how many public schools teach creationism? It's going to be a small number (if any). Most people don't know what Creationism is so while they may think it sounds good in a poll, they are not going to care enough to provide the battle it would take against a very secular education system to get it into classroom.

To me, this is like saying there's a portion of XM radio's audience that wouldn't mind hearing Rush Limbaugh on America Left. Even if that is 50%, there's no way it would ever happen. This just seems like a bogeyman argument when everytime you look in a closet (ie, public school), no bogeyman appears.

This is where I hit a brick wall with religion.

To me, you see, religion and spirituality are inside you, no one else can tell you how to act, how to believe, what to believe or how to enjoy/respect that belief.

Organizing religion by definition, for ME, destroys everything religion is. One does not NEED a leader, or guide to walk down a spiritual path and find the truth for one's self. That again IMO, is PURELY the created notion of the organizers of religion because it allows them control over the people that believe they need someone to find truth for themselves.
This is very well put. I consider myself a religious person and pray fairly often. But I go to church maybe 2-3 times a year, have no clue what my actual "religion" would be and enjoy discussions like this with both religious and non-religious people. The idea that you have to go to church X and follow certain church rules to be religious is something I don't buy. Religion is a personal choice that shouldn't be flaunted at others nor should it be criticized (as long as it is within reason per our laws).

I think the atheist movement is extremely interesting and I think there are some very sharp people involved with it. Still, that doesn't mean I'm going to be convinced there is no higher power because it lacks hard data. I would contend that for the events happening exactly as they would need to for a "big bang" or evolution process to get us where we are today is about as likely as the same person playing one lottery ticket 7 straight days with different numbers and winning every day. The sheer craziness of that "luck" or chance makes me think it's not all that unreasonable to have a different reason that we just aren't capable of understanding right now.

[DaddyTorgo]

I would contend that for the events happening exactly as they would need to for a "big bang" or evolution process to get us where we are today is about as likely as the same person playing one lottery ticket 7 straight days with different numbers and winning every day. The sheer craziness of that "luck" or chance makes me think it's not all that unreasonable to have a different reason that we just aren't capable of understanding right now.

but isn't that xenocentric of us to think that way? i mean how many planets are there out there in the universe - it's awfully xenocentric of us to think that the universe cares whether or not we exist versus life on some other planet existing instead of us.

we're the result of a set of fortuitous accidents that accumulated over millions of years. the universe doesn't care whether we exist versus life on some other planet, in fact it really doesn't care if life exists anywhere at all

[RainMaker]

There are going to be small sections of a given population that make up the fringe. I would put the "creationism in schools" faction of the religious group as a similar fringe to those that support polygamy. They exist, but not in any significant number. To attack mainstream religious people because they support creationism in schools is akin to a religious person attacking atheists because they worship the devil (which only a small faction does).

That's not really true though. Over half the population believes in young earth creationism. Perhaps they aren't screaming from rooftops about it, but they still believe it. Half also believe creationism and/or intelligent design should be taught in public schools. I can't fathom that polygamy would even come close to those numbers.

Let me add that this board in my mind is more intelligent than most. I think the experiences most of us have are with people who aren't the crazy folks who believe in the 6,000 year old Earth. But those people still exist in huge numbers. When I went to college, I was shocked at how many kids from rural communities just didn't believe in evolution. I bet if you went around to rural Alabama and asked around, most people would tell you they are young Earth creationists. It just seems less to us because we aren't associating with those people much.

My numbers come from a Gallup poll by the way.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

[RainMaker]

Let me add that I'm an atheist and I think these kind of ads are a bit in poor taste. I mean they have a right to do it, but I just think it's a juvenile way of poking a stick at people. If you truly want opinions to change in this country away from religion, do it through education and not antagonizing these people. It just ends up with religions demonizing atheists even more and creating a wedge between the factions.

It reminds me a bit of Pro-Life people who are more concerned with antagonizing Pro-Choice people than actually cutting down on the number of abortions in this country.

[Marc Vaughan]

Pew's People and the Press polls are very well respected. It's a little old(2005), and like any poll it could be wrong, but it's the only poll I found that uses a random national sampling and specifically asks about teaching creationism.

Do you have any idea how the questions were asked and what the preceeding questions were? - its VERY easy to bias poll results to whatever you want them to be so long as you preceed them with questions which lead people to the conclusion you want.

For example of ways to bias answers ...

Example a:
* Were you alive when 9/11 happened?
* Did you or any one you know lose loved ones on that day?
* Should America have the right to defend itself?
* Do you think it was right for America to hold suspected terrorists safely away from its people in order to be able to interrograte them efficiently?

Example b:
* Do you think Nazi concentration camps were abhorrent?
* Do you think it would be right for America to setup interrogration camps in Cuba?

In a subsequent 'news' article the story would just indicate the level of support for guantanamo bay but the reality of the approach to questioning and the likely bias built in from the questioning technique is huge.

For the 'creationist poll' for instance it could be along these lines ..

* Do you believe in freedom of speech?
* Do you believe that where there isn't a clear and obvious explanation for a situation people should be allowed to listen to all sides of an arguement?
* Should children be told about 'creationsim' in school as a possible explanation for the creation of the universe?

The likely answers to the first two questions will HUGELY increase the likelihood of a "Yes" answer to the third (going along with the wording of the question as another factor).

[Marc Vaughan]

I would contend that for the events happening exactly as they would need to for a "big bang" or evolution process to get us where we are today is about as likely as the same person playing one lottery ticket 7 straight days with different numbers and winning every day. The sheer craziness of that "luck" or chance makes me think it's not all that unreasonable to have a different reason that we just aren't capable of understanding right now.

But the thing is if you roll enough dice you WILL get that result once as they say ... "shit happens".

As a computer programmer I know this very well, given enough people using a program which involves random events and some very freaky stuff will occur and remember this only had to happen ONCE in all the likely millions of days which preceeded the universes creation.

PS - Any reason why 'God' couldn't have used the Big Bang/Evolution in his great design? .... if that makes it easier for you to swallow?

[Chubby]

That's not really true though. Over half the population believes in young earth creationism. Perhaps they aren't screaming from rooftops about it, but they still believe it. Half also believe creationism and/or intelligent design should be taught in public schools. I can't fathom that polygamy would even come close to those numbers.

Let me add that this board in my mind is more intelligent than most. I think the experiences most of us have are with people who aren't the crazy folks who believe in the 6,000 year old Earth. But those people still exist in huge numbers. When I went to college, I was shocked at how many kids from rural communities just didn't believe in evolution. I bet if you went around to rural Alabama and asked around, most people would tell you they are young Earth creationists. It just seems less to us because we aren't associating with those people much.

My numbers come from a Gallup poll by the way.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

Everyone thought the world was flat at one point too.

[JPhillips]

Do you have any idea how the questions were asked and what the preceeding questions were? - its VERY easy to bias poll results to whatever you want them to be so long as you preceed them with questions which lead people to the conclusion you want.

For example of ways to bias answers ...

Example a:
* Were you alive when 9/11 happened?
* Did you or any one you know lose loved ones on that day?
* Should America have the right to defend itself?
* Do you think it was right for America to hold suspected terrorists safely away from its people in order to be able to interrograte them efficiently?

Example b:
* Do you think Nazi concentration camps were abhorrent?
* Do you think it would be right for America to setup interrogration camps in Cuba?

In a subsequent 'news' article the story would just indicate the level of support for guantanamo bay but the reality of the approach to questioning and the likely bias built in from the questioning technique is huge.

For the 'creationist poll' for instance it could be along these lines ..

* Do you believe in freedom of speech?
* Do you believe that where there isn't a clear and obvious explanation for a situation people should be allowed to listen to all sides of an arguement?
* Should children be told about 'creationsim' in school as a possible explanation for the creation of the universe?

The likely answers to the first two questions will HUGELY increase the likelihood of a "Yes" answer to the third (going along with the wording of the question as another factor).

You can read the questions and come to your own conclusion, but they certainly don't read like push polling to me.

http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

[miked]

In Cobb county here, they got enough support to try and throw labels on science books with a big sticker that says "evolution is just a theory". I think Arles and others under represent the sheer amount of people who would be ok with throwing creationism in a science class.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think we should round all those people up and put them in "reeducation camps"

*i'm only 95% kidding*

[lordscarlet]

I actually had no idea which was which, but decided to just take a guess, and not let facts get in the way of a good joke! :p

Solid decision. Just blame me for stepping all over the joke. ;)

[kenparker23]

On the topic of talking religion, I thought this was a nice video of an atheist (Penn from Penn and Teller) discussing getting a gift of a bible. There are obviously many ways to discuss/debate religion, and I think the guy Penn met did it the right way.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7JHS8adO3hM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7JHS8adO3hM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Marc Vaughan]

On the topic of talking religion, I thought this was a nice video of an atheist (Penn from Penn and Teller) discussing getting a gift of a bible. There are obviously many ways to discuss/debate religion, and I think the guy Penn met did it the right way.

Very cool video - thanks for posting that.

[RainMaker]

In a weird way I almost have more respect for the serious religious types. The ones that go on missions throughout the world or strictly follow their beliefs. Hasidic Jews and Opus Dei types.

If you truly believe in an eternal afterlife, why would you ever risk it with being stupid? Those people who call themselves Christians yet cheat on their wives, steal money from others, and so on can't really believe deep down inside in this stuff. I mean if God came to you one morning and said you can spend eternity in heaven and it's great as long as you don't drink a Pepsi the rest of your life. There is absolutely nothing that could get me to drink one.

[KWhit]

In a weird way I almost have more respect for the serious religious types. The ones that go on missions throughout the world or strictly follow their beliefs. Hasidic Jews and Opus Dei types.

If you truly believe in an eternal afterlife, why would you ever risk it with being stupid? Those people who call themselves Christians yet cheat on their wives, steal money from others, and so on can't really believe deep down inside in this stuff. I mean if God came to you one morning and said you can spend eternity in heaven and it's great as long as you don't drink a Pepsi the rest of your life. There is absolutely nothing that could get me to drink one.

The standard theory for many people is that you can cheat on your wife or steal money or whatever as long as you have "accepted Jesus as your savior." That is the key component to going to heaven. Now, some people will tell you that if you have really accepted Jesus, you wouldn't be doing those things, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that once they are "saved" they're golden as long as they still believe and pray occasionally, etc.

[RainMaker]

The standard theory for many people is that you can cheat on your wife or steal money or whatever as long as you have "accepted Jesus as your savior." That is the key component to going to heaven. Now, some people will tell you that if you have really accepted Jesus, you wouldn't be doing those things, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that once they are "saved" they're golden as long as they still believe and pray occasionally, etc.

But why even risk it? Why take that chance? We're talking about heaven vs eternal damnation in hell.

[DaddyTorgo]

do you know how hot it is in hell? the parties are much better - the girls are wearin almost nothing at all...

[Passacaglia]

do you know how hot it is in hell? the parties are much better - the girls are wearin almost nothing at all...

Sure, but they're all from Ohio.

[DaddyTorgo]

Sure, but they're all from Ohio.

:eek: :eek: :eek:
:crazy::crazy::crazy:
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[RedKingGold]

The standard theory for many people is that you can cheat on your wife or steal money or whatever as long as you have "accepted Jesus as your savior." That is the key component to going to heaven. Now, some people will tell you that if you have really accepted Jesus, you wouldn't be doing those things, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that once they are "saved" they're golden as long as they still believe and pray occasionally, etc.

My, you speak as if you have some authority over the topic.

[revrew]

The standard theory for many people is that you can cheat on your wife or steal money or whatever as long as you have "accepted Jesus as your savior." That is the key component to going to heaven. Now, some people will tell you that if you have really accepted Jesus, you wouldn't be doing those things, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that once they are "saved" they're golden as long as they still believe and pray occasionally, etc.

Any "Christian" who is not ashamed of his sin ... is ashamed of his religion.

That's a revrew quote, and you can use it. I have always said that the greatest detractor to Christ's mission is those who only take it up halfway. Oh, hey, that's another quote you can use.

[JPhillips]

Any "Christian" who is not ashamed of his sin ... is ashamed of his religion.

That's a revrew quote, and you can use it. I have always said that the greatest detractor to Christ's mission is those who only take it up halfway. Oh, hey, that's another quote you can use.

I'm with you on the first. The second, though, is a lot more difficult to come to terms with. I'm of the belief that almost all Christians only take up Christ's mission halfway. How do you handle his radical pacifism and instruction to leave your family? I struggle with those two ideals as much as anything in the Bible.

[revrew]

I'm with you on the first. The second, though, is a lot more difficult to come to terms with. I'm of the belief that almost all Christians only take up Christ's mission halfway. How do you handle his radical pacifism and instruction to leave your family? I struggle with those two ideals as much as anything in the Bible.

Okay, admittedly, you caught me trying to be a little clever. By "half way" I meant "half-heartedly," or more accurately, those who take it up in form and language but without the substance.

As for specific teachings of Jesus, like all biblical passages, there are contextual clues and rules for proper interpretation that many miss completely, causing great confusion and misinterpretation. If you have specific questions about specific teachings, PM me. I'm not sure if this thread is the place for that.

[KWhit]

My, you speak as if you have some authority over the topic.

Nah. I don't believe any of it at all.

[KWhit]

Any "Christian" who is not ashamed of his sin ... is ashamed of his religion.

That's a revrew quote, and you can use it. I have always said that the greatest detractor to Christ's mission is those who only take it up halfway. Oh, hey, that's another quote you can use.

Well, you can be ashamed of something and still do it. People are able to do that every day. The question wasn't about if people were ashamed of acting that way, it was about whether they were still saved and assured of making it into heaven. And most modern Christians believe that they are - even if the cheat on their wives, say "God Damn," fantasize about the neighbor's wife, work on a Sunday, shoplift a pack of chewing gum, eat shellfish, cut their hair, have sex with their wife on her period, or break any one of the other hundred-or-so rules in the bible.

[Mac Howard]

On the topic of talking religion, I thought this was a nice video of an atheist (Penn from Penn and Teller) discussing getting a gift of a bible. There are obviously many ways to discuss/debate religion, and I think the guy Penn met did it the right way.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7JHS8adO3hM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7JHS8adO3hM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I simply don't buy this at all. The guy he met might be unusual but the motive behind proselytising is far more complex than simple altruism. How many of those who consider themselves religious believe that the atheists' advert that began this thread was motivated by a simple wish to save them from a life of delusion and futile prayer?

The proselytising motive also has significant elements of condescension - as in the missionary bringing Jesus to the ignorant savage - lack of respect for the other's belief system, a wish to have their own beliefs confirmed by the conversion of an unbeliever, an attempt to begin a debate or argument. I suspect there is other psychological stuff in there also.

If, next Sunday, I went down to the local church and handed out copies of The God Delusion to the congregation as they left, I suspect, while some might politely turn me down, others would be (justifiably) insulted.

[RedKingGold]

Nah. I don't believe any of it at all.

Well, you can be ashamed of something and still do it. People are able to do that every day. The question wasn't about if people were ashamed of acting that way, it was about whether they were still saved and assured of making it into heaven. And most modern Christians believe that they are - even if the cheat on their wives, say "God Damn," fantasize about the neighbor's wife, work on a Sunday, shoplift a pack of chewing gum, eat shellfish, cut their hair, have sex with their wife on her period, or break any one of the other hundred-or-so rules in the bible.

If you don't believe in it, then how do you know what most modern Christians think?

[KWhit]

If you don't believe in it, then how do you know what most modern Christians think?

Do you disagree?

Do you think that most Christians think they will go to Hell if they commit a sin? I thought that the basic teaching is that everyone sins and you are saved from your sin as long as you accept JC as your savior? How is that a controversial statement at all?

[revrew]

I simply don't buy this at all. The guy he met might be unusual but the motive behind proselytising is far more complex than simple altruism. How many of those who consider themselves religious believe that the atheists' advert that began this thread was motivated by a simple wish to save them from a life of delusion and futile prayer?

The proselytising motive also has significant elements of condescension - as in the missionary bringing Jesus to the ignorant savage - lack of respect for the other's belief system, a wish to have their own beliefs confirmed by the conversion of an unbeliever, an attempt to begin a debate or argument. I suspect there is other psychological stuff in there also.

If, next Sunday, I went down to the local church and handed out copies of The God Delusion to the congregation as they left, I suspect, while some might politely turn me down, others would be (justifiably) insulted.

I simply don't buy this at all. I thought Penn's perspective was one of the most understanding and well-reasoned reactions I've ever seen. If only more atheists could drop the bitterness, condescension and anger long enough (I said "more", not to imply that ALL have this, or even MOST, just "more") to recognize why Christians act they way they do...(and, along the same lines, if only more Christians could be as sincere and respectful as the man Penn describes)

As for the "psychological" reasons you propose behind proselytizing, I just have to wonder ... what "Christians" have you been hanging out with? It's the same question I wonder about most people who seem so insistent on deriding and sneering at people of faith. How broad is your exposure to Christianity? I understand that if Jerry Falwell and a history book were your only exposure, or a childhood church where you got burned...but these sweeping statements I keep reading on this board about "Christians are like this; the only reason they do that, etc." just smack of the same kind of stuff we used to heard from Archie Bunker about blacks, Jews, Italians, etc. Pure stereotype and prejudice. I am consistently, earnestly offended by many comments made on this board about "them Bible-thumping filthy Christ-lovers" (okay, I exaggerate the language, but not really the tone).

And for the record, I would welcome Dawkins disciples to walk up to me, hand me his book, and start an honest discussion. In fact, I wish they would. I don't buy this "you keep your beliefs to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself" ethic. I welcome a free flow of discussion (though in person is always better than on a message board), and in my circles (which are MUCH, MUCH larger withing Christianity than I have ever let on on this board...the anonymity of the "revrew" moniker shields me from revealing more about the people I work with every day)...your description of what Christians are like and why they do what they do...is just WAY off.

[RainMaker]

I simply don't buy this at all. I thought Penn's perspective was one of the most understanding and well-reasoned reactions I've ever seen. If only more atheists could drop the bitterness, condescension and anger long enough (I said "more", not to imply that ALL have this, or even MOST, just "more") to recognize why Christians act they way they do...(and, along the same lines, if only more Christians could be as sincere and respectful as the man Penn describes)
I think the condescension and anger comes from the fact that many Christians want to tell Atheists and others how to run their lives. They want to tell them what they can watch on TV, what they can do with their money, and what they can do in their own homes. They want to decide who you can love, how you can express it, and more. They want to mix folklore into real science.

I think that is where the anger and conescension comes from. Christians want more control over the lives of people while atheists believe more in just leaving each other alone.

Now that doesn't encompass all Christians by any means. Many leave well enough alone. But there are many Christian run groups and government figures that push their agenda on others and is the cause for anger and condescension.

I think what Penn was saying is that this guy didn't try and force a law down his throat. He didn't picket and scream at him for his beliefs. He didn't demand he change his ways. He simply shared his beliefs, explained why, and left well enough alone.

[molson]

I think the condescension and anger comes from the fact that many Christians want to tell Atheists and others how to run their lives. They want to tell them what they can watch on TV, what they can do with their money, and what they can do in their own homes. They want to decide who you can love, how you can express it, and more. They want to mix folklore into real science.

I think that is where the anger and conescension comes from. Christians want more control over the lives of people while atheists believe more in just leaving each other alone.

Now that doesn't encompass all Christians by any means. Many leave well enough alone. But there are many Christian run groups and government figures that push their agenda on others and is the cause for anger and condescension.

I think what Penn was saying is that this guy didn't try and force a law down his throat. He didn't picket and scream at him for his beliefs. He didn't demand he change his ways. He simply shared his beliefs, explained why, and left well enough alone.

That probably does explain the reaction of atheists, but bigotry really can't be "excused" just because of the failings of some of the group that the bigots hate. That wouldn't be an excuse for any other kind of bigotry. Why is it OK with religion?

Wouldn't it be a better approach, like it is with any other kind of bigotry, to instead express respect to the other group? Maybe even highlight the positive contributions of that group? Will continued hate really damper the views of the religious? Is that the goal? If not, what's the goal of speaking out and hating?

[RendeR]

That probably does explain the reaction of atheists, but bigotry really can't be "excused" just because of the failings of some of the group that the bigots hate. That wouldn't be an excuse for any other kind of bigotry. Why is it OK with religion?

Wouldn't it be a better approach, like it is with any other kind of bigotry, to instead express respect to the other group? Maybe even highlight the positive contributions of that group? Will continued hate really damper the views of the religious? Is that the goal? If not, what's the goal of speaking out and hating?


This falls back on the religious groups inability/unwillingness to do the same. Religions , in general, promote the fact that "god" tells them to go out and convert the masses. And even if the strict rule of thumb for any given religion DOESn't do this, the ministers/preachers/organization DOES.

The bigotry you describe towards religion is just as bad and sometimes worse coming FROM the religious. The aforementioned rules and regulations and limitations imposed on all of society based for the largest part on religious belief. The "you'll burn in hell" diatribes aren't the exceptions, their the standard.

When you want to talk about bigotry concerning religion, at least in the USA, you have to take as much as you give because in this country the religious right is just as loud and insulting and militant as any of those that disagree with them.

[RainMaker]

That probably does explain the reaction of atheists, but bigotry really can't be "excused" just because of the failings of some of the group that the bigots hate. That wouldn't be an excuse for any other kind of bigotry. Why is it OK with religion?

Wouldn't it be a better approach, like it is with any other kind of bigotry, to instead express respect to the other group? Maybe even highlight the positive contributions of that group? Will continued hate really damper the views of the religious? Is that the goal? If not, what's the goal of speaking out and hating?

There definitely should be respect for both sides. But I still think the major issue and wedge between the sides is that one side wants to tell the others how they can run their lives. Yes there are bigots on the atheist side, but they aren't actively trying to create laws to either opress or regulate the lives of the other side.

[molson]

This falls back on the religious groups inability/unwillingness to do the same. Religions , in general, promote the fact that "god" tells them to go out and convert the masses. And even if the strict rule of thumb for any given religion DOESn't do this, the ministers/preachers/organization DOES.

The bigotry you describe towards religion is just as bad and sometimes worse coming FROM the religious. The aforementioned rules and regulations and limitations imposed on all of society based for the largest part on religious belief. The "you'll burn in hell" diatribes aren't the exceptions, their the standard.

When you want to talk about bigotry concerning religion, at least in the USA, you have to take as much as you give because in this country the religious right is just as loud and insulting and militant as any of those that disagree with them.

That's exactly my point.

Bigots all preceive that the other side is "worse", and that's how they justify their bigotry. It's easy to be prejudiced towards a race or gays or a certain occupation if you think they're horrible. That's the whole basis of it. This is exactly the same.

All I'm saying though, is that outspoken atheists should figure out what they're trying to accomplish and the determine whether they're going about it the best way. It's human nature to lash out and hate (I do it all the time), but its not necessarily the most productive ends to whatever goal you're shooting for.

[molson]

. Yes there are bigots on the atheist side, but they aren't actively trying to create laws to either opress or regulate the lives of the other side.

They're definitely trying to limit religion's influence on culture and politics.

And while a government can't establish religion, there's an always-moving line of dicussion about how religious an elected statesman can/should be. Everybody has a different opinion about that, about how far the establishment clause goes. And those battles are fought culturally, and in the voting booth. Atheists are fighting for their opinions, just like the religious are fighting for theirs. Both are trying to silence the other side. They just have different tools.

It's a common line to say, "I don't care what religious people do, I just don't want them to impact me". Which is basically saying, "I don't want religious people participating in politics, or at the very least, they have to leave their faith at the door". That, to a religious person, feels very similar to how atheists feel when they think is religion being shoved down their throats.

Atheists of course, would perfer ZERO reference to or influence from religion ANYWHERE in politics and government. That's a valid opinion, but it's just an opinon. It's not the only one, and it's not the only consitutional one. And it's an opinion that "suppresses" religious people, and their ability to partciapte in a democratic government. Which is totally fine, that's a valid political strategy. But that's all the religious are trying to do also.

[Arles]

I think molson has hit the point I was trying to make earlier. Instead of doing a blanket statement against religious people, why not pick out specific policies that you disagree with and start a debate on those? Gay marriage, teaching creationism in classes, limiting open prayer in school, laws on porn/prostitution, ...

I think you'll find a lot of religious people would agree with the "traditional atheist" stance on the issues above (myself included). There's no need to try and insult/belittle religious people when simple arguments could garner a lot more support for specific issues.

At the end of the day, the policies of a lot of the atheist groups support an idea that it's not enough to just support an idea (ie, don't teach creationism in science or we shouldn't pray in public schools) - you also have to openly denounce religion. That, IMO, is where a lot of these ad campaigns come from. If, instead, these groups simply focused on reaching a consensus on a lot of these important issues, they would get less backlash and more support.

[RainMaker]

They're definitely trying to limit religion's influence on culture and politics.

And while a government can't establish religion, there's an always-moving line of dicussion about how religious an elected statesman can/should be. Everybody has a different opinion about that, about how far the establishment clause goes. And those battles are fought culturally, and in the voting booth. Atheists are fighting for their opinions, just like the religious are fighting for theirs. Both are trying to silence the other side. They just have different tools.

It's a common line to say, "I don't care what religious people do, I just don't want them to impact me". Which is basically saying, "I don't want religious people participating in politics, or at the very least, they have to leave their faith at the door". That, to a religious person, feels very similar to how atheists feel when they think is religion being shoved down their throats.

Atheists of course, would perfer ZERO reference to or influence from religion ANYWHERE in politics and government. That's a valid opinion, but it's just an opinon. It's not the only one, and it's not the only consitutional one. And it's an opinion that "suppresses" religious people, and their ability to partciapte in a democratic government. Which is totally fine, that's a valid political strategy. But that's all the religious are trying to do also.

I don't think atheists care if someone is religious in politics, I think they just don't want other people's morality forced upon them. That's not telling the other side to suppress their beliefs, it's telling them to not force others to believe it.

For instance, I don't like tattoos. I think they look bad on people. Now I would never think about creating a law that would banish tattoos. But a religious person would potentially if the Bible made a comment on it that they felt was relevant to today's society.

[RedKingGold]

Do you disagree?

Do you think that most Christians think they will go to Hell if they commit a sin? I thought that the basic teaching is that everyone sins and you are saved from your sin as long as you accept JC as your savior? How is that a controversial statement at all?

It seems by your comments that you paint most "modern-day Christians" with extremes of either being fanatics or fakes. Just like anything in life, there is a moderate, reasonable, middle-ground where most Christians realistically fall into.

[RedKingGold]

I think molson has hit the point I was trying to make earlier. Instead of doing a blanket statement against religious people, why not pick out specific policies that you disagree with and start a debate on those? Gay marriage, teaching creationism in classes, limiting open prayer in school, laws on porn/prostitution, ...

I think you'll find a lot of religious people would agree with the "traditional atheist" stance on the issues above (myself included). There's no need to try and insult/belittle religious people when simple arguments could garner a lot more support for specific issues.

At the end of the day, the policies of a lot of the atheist groups support an idea that it's not enough to just support an idea (ie, don't teach creationism in science or we shouldn't pray in public schools) - you also have to openly denounce religion. That, IMO, is where a lot of these ad campaigns come from. If, instead, these groups simply focused on reaching a consensus on a lot of these important issues, they would get less backlash and more support.

Again, you hit it on the head.

We can debate the issues and I'll promise not to pull out "because Jesus told me to" and we'll have a good debate.

Start putting down or insulting Christians as a broad group/base and that kills any reasonable debate.

[kenparker23]

If, next Sunday, I went down to the local church and handed out copies of The God Delusion to the congregation as they left, I suspect, while some might politely turn me down, others would be (justifiably) insulted.

I realize you are speaking hypothetically here. But if someone did this, what are they saying? That there is no god?? And what is the end result of that?? Nothing. The end result of saying there is no god is nothing; you die and that is it. So what is the purpose? For Christians (as well as Muslims, Hindu, ect.) the end result of their belief is eternal life.

I disagree with you. That is the ONLY reason I share my beliefs with anyone. It is never to look down on someone. I also disagree with the "holier than thou" attitudethat many religious folks demonstrate. If you love someone, and think this is the end result, why not tell them about it? Humility goes along way in any discussion because we are all sinners, plain and simple.

[CamEdwards]

You know, it strikes me that a big part of the problem is the overall influence that we expect government (and the federal government in particular) to exert over every aspect of our lives, rather than simply leave a lot of these issues in the public square.

We're probably way too far down the road to really change the way things are, but I can't help but notice that back when government funded schools weren't the norm, you didn't really have arguments about prayer in school or creationism.

[KWhit]

It seems by your comments that you paint most "modern-day Christians" with extremes of either being fanatics or fakes. Just like anything in life, there is a moderate, reasonable, middle-ground where most Christians realistically fall into.

I don't know what you're getting at. I'm not trying to paint anyone as anything. I'm just stating what I believe to be pretty non-controversial points.

You think that most Christians believe they will go to hell if they commit a sin? As I said, I believe that most "modern-day Christians" believe that as long as they have accepted JC as their personal savior that they are saved and are going to heaven. Most probably believe they would go to hell if they then committed murder, but that's probably about the only major sin that most believe would condemn them. I doubt many believe that they'll go to hell if they commit adultery or take the lord's name in vain, or covert their neighbor's wife, etc.

Do you disagree with any of that? Seriously. How is that mis-characterizing most Christians in the US today?

[Tekneek]

And while a government can't establish religion, there's an always-moving line of dicussion about how religious an elected statesman can/should be.

They have to be religious enough to get elected. I suspect there is a lot of truth to that, but it is hard to measure such things.

[Tekneek]

Humility goes along way in any discussion because we are all sinners, plain and simple.

Why are we all "sinners" and why should that be presumed as the truth without looking at the evidence?

[molson]

Why are we all "sinners" and why should that be presumed as the truth without looking at the evidence?

I'll translate it to secular-speak - "nobody's perfect".

[molson]

From my perspective as an attorney I think the signficance of evidence is misplaced. In and out of court, people have a problem recognizing that evidence doesn't tell the whole story.

I've heard juries say that they couldn't convict a particular domestic abuser because they didn't hear any evidence of prior crimes, so they were more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since he had apparently lived a crime free life. Of course, the defendant had in actuality, committed plenty of crimes, but the facts of that are not admissable as evidence.

So juries often just assume that if they don't have evidence of something, it didn't happen.

I was reading about murder case in the D.C. area that the Washington Post has been running on a feature on. There's some evidence, but it's apparent that that evidence is only 0.05% of what actually happened that night. The rest is a mystery to all (except those involved). The fact that there is little evidence might mean there won't be a legal convicition, but it doesn't at all mean that there wasn't a LOT going on that night, that led to this outcome of a murder.

[Tekneek]

I'll translate it to secular-speak - "nobody's perfect".

"Nobody's perfect" doesn't sound the same to me as "we're all sinners." I wonder if they are really synonymous.

[Tekneek]

From my perspective as an attorney I think the signficance of evidence is misplaced. In and out of court, people have a problem recognizing that evidence doesn't tell the whole story.

I've heard juries say that they couldn't convict a particular domestic abuser because they didn't hear any evidence of prior crimes, so they were more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since he had apparently lived a crime free life. Of course, the defendant had in actuality, committed plenty of crimes, but the facts of that are not admissable as evidence.

So juries often just assume that if they don't have evidence of something, it didn't happen.

I was reading about murder case in the D.C. area that the Washington Post has been running on a feature on. There's some evidence, but it's apparent that that evidence is only 0.05% of what actually happened that night. The rest is a mystery to all (except those involved). The fact that there is little evidence might mean there won't be a legal convicition, but it doesn't at all mean that there wasn't a LOT going on that night, that led to this outcome of a murder.

Ok. So, your ultimate point is what? Is there anyone that is not allowing evidence of God to be available?

[molson]

Ok. So, your ultimate point is what? Is there anyone that is not allowing evidence of God to be available?

No, just that lack of evidence of something is not itself affirmative evidence of the absence of that thing. It's important to analyze the availability of evidence in any specific particular context. I don't think people think about that part of it enough. If I have an idea that I may have puked in my closet, the lack of evidence (no puke in the closet) would be pretty convincing affirmative evidence that I didn't puke there. But if I know somebody else cleans that closet every day, and that thus, that particular type of evidence isn't even possible to have, than it doesn't tell you anything.

That was colorful.

It's a broader point that goes beyond this thread. I just thought of it when you were asking for evidence for something else.

[Tekneek]

Of course. The lack of evidence does not mean that God definitely does not exist. However, it means that the probability of God's existence is going to be very low. There aren't the same procedural issues involved in this matter that you would see in a legal action.

[molson]

Of course. The lack of evidence does not mean that God definitely does not exist. However, it means that the probability of God's existence is going to be very low. There aren't the same procedural issues involved in this matter that you would see in a legal action.

The strength of that lack of evidence (in terms of what it says about the probability of god) depends entirely on the availability of that type of evidence.

I don't think that that evidence is remotely available or possible, since the very basis of faith or spirtuality is the unknown. How can you have evidence of an unknown? If it was something that had evidence, it would by it's definition, no longer be faith or spirtuality. It would be science.

Or in other words, what type of evidence would encourage you to move even a little bit in the other direction towards entertaining the possibility of god? Would "God" have to talk to you? Would the rules of physics have to be temporarily suspended? All of those things would involve "God" affirmatively revealing himself/herself/itself. Which I guess he/she/it could do (though not every theoretical incarnation of god has to be "all powerful"), if they wanted to for some reason, though that would involve destroying the concept of faith, which might not be desirable.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

A resurrection of someone dead for at least 24 hours.

[Arles]

To get back to my earlier reasoning involving a higher power (a bit of a derail, but stick with me for a bit). Let's take the example I posted of a person winning the power ball jackpot every day for 7 straight days with a different number sequence. Now, some people would point out that is possible and simply move on.

What if (years later when/if it's possible), we find out that the person had discovered time travel and was able to learn the numbers one week ahead of time and come back. Now, given what we knew at the time, time travel would be scoffed at and impossible to prove the week the person won. However, if time travel is factored in years later, it's infinitely more plausible to accept someone getting 7 straight lotto numbers correct with its help.

Because of the remote probabilities involved in evolution (esp from the start), I haven't completely ruled out a possibility that just may not be comprehended at this point in our world. Maybe that's a higher power, maybe it's an alien life form, who knows? The point is that it would make a lot more sense way down the road if some external "higher power" ended up setting off the dominoes for evolution than simply a set of extremely low chance events.

[Arles]

A resurrection of someone dead for at least 24 hours.
Would you settle for a couple hours in Flatliners? We can even throw in a young Kiefer Sutherland and Julia Roberts if it seals the deal ;)

[molson]

A resurrection of someone dead for at least 24 hours.

That would be good. Though it would involve "god" braeking the rules that have been setup down here. Maybe he doesn't have the power to do that. Maybe he doesn't want to do that. Maybe he doesn't want to destroy the concept of faith and so dramatically reveal himself to the world (because then this wouldn't really be earth anymore, it'd be heaven).

And if someone actually lived after they were dead for 24 hours, that becomes science anyway. In our rules of live and living, that's something that we would then recognize to be possible. We take for granted that what you say isn't possible, but that's just because it's our current knowledge. If it happened, our knowledge would just change.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Shit, that movie still gives me nightmares. I'd rather live in a Godless world than one like that.

[Arles]

Yeah, I saw it when I was a kid and it freaked me out. I think it and Jacob's Ladder were two of the more freakier movies to see in middle school. Yowsers!

[Tekneek]

Or in other words, what type of evidence would encourage you to move even a little bit in the other direction towards entertaining the possibility of god? Would "God" have to talk to you? Would the rules of physics have to be temporarily suspended? All of those things would involve "God" affirmatively revealing himself/herself/itself. Which I guess he/she/it could do (though not every theoretical incarnation of god has to be "all powerful"), if they wanted to for some reason, though that would involve destroying the concept of faith, which might not be desirable.

It is hard to know. At the very least, "God" would have to be measurable and testable. Move away from the realm of "magic" and "mystery" and into something we can clearly define.

The existence of "God" would probably have to enter the realm of scientific fact. If it is "God's" masterplan to not reveal himself/herself/itself and be subjected to that, then why should I care? The possibility of "Heaven", which we have found no evidence of? Or the fear of "Hell", which we have found no evidence of? I find much more comfort and understanding through science than through religion/mythology.

[Ajaxab]

It is hard to know. At the very least, "God" would have to be measurable and testable. Move away from the realm of "magic" and "mystery" and into something we can clearly define.

The existence of "God" would probably have to enter the realm of scientific fact. If it is "God's" masterplan to not reveal himself/herself/itself and be subjected to that, then why should I care? The possibility of "Heaven", which we have found no evidence of? Or the fear of "Hell", which we have found no evidence of? I find much more comfort and understanding through science than through religion/mythology.

I'm still not sure why so many so badly want scientific evidence that is measurable and testable when a lot of what we know to be true cannot be measured or tested. As I referenced earlier in the thread, what I dreamed about last night can't be measured or tested. Can I measure and test whether or not I had a dream? Sure, hook up some electrodes to my brain and check for certain kinds of activity. But the content of this dream? Science can't factually state what I dreamed about. So do we reject the content of our dreams even though we can't measure them or test them scientifically? Maybe the odd person does, but most of us don't wake up the next day thinking about how we could test and measure whether we actually had the dream we think we had. We accept it based on experience without scientific evidence for accepting it.

To use another illustration from earlier in this thread. JMO neatly outlined the scientific understanding of a theory and a law. Did scientists come to this understanding through testing and measuring? I would suspect they came to it through philosophical argumentation about what constituted a legitimate theory and law in their discipline. No tests were done and no measurements were taken. I'm not even sure how one could do a test that would enable one to define the terms 'theory' and 'law'. You could test whether specific theories or laws were accurate and/or applicable, but you would not be able to test and measure the definitions of 'theory' or 'law' themselves. We accept the scientific definitions of theory and law based on philosophically logical chains of reasoning without tested and measured scientific evidence for accepting them.

So we can know things to be true based on evidence from our experience and evidence based on logical chains of reasoning. Scientific evidence is just one way to know. So the question then becomes, why is scientific evidence required for the existence of God, but is apparently not required for other aspects of what we know in life?

Alright, I'm really out this time....:)

[revrew]

"Nobody's perfect" doesn't sound the same to me as "we're all sinners." I wonder if they are really synonymous.

Christian theology 101: Yes, they're perfectly synonymous.

Romans 3, the chapter typically referenced in this discussion, makes plain that all people "fall short" of God's standard, (implied: perfection), thus all people "sin."

Now, the semantics of "perfect" can be played with to distort the equation. If by "perfect", you mean of perfect complexion, or with a 200 IQ, or have never lost their car keys...then of course no one is perfect and that's not what is meant by "sin". But the phrase "nobody's perfect" typically means we all screw up some times, do things we didn't mean to do, hurt people even if unintentionally, misjudge the consequences of our actions, choose selfishness over altruism in a moment of weakness, etc. - "nobody's perfect." By that standard, yep, perfectly synonymous with "sin".

[KWhit]

I'm still not sure why so many so badly want scientific evidence that is measurable and testable when a lot of what we know to be true cannot be measured or tested. As I referenced earlier in the thread, what I dreamed about last night can't be measured or tested. Can I measure and test whether or not I had a dream? Sure, hook up some electrodes to my brain and check for certain kinds of activity. But the content of this dream? Science can't factually state what I dreamed about. So do we reject the content of our dreams even though we can't measure them or test them scientifically? Maybe the odd person does, but most of us don't wake up the next day thinking about how we could test and measure whether we actually had the dream we think we had. We accept it based on experience without scientific evidence for accepting it.

To use another illustration from earlier in this thread. JMO neatly outlined the scientific understanding of a theory and a law. Did scientists come to this understanding through testing and measuring? I would suspect they came to it through philosophical argumentation about what constituted a legitimate theory and law in their discipline. No tests were done and no measurements were taken. I'm not even sure how one could do a test that would enable one to define the terms 'theory' and 'law'. You could test whether specific theories or laws were accurate and/or applicable, but you would not be able to test and measure the definitions of 'theory' or 'law' themselves. We accept the scientific definitions of theory and law based on philosophically logical chains of reasoning without tested and measured scientific evidence for accepting them.

So we can know things to be true based on evidence from our experience and evidence based on logical chains of reasoning. Scientific evidence is just one way to know. So the question then becomes, why is scientific evidence required for the existence of God, but is apparently not required for other aspects of what we know in life?

Alright, I'm really out this time....:)

Two or three times you mention 'experience' in this post.

What experience do you have with God?

[Groundhog]

I'm still not sure why so many so badly want scientific evidence that is measurable and testable when a lot of what we know to be true cannot be measured or tested. As I referenced earlier in the thread, what I dreamed about last night can't be measured or tested. Can I measure and test whether or not I had a dream? Sure, hook up some electrodes to my brain and check for certain kinds of activity. But the content of this dream? Science can't factually state what I dreamed about. So do we reject the content of our dreams even though we can't measure them or test them scientifically? Maybe the odd person does, but most of us don't wake up the next day thinking about how we could test and measure whether we actually had the dream we think we had. We accept it based on experience without scientific evidence for accepting it.

Yeah, science can't test for this yet. There are some interesting experiments going on (http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=3&ContentID=112753) re: this however.


So we can know things to be true based on evidence from our experience and evidence based on logical chains of reasoning. Scientific evidence is just one way to know. So the question then becomes, why is scientific evidence required for the existence of God, but is apparently not required for other aspects of what we know in life?


Well, for starters, with most of these other points, such as dreams and the like, we have no reason to question them, because every single one of us experiences them. Not only is this NOT the case with gods, on top of that we have both conflicting stories of gods from the various religions, as well as the knowledge of what has happened to all those other religions that have dissapeared over the years. The ones we now call 'myths'.

[Tekneek]

I'm still not sure why so many so badly want scientific evidence that is measurable and testable when a lot of what we know to be true cannot be measured or tested. As I referenced earlier in the thread, what I dreamed about last night can't be measured or tested. Can I measure and test whether or not I had a dream? Sure, hook up some electrodes to my brain and check for certain kinds of activity. But the content of this dream? Science can't factually state what I dreamed about. So do we reject the content of our dreams even though we can't measure them or test them scientifically? Maybe the odd person does, but most of us don't wake up the next day thinking about how we could test and measure whether we actually had the dream we think we had. We accept it based on experience without scientific evidence for accepting it.

Ok. Are you saying the existence of God is nothing more than a dream? Otherwise, I don't see what your point is. Dreams are not reality and we do not pretend that they are, even if it would make us feel good to do so.

To use another illustration from earlier in this thread. JMO neatly outlined the scientific understanding of a theory and a law. Did scientists come to this understanding through testing and measuring? I would suspect they came to it through philosophical argumentation about what constituted a legitimate theory and law in their discipline. No tests were done and no measurements were taken. I'm not even sure how one could do a test that would enable one to define the terms 'theory' and 'law'. You could test whether specific theories or laws were accurate and/or applicable, but you would not be able to test and measure the definitions of 'theory' or 'law' themselves. We accept the scientific definitions of theory and law based on philosophically logical chains of reasoning without tested and measured scientific evidence for accepting them.

I do not know the origins, so I yield this point. Again, though, I'm not sure where you are going with it.

So we can know things to be true based on evidence from our experience and evidence based on logical chains of reasoning. Scientific evidence is just one way to know. So the question then becomes, why is scientific evidence required for the existence of God, but is apparently not required for other aspects of what we know in life?

Deciding on standards for a particular discipline, which is really what theories and laws are a reflection of in science, has nothing to do with proclaiming there to be a "God." Further, it has nothing to do with going around telling people what this "God" wants them to do or not do, and that you must be in "His" good graces to have "eternal life." Are you really trying to say that these are equal concepts?

[Mac Howard]

just smack of the same kind of stuff we used to heard from Archie Bunker about blacks, Jews, Italians, etc.

How you can see this:

I simply don't buy this at all. The guy he met might be unusual but the motive behind proselytising is far more complex than simple altruism. How many of those who consider themselves religious believe that the atheists' advert that began this thread was motivated by a simple wish to save them from a life of delusion and futile prayer?

The proselytising motive also has significant elements of condescension - as in the missionary bringing Jesus to the ignorant savage - lack of respect for the other's belief system, a wish to have their own beliefs confirmed by the conversion of an unbeliever, an attempt to begin a debate or argument. I suspect there is other psychological stuff in there also.

If, next Sunday, I went down to the local church and handed out copies of The God Delusion to the congregation as they left, I suspect, while some might politely turn me down, others would be (justifiably) insulted.

as an Archie Bunker rank on religion and race is ludicrous. You clearly have a major problem with any rational discussion on religion.

Read it! The first sentence equates atheistic proselytising with religious proselytising. The third criticises atheistic proselytising alone. The second illustrates my point about condescension by referring to the well know behaviour of missionaries during the European imperialism period of treating indigenous population in this way.

The perceived bigoted attack on Christianity is entirely a figment of your imagination.

[Mac Howard]

I realize you are speaking hypothetically here. But if someone did this, what are they saying? That there is no god??

Yes. You are telling someone who believes in God that there is no God - that their belief is wrong. In doing this you are claiming to a higher level of understanding/wisdom than they have. You are disrespecting them and their belief system. You are not simply doing them a favour - indeed, destroying their belief system would often be detrimental in the extreme - whatever you might tell yourself are your motives.

Handing a copy of Dawkins' book to people leaving church would be an insult to most.

And what is the end result of that?? Nothing. The end result of saying there is no god is nothing; you die and that is it. So what is the purpose? For Christians (as well as Muslims, Hindu, ect.) the end result of their belief is eternal life.

The fact that it makes you feel better doesn't make it true, kenparker23. We generally don't believe things simply because it makes us feel good. But you are right that there are problems of purpose to be dealt with for atheists.

[Mac Howard]

So we can know things to be true based on evidence from our experience and evidence based on logical chains of reasoning. Scientific evidence is just one way to know. So the question then becomes, why is scientific evidence required for the existence of God, but is apparently not required for other aspects of what we know in life?

But it's not just scientific evidence that is lacking (ie evidence that meets the strict criteria of science) but there is no evidence of any convincing sort, while there is evidence of his non-existence.

Take for example Molson's purple dragon. In the millenia of human existence no one has ever seen a purple dragon. While we can't be absolutely definitive it is reasonable therefore to accept that they don't exist. And if someone insists that there are such things then we would reasonably ask for convincing evidence or argument to be convinced ourselves.

The non-appearance of something that might exist is worthwhile evidence of its non-existence. Not definitive but worthy of merit. And the longer the non-appearance and the more people involved the more convincing it is as evidence for the non-exstence.

As with the purple dragon, so with God. In fact, as God is supposedly everywhere and the purple dragons presumably only in their restricted environment, the lack of experience is even more convincing.

Now presumably some of you feel that there is convincing evidence. I would like to hear it. I'm saying that in all sincerity - why are you convinced there is a God? What evidence (it doesn't have to be scientific) do you have for his existence?

[JMO]

To use another illustration from earlier in this thread. JMO neatly outlined the scientific understanding of a theory and a law. Did scientists come to this understanding through testing and measuring? I would suspect they came to it through philosophical argumentation about what constituted a legitimate theory and law in their discipline. No tests were done and no measurements were taken. I'm not even sure how one could do a test that would enable one to define the terms 'theory' and 'law'. You could test whether specific theories or laws were accurate and/or applicable, but you would not be able to test and measure the definitions of 'theory' or 'law' themselves. We accept the scientific definitions of theory and law based on philosophically logical chains of reasoning without tested and measured scientific evidence for accepting them.



Theories and laws are simply words with different definitions in science. They are just agreed upon by the consensus of people in that field(in this case for specific reasons..mainly about testability), like every word. Tackle means something different in Soccer, Gaelic Football, Rugby, American Football, fishing and so on..same thing applies here.

If I say, 'tackle him' in a game of soccer and you spear the guy, you misunderstood the word in that context. If I say, 'evolution is only a theory', I am likewise misunderstanding what the word means in this context. Simple as that.

So the question then becomes, why is scientific evidence required for the existence of God, but is apparently not required for other aspects of what we know in life?

Scientific evidence is not required for the existence of God. It is just required if you wish to prove the existence of God. I don't see the point. f you know God exists, that should be enough. Scientists should be spending their time on more pressing matters.

[Bobble]

... At the very least, "God" would have to be measurable and testable. ...

But it's not just scientific evidence that is lacking (ie evidence that meets the strict criteria of science) but there is no evidence of any convincing sort, ...

Well, you have eye-witness accounts: Fatima, 1917. But, you might say, eye-witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate. More people have seen UFOs than Mary (or God). I think if God wanted to be obvious, he would. If God were as "proved" as gravity, we'd think about him about as often as we ponder gravity. Or at worst, take extreme liberties with the info.

For me, I think the point of life is to strive to learn and teach. The journey of discovery is the thing.

P.S. I was going to link to the Wikipedia page for Fatima but it felt "dirty". :chuckle:<CHUCKLE>

[Tekneek]

f you know God exists, that should be enough.

How would anyone "know" this?

It seems that religion started in order to fill in the gaps of what we understood about life. Over time, we have been able to explain more with science. Now we have reached a point where people choose the religious explanation over the scientific explanation, as if they both have equal footing. The time for "God" to prove "His" own existence has likely passed. If Jesus had been going around teaching how the Sun did not revolve around the Earth (because "God" would certainly have known this), that would've helped. Basically, if the "word of God" recorded in the Holy Bible revealed that "He" or Jesus had any knowledge that was not common at the time, it would have a gone a really long way. Once we (as Humans) figured out that the Sun did not actually revolve around Earth, religion has explained less and less about the universe we live in. I'm sure Jesus could have taught all of these concepts, but it turns out "God" must have intentionally kept him ignorant.

[Bobble]

How would anyone "know" this?

It seems that religion started in order to fill in the gaps of what we understood about life. Over time, we have been able to explain more with science. Now we have reached a point where people choose the religious explanation over the scientific explanation, as if they both have equal footing. The time for "God" to prove "His" own existence has likely passed. If Jesus had been going around teaching how the Sun did not revolve around the Earth (because "God" would certainly have known this), that would've helped. Basically, if the "word of God" recorded in the Holy Bible spoke revealed that "He" or Jesus had any knowledge that was not common at the time, it would have a gone a really long way. Once we (as Humans) figured out that the Sun did not actually revolve around Earth, religion has explained less and less about the universe we live in. I'm sure Jesus could have taught all of these concepts, but it turns out "God" must have intentionally kept him ignorant.

Jesus wasn't here to teach Science class. Jesus was here to teach Spiritual class (oooh...double meaning there that I didn't even intend!).

[Tekneek]

Jesus wasn't here to teach Science class. Jesus was here to teach Spiritual class (oooh...double meaning there that I didn't even intend!).

But why not teach the fundamentals about how this universe works? Would they not have derived a huge benefit from the head start this would have given them? Imagine if they had been able to generate the cures for diseases hundreds of years earlier than we actually did. Instead, we still have some people who think you can pray to get rid of illness/disease, which has never been proven to work at all.

[Bobble]

But why not teach the fundamentals about how this universe works? Would they not have derived a huge benefit from the head start this would have given them? Imagine if they had been able to generate the cures for diseases hundreds of years earlier than we actually did. Instead, we still have some people who think you can pray to get rid of illness/disease, which has never been proven to work at all.

It would have to be that he felt that teaching the spritiual side more important than the secular knowledge, right? So, maybe loving your neighbor as yourself was more important. After all, that philosophy not only leads to people curing diseases, discovering that the Earth revolves around the sun, stopping wars, etcetera but is more the point of why we're here (in my view).

[Tekneek]

It would have to be that he felt that teaching the spritiual side more important than the secular knowledge, right? So, maybe loving your neighbor as yourself was more important. After all, that philosophy not only leads to people curing diseases, discovering that the Earth revolves around the sun, stopping wars, etcetera but is more the point of why we're here (in my view).

Could they not be taught together? We seem to be able to teach them together these days, don't we? I don't kill my neighbor, and I learn about science! Go figure...

The fact that "God" and Jesus never reveal knowledge that is ahead of its time is evidence of "God" being human invention, not evidence that "God" created everything. A creator of everything would, by definition, have plenty to teach about how it works. A "God" that knows these things, but refuses to share them, and is petulant when humans discover these secrets, is hardly the kind of "God" that I would spend time worshiping or praising.

[Arles]

This is actually a very interesting discussion and I don't have a lot to add. But, I want to make one comment. Religion is based on "faith" - which according to the dictionary is a "belief that is not based on proof".

It seems that atheists reject the notion of faith (which is fine), but then get all bent out of shape when a religious person can't prove the existence of a higher power. If religion could be proven, you wouldn't need faith and (consequently) it would cease to be a religion. If you believe in the idea of faith, then you can accept a certain religion. If you don't, then no one is ever going to be able to convince you of religious beliefs or theory. It's actually a very simple concept.

[JMO]

How would anyone "know" this?




My mother knows this. It is called faith. That is what I meant.


Arles said
It seems that atheists reject the notion of faith (which is fine), but then get all bent out of shape when a religious person can't prove the existence of a higher power. If religion could be proven, you wouldn't need faith and (consequently) it would cease to be a religion. If you believe in the idea of faith, then you can accept a certain religion. If you don't, then no one is ever going to be able to convince you of religious beliefs or theory. It's actually a very simple concept.

I don't get bent out of shape when a religious person can't prove the existence of God (why should they?), or even when jehovahs (for example) try to convert me (they are generally nice people).

I think its cool to have faith. But once you start citing visions/miracles or whatever as 'proof' of the existence of God, then you just entered Science and you are fair game. You cannot pick and choose. It's either faith or back it up buddy.

[Bobble]

Could they not be taught together? We seem to be able to teach them together these days, don't we? I don't kill my neighbor, and I learn about science! Go figure...

The fact that "God" and Jesus never reveal knowledge that is ahead of its time is evidence of "God" being human intervention, not evidence that "God" created everything. A creator of everything would, by definition, have plenty to teach about how it works. A "God" that knows these things, but refuses to share them, and is petulant about keeping that knowledge to itself, is hardly the kind of "God" that I would spend time worshiping or praising.

He was killed for teaching what he did. I think it was tough enough to explain what he did without also taking away some of their other current beliefs (Earth is the center of the universe).

The creator DID teach us plenty about "how it works" like "it's important to love your neighbor" and "don't kill each other". To me, those are much more important than the things we'll eventually figure out anyway ("There are these really small things called "germs" see...."), especially, if you consider that the spiritual self (or soul) is everlasting and the body that wraps around it for a while is only around for a short time. To me, it's more important what kind of person you are than whether you live an extra few years -- and knowing how to prevent small pox doesn't make me any better of person. I think that's what Jesus was shooting for, helping to make better persons, not longer-lasting persons.

[Tekneek]

Religion is based on faith because there never has been proof of it. That's the only reason for it.

Religion = the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

Why do they all require faith? Not because faith is some mystical human power that unlocks the secrets of the universe (because we know that "God" couldn't be bothered to even explain that the Earth revolved around the Sun). Faith is only required because it was well-known that the evidence was weak and couldn't stand on its own. Requiring faith is the end-run around the inquisitive sorts who would seek to understand how it all works.

[Tekneek]

I think that's what Jesus was shooting for, helping to make better persons, not longer-lasting persons.

Oh. So Jesus knew these other things, but just didn't find them important? Not much foresight there. A whole lot of suffering could have been prevented with a good science foundation delivered back then. Sorry, this is still more evidence of human invention. History is filled with wise people, so merely being wise does not prove divinity.

[JMO]

He was killed for teaching what he did. I think it was tough enough to explain what he did without also taking away some of their other current beliefs (Earth is the center of the universe).

The creator DID teach us plenty about "how it works" like "it's important to love your neighbor" and "don't kill each other". To me, those are much more important than the things we'll eventually figure out anyway ("There are these really small things called "germs" see...."), especially, if you consider that the spiritual self (or soul) is everlasting and the body that wraps around it for a while is only around for a short time. To me, it's more important what kind of person you are than whether you live an extra few years -- and knowing how to prevent small pox doesn't make me any better of person. I think that's what Jesus was shooting for, helping to make better persons, not longer-lasting persons.

I think your underselling how bad smallpox was. I think if I had to choose between the smallpox vaccine and the not so original wisdom of JC, I'll take the vacinne.

I come from a family of 7 children. I'm happy that none of us died from the numerous diseases that were prevalent not so long ago. I think if we saw people(especially children) die at a higher rate in modern times, we wouldn't be so high on the importance of being a good person.

As far as I know, the disparity between longevity now and in the past is mostly down to child mortality rate.

[Tekneek]

He was killed for teaching what he did. I think it was tough enough to explain what he did without also taking away some of their other current beliefs (Earth is the center of the universe).

How? Was there a serious risk that people might not turn the other cheek if we moved away from the geocentric model? They might not love their neighbor if the Earth was not the center of the universe?

The creator DID teach us plenty about "how it works" like "it's important to love your neighbor" and "don't kill each other". To me, those are much more important than the things we'll eventually figure out anyway

How many centuries did it take to learn these things? We could have avoided the whole "Dark Ages" thing altogether, but "God" and Jesus held out on us, and humanity suffered for hundreds of years. Not too impressive.

[Bobble]

Oh. So Jesus knew these other things, but just didn't find them important? Not much foresight there. A whole lot of suffering could have been prevented with a good science foundation delivered back then. Sorry, this is still more evidence of human invention. History is filled with wise people, so merely being wise does not prove divinity.

I think he DID prevent a whole lot of suffering with his teachings. Diluting the love your neighbor mesage with "Oh, BTW, the Earth really revolves around the Sun." seems like a bad idea. I think most people would focus on the physical which is easier to get your logical mind around than delve into the spiritual teaching (which would be counter to his goal). "Yeah, yeah, prodigal son...so tell us more about these neutrons..."

I'm not trying to convince you of His divinity. I took your comments as "Why would this be?" and tried to offer an explanation from my side of the fence. Sort of a "How can you believe in this? Here's how".