| -fatty- 2850 04.06.2009 20:44 |
Has anyone else noticed a greater number of over-enthusiastic athiests in the real world these days? A few of the non-believers out there are no longer content to deny the existence of god and his pals, they now feel they have the right to ram their opinions down your throat. For the record I dont believe in god and I used to think that made me an athiest but ever since the recent wave of athiest fundamentalism emerged I no longer wish to be associated with these nutters. I've managed to live my life in a state of blissful apathy so far and as far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever the hell they like. The most annoying thing I've had to put up with from christians/muslims/scientologists is being handed a leaflet by a well meaning man or woman in the street but athiests seem to think that they have the god-given right (okay so tht's a bad choice of words) to bore me rigid with their stories about spaghetti monsters or whatever it is they don't believe in. Hs anyone else noticed an increase in these dull people or am I just getting old and I've found something new to moan about? |
| Richard Orchard 04.06.2009 21:14 |
Unfortunately there are more of them. Probably encouraged by the likes of Richard Dawkins, who is religious about being an atheist. I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of "faith" as to what is more probable for them. |
| Mr.Jingles 04.06.2009 22:34 |
I love the South Park episode where Richard Dawkins marries Mrs Garrison and both turn the entire world atheist. Problem is that there are 2 atheist sects fighting and waging war against each other. It was hilarious! Personally I'm getting fed up with fundamentalist atheists as much as religious nuts. I fuckin' hate how extremely religious people think that they are the moral and ethical authority everyone should follow, but I also hate the condescending attitude of certain atheists who think that everyone who believes (or even wonders) if there might be some sort of higher power is mentally retarded. While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more. |
| The Real Wizard 05.06.2009 02:00 |
Richard Orchard wrote: I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of "faith" as to what is more probable for them.In terms of physical truth, atheists are closer to it, as it does not require testable measures to prove (or even suggest) that there isn't a metaphysical monothestic being up in the sky. But I do agree that fundamentalist atheists have crossed the line as well, albeit in a completely different way than the religious ones do. At least they don't threaten you with eternal damnation. Mr.Jingles wrote: Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. Absolutely right. There would be some other way to attempt to explain the unexplainable and control people with it. |
| Holly2003 05.06.2009 03:28 |
Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters? |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 05.06.2009 04:26 |
Holly2003 wrote: Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?i would prefer it if the world united to fight the 'honey monster' first and then 'tony the tiger'. |
| -fatty- 2850 05.06.2009 04:55 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:Holly2003 wrote: Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?i would prefer it if the world united to fight the 'honey monster' first and then 'tony the tiger'. Didn't we defeat Tony the Tiger in the Grrrrrrrrrreat war. Hahahahahahahaha............... I'll get me coat fatty. |
| FriedChicken 05.06.2009 05:00 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more. That's true to some extend, but religion is a major reason for most of the wars and injustice on this planet. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.06.2009 05:29 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more. That is not technically true. It was official policy to rid the Soviet Union of religion in every form, but it was feared that there would be so much opposition to that amongst the common people, especially in the countryside, where the party was never very strong, that the policy was never really put in practice. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.06.2009 05:38 |
Sir GH wrote:To remain quite technical here, no, you're wrong, from a purely logical point of view. The religious argument goes like this - (a) God was there first; he/she/it then created the universe and all things in it (all at the same time or in a specific order, depending on the religion). In a very small number of religions, the God then disappears, or is at least no longer discussed, but in most religions, the deity in question remains, exerting influence on his/her/its creation. The logical necessity if we accept the above is then that God exists *outside* the Universe, for the simple reason that he/she/it created that universe, and cannot be part of what he/she/it created (or, at the very least, cannot *wholly* be part of what he/she/it created). Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.Richard Orchard wrote: I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of "faith" as to what is more probable for them.In terms of physical truth, atheists are closer to it, as it does not require testable measures to prove (or even suggest) that there isn't a metaphysical monothestic being up in the sky. But I do agree that fundamentalist atheists have crossed the line as well, albeit in a completely different way than the religious ones do. At least they don't threaten you with eternal damnation. Having said all that, I, too, find myself in increasing numbers of discussions with atheist fundamentalists (a term I've recently started using, too), who, to my intense displeasure, use the same kinds of arguments as religious fundamentalists. And, like religious fundamentalists, they have an "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude, which they believe makes my IMHO enlightened agnostic standpoint synonymous with religion. The bottom line being, you don't need religion to have religious fanatics... |
| FriedChicken 05.06.2009 06:28 |
'Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.' True, but to bring a fairly good Richard Dawkins argument. We can also not prove that there aren't fairies. I think he does make a pretty good point there. If someone claims something absurd (i.e the existence of something or someone nobody can see) isn't it the task of that group of people to come with the facts, and prove that it DOES excist, and not the task of the other group to find prove that it doesn't? at least that's how it works in science. Scientists come up with a theory, they test it, and can predict future evidence. They don't think of a theory and say: "You know folks, this is the truth, I don't have any evidence, but I believe it's the truth, and if you don't believe it you'd better find prove that it doesn't." That just doesn't make sense! And I agree that some atheists go to far, but when you compare it to religious zealots it could be much much worse. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.06.2009 06:59 |
You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles. The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute. Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle. |
| Mr Mercury 05.06.2009 07:15 |
-fatty- wrote: Has anyone else noticed a greater number of over-enthusiastic athiests in the real world these days? A few of the non-believers out there are no longer content to deny the existence of god and his pals, they now feel they have the right to ram their opinions down your throat. For the record I dont believe in god and I used to think that made me an athiest but ever since the recent wave of athiest fundamentalism emerged I no longer wish to be associated with these nutters. I've managed to live my life in a state of blissful apathy so far and as far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever the hell they like. The most annoying thing I've had to put up with from christians/muslims/scientologists is being handed a leaflet by a well meaning man or woman in the street but athiests seem to think that they have the god-given right (okay so tht's a bad choice of words) to bore me rigid with their stories about spaghetti monsters or whatever it is they don't believe in. Hs anyone else noticed an increase in these dull people or am I just getting old and I've found something new to moan about? The way round that is to talk to them about "Fannies". They might immediately think that you are being facetious towards them, but when you explain that it actually stands for "Fanatics Against Non-believing Non-ideologist Icons, Especially Scientologists" they might take the hint and go away. Or you could simply waste as much of their time as they have done with you by getting them to repeat themselves (by pretending not to understand what they are saying) or by asking as many stupid questions as you could possibly think of. |
| FriedChicken 05.06.2009 09:20 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles. The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute. Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle. True, but I think there's a major difference between a man in the clouds who knows no time and space, and has always been there and performs miracles (or not, depending on your vision of the deity) and sub atomic particles. And I know it's not infallible nor absolute. That's why science evolves, in contrast to religious dogma, who still have the same ideas as the believes in the bronze age. |
| -fatty- 2850 05.06.2009 09:59 |
From now on I'm going to devote my life to the teachings of apathy. If I can be bothered, that is. fatty. |
| Micrówave 05.06.2009 10:42 |
*opens door* *quickly closes door to keep Spaghetti Monster inside* (I'd love to jump in, but I am not an Athiest, so my point of view wouldn't be much help. I will say that I, too, am annoyed by such things as the "It's OK not to believe in God" billboards that are popping up all around here. Which means these people have organized, which is a really scary thought. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.06.2009 11:06 |
FriedChicken wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles. The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute. Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.True, but I think there's a major difference between a man in the clouds who knows no time and space, and has always been there and performs miracles (or not, depending on your vision of the deity) and sub atomic particles. And I know it's not infallible nor absolute. That's why science evolves, in contrast to religious dogma, who still have the same ideas as the believes in the bronze age. Yeah, but the whole point, and most of the religious elite, certainly the great religious leaders have forgotten that too, is that science and religion answer *different* questions. They are both separate, different branches of philosophy. Only much of religion has been corrupted, as has, I might add, science, only to a lesser degree it seems. |
| Mr.Jingles 05.06.2009 12:16 |
FriedChicken wrote:Mr.Jingles wrote: While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.That's true to some extend, but religion is a major reason for most of the wars and injustice on this planet. Yes and No from where I see it. I would say instead that politics are the major reason for wars and injustice in this planet (from far left and far right in particular). Of course, religion plays an important role when it comes to influencing politics in many countries, but then again it's mankind the ones that chooses to use religion to manipulate the masses. |
| FriedChicken 05.06.2009 12:37 |
Are you sure it isn't Satan doing that? :P |
| magicalfreddiemercury 05.06.2009 13:35 |
Micrówave wrote: *opens door* *quickly closes door to keep Spaghetti Monster inside* (I'd love to jump in, but I am not an Athiest, so my point of view wouldn't be much help. I will say that I, too, am annoyed by such things as the "It's OK not to believe in God" billboards that are popping up all around here. Which means these people have organized, which is a really scary thought. Actually, I don't think it's scary at all. If anything, I think it's about time. The Religious Right has always had an enviable way of organizing in a flash, and they've fought vigorously against the left AND the middle. Finally, they'll have another extreme to fight and that will, hopefully, balance them. The effect of the last administration is, I think, a good example of this. It generated a lot of support from the far right, and that extreme - so "in your face" for eight years - helped more people declare themselves as moderates. With two extremes enthusiastically voicing their ideas, the amount of people leaning toward the middle will probably increase, thus creating common ground for a larger percentage of us. IMO, that's a good thing. |
| The Real Wizard 05.06.2009 13:47 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: The logical necessity if we accept the above is then that God exists *outside* the Universe, for the simple reason that he/she/it created that universe, and cannot be part of what he/she/it created (or, at the very least, cannot *wholly* be part of what he/she/it created).Ah yes, I knew this would come! This is why I was careful with my wording, and said "monotheistic". I certainly am not denying that a force of some sort created the universe. I am denying any monotheistic religion's outdated and scientifically devoid explanation of said process. And who says the force that created the universe did not integrate itself into the universe as it is now? Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.I strongly disagree. Faith is believing in a proposition without any kind of proof, whereas science is acceptance of facts undeniably proven by testable measures (without getting into the philosophical idea that we created our linguistic ideas and systems of understanding). Science is always ready and willing to amend their stance on any given subject in light of new evidence. Organized religion, on the other hand, sticks to antiquity for antiquity's sake. Yes, there are very few exceptions, like the Bahai faith, but the overwhelming majority of religious stances worldwide are outdated and are to be scientifically rejected on the grounds that their propositions cannot be proven by testable measures. Only the argument from ignorance can permit one the illusion of asserting the physical existence of a metaphysical being on the basis that a hypothesis is true because it cannot be proven to be untrue. As for the universe itself, it is defined as everything that physically exists. There is no "outside" of the universe. Any forces beyond our limited human understanding are still within the universe. Arguing in favour of an outside of the universe is to eliminate the possibility that we can grow to understand more about this aspect the universe. Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist.In principle, yes, you are correct. But this argument is wrongly used by religious people, as they somehow try to discount science with it in favour of their faith. Today, I see organized religion being like when you a squash a bug and only its legs are still moving a little bit. Most people agree that the bug is still alive in principle, but it is fundamentally powerless. science and religion answer *different* questions. They are both separate, different branches of philosophy.On the subject of the nature of the universe, I disagree. They're both attempting to explain the unexplainable. But science is one inching closer to achieving that because their method is far superior. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.06.2009 14:54 |
Sir GH: I understand your point, and I agree with you as far as the practice of organized religion goes, but not its theory. I intensely dislike mass religion, but I do appreciate the philosophical value of theology. As for the creation of the universe part you closed your post with, I'd put it as follows: Science seeks to understand how the universe came into being Religion seeks to understand why the universe came into being |
| The Real Wizard 05.06.2009 14:58 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Science seeks to understand how the universe came into being Religion seeks to understand why the universe came into being Beautifully said. Now if all religious people would see it like that, we'd be getting somewhere. |
| FriedChicken 05.06.2009 15:46 |
Still, I think you're trying to make religion as a filosophy more useful than it actually is. |
| pma 05.06.2009 16:30 |
I might be totally off-topic, but I just love to rant from time to time without making any sense... From what I've observed, there are many self-declared atheists among the 20-25 year olds at the university. During discussion tutorials, I've engaged in discussions with such people who are quick to dismiss religious ideas, proudly stating their ideals, such as their disbelief in the afterlife. Now, the only problem I have with these young philosophical geniuses is... They are absolutely proud and firm in declaring their belief that they do not believe in an afterlife, they are sure that this is the only life we have to live, that it all ends in death. Now, why is this problematic? It would not be problematic, if these people lived according to their (lack of) belief. They'd seize the day at every chance, they would not worry about their course grades as if they were a matter of life and death... These declaring voices are usually extremely insecure (because they are young and lacking in life experience), totally tangled with the idea of what other people think of them, worried sick about their social face, their social appearance. They are more afraid than, well let's say they are more scared and insecure than someone from a religious community, who might live in the fear of sin and hell, but surely has heck of a lot more fun than these youngsters with their disbelief in everything. So in a spiritual sense, none of these people appear free. You would think that after realizing that there is just one life, you'd stop being shallow, superficial and vain and stop being worried about what other people think, you'd stop being worried about being rejected by some girl when asking her out, since at the end of your life such an event is of no importance, you'd think these people would live like there is no tomorrow, since their belief in disbelief has freed them from all fear, for there is no hell you can go to, there is just bones and dirt and six feet of ground waiting for you. Yet, from what I've observed these youngsters, although quick to lash at anyone who believes in a "religious fairytale", themselves are slaves to other forms of modern systems of group influence, such as mass media and pop culture, social expectations, society, goverment etc. If we do succeed in freeing mankind from the old beliefs, how do we release ourselves from the beliefs and forms of organised systems of beliefs and brainwashing that are destined to replace them? We can always say that now that "X" is gone and rationality "Y" has taken over, we are better off, but something will appear to replace it. Besides, there is no real hope of rationality taking over. We would only end up fighting about what is against rationality and what is for rationality, it would only become another religion... On a final note, In this country people do not question the idea of working your whole life for some delayed gratification in the form of a pension. In fact despite the rise of Atheism, Finns remain socially Lutheran, their absolute belief in the Protestant work ethic and delayed gratification (those pensions! hah) proves it. I'm yet to meet any proper Atheists or whatever spaghettimonsteriates they are, who through this belief have become free from the fears that the surrounding world has implemented in them. Oh wait, that sounded rather religious, didn' it. |
| YourValentine 06.06.2009 13:05 |
I do not see a contradiction there, Pete. Religious people often were satisfied with the bad life they had because the church promised them they would be compensated in heaven for the suffering on earth. Mainly the Catholic church has created a real cult of suffering making people believe it's good for them because they will be rewarded in heaven. When you don't believe in some sort of afterlife, you still want to make some sense of your life, don't you? First of all, it's all you have and you want to make some achievement and secondly it's very hard to deal with the possibility of your own death when you are young. Young people feel immortal, that's natural. You just do not consider death as a possibility, it's just a very abstract concept. Only when you get older and you lose people in your own age group you start realizing that your own life span might be limited, too :-) |
| Mr.Jingles 06.06.2009 18:32 |
Back to the original topic, there are 2 kinds of atheists: The ones who keep their views to themselves, who don't patronize and belittle those who happen to follow some kind of faith, and all they ask for is for their opinions to be respected and their governments to remain secular. Then there are those who see put any religious person under the same category as fundamentalists, and who think that organized religious should be completely banned... NOW, THOSE FUCKERS SCARE ME. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.06.2009 05:29 |
YourValentine wrote: Mainly the Catholic church has created a real cult of suffering making people believe it's good for them because they will be rewarded in heaven. Actually, while the Catholic church encourages ascetism to a degree, it's mainly Calvinist and Zwinglian protestantism that focusses on the 'life as suffering' paradigm. For instance, Catholicism promises forgiveness to all those who are genuinely remorseful for their sins; Calvinism states that you are sinful by nature and are damned to begin with, with no hope for redemption save by mere chance. |
| YourValentine 07.06.2009 07:59 |
I strongly disagree, Thomas. Just read what "Saint" Mother Teresa did with all the money that was donated to her hospital in Calcutta: She sent almost all of it to the Vatican while she preached the sick people that they are nearer to heaven when they suffer more. No need to provide for food, medication or a clean bed! She was an extremist but by no means an exception: the Catholic church has always made starving people believe that they are lucky because will go to heaven for their suffering. That helped the church to keep control and to get richer and richer. There are so many different protestants that it's hard to define a common practice there. The right to "pursue one's happiness" is definitely a very protestant concept... |
| Saif 07.06.2009 10:46 |
Mother Teresa...she fooled a lot of people. Her "Nirmal Hriday" is in the same city I live in. Can't believe this hag was awarded the Padma Bhushan, the Indian equivalent of the Medal of Freedom(which she also got, I believe) or the Congressional Gold Medal in the US... she fooled a lot of people. Everyone in India worships here like a goddess. |
| john bodega 07.06.2009 11:40 |
She didn't fool me. She was a cunt. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.06.2009 11:52 |
YourValentine wrote: I strongly disagree, Thomas. Just read what "Saint" Mother Teresa did with all the money that was donated to her hospital in Calcutta: She sent almost all of it to the Vatican while she preached the sick people that they are nearer to heaven when they suffer more. No need to provide for food, medication or a clean bed! She was an extremist but by no means an exception: the Catholic church has always made starving people believe that they are lucky because will go to heaven for their suffering. That helped the church to keep control and to get richer and richer. There are so many different protestants that it's hard to define a common practice there. The right to "pursue one's happiness" is definitely a very protestant concept... I'm not defending Catholicism, which I truly dislike as much as protestantism and every other organized religion, I just think you are giving protestatism too much credit. It is the more old testamental of the two branches of Western Christianity, and as such darker and more pessimistic. The God from the Torah is not a nice guy (disregarding for a moment that at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural). Protestantism introduced the concept of predestination. The pursuit of happiness is a thoroughly Civic Humanist ideal. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 07.06.2009 15:21 |
I'm an atheist, but I don't preach about how God doesn't exist and whatnot.. Those overenthusiastic atheists are just adding to the tension that already exists between believers and non-believers. Both sides need to stop trying to convert people. *On a personal note, I don't know when to come out to my parents about my atheism o.O My school counselor suggests I don't, but I know there will come a time when they find out... Just not soon. |
| The Real Wizard 08.06.2009 11:33 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural). Heretic! Burn him at the stake!!! We pious folk don't need your "scholarship" and "logic". ;) |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.06.2009 11:43 |
Sir GH wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural).Heretic! Burn him at the stake!!! We pious folk don't need your "scholarship" and "logic". ;) I know, I know. But throughout history, there has been a current in Judaism and Christianity that is willing to look at their religion in this way, as well as other philosophical approaches, as knowledge and wisdom of many different kinds are carefully presented in the Old Testament, just not usually at face value. That is also one of the reasons why Catholics were, until quite recently, forbidden from reading the Old Testament. Not so much that the church wanted to protect them from misinterpretation (in a way, there's either no such thing or nothing else); but God forbid if the masses started thinking about theological questions for themselves, in even the simplest ways! |
| FriedChicken 08.06.2009 17:39 |
I think the difference between a fundamental religious believer and a fundamental atheist is that the atheist one would admit that he was wrong if some good evidence for a god would turn up. A fundamental christian on the other hand discards all the evidence that contradicts his/her believe system. And say that it's a matter of believe, and not a matter of fact. Like evolution, gravity or a heliocentric solar system is something you have to believe in.... |
| Yara 08.06.2009 23:44 |
Hi, folks! How are you? I hope you're doing great. I enjoyed reading this thread a lot. Thanks, fatty, for creating it - it's nice to see you around here. Oh my, I can't look at Mr. Jingle's avatar that I start laughing. lol ---- Topic! I'm a very religious person and I don't mind atheists speaking their minds more strongly. My feeling is that we've been accostumed to religious authorities or believers doing, let's say, proselitism for so much time, that when - and it's a quite recent phenomenon - atheists start inviting people to debate and trying to convince them, we get kind of shocked, because we've been used to things being the other way around - religious people going after atheists to convert them. There was time, back in the middle of the 20th Century, when historians even raised the question as to whether it was really possible for someone in the 16th Century, for instance, to be really an atheist, as there are many nowadays, so much has been the power of religion in shaping culture and people's mind over time: a great historian named Lucien Febvre wrote a book a long time ago intitled: "The problem of unbelief in the sixteenth century" - It addesses the question by focusing in Rabelais' work. It was a legitimate historical issue: "Was it possible for someone in the 16th Century to be an atheist? Did the culture leave space for this?". So, now that, yes, religion is being contested again, as it had been in the Enlightenment or the works of the libertines, we find it weird because atheists are in some way not supposed to join public debates or invite people to public debates and make their points. Religion is still a very powerful force in our world. In my humble view, saying that such a guy as Dawkins is "fundamentalist" isn't right. "Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever; a guy who doesn't act upon his views, but just debates and writes books about science and religion, isn't a fundamentalist, all the more when he himself has changed, and is open to change, his views whenever there's enough evidence available which accounts better, to the scientific community, for certain problems or discredits a resonable statement, by him or any biologist, which admits both logical values: true and false functions. I think it's unfair to label him or other vocal atheists - such as great philosopher Daniel Dennett, a very clever and thought provoking guy - as "fundamentalist": I guess this word, pretty much as the word "terrorist", shouldn't be applied to people who are out there to debate and not to supress other people's right of having their religious beliefs. They're within the democratic framework. Atheists, it's true, have been constantly attacked by religious people: there comes a time when people do answer. And the answer causes a lot of turmoil because, now, the criticism of religion, coming both from atheists or religious people who are scientists, is not on the fringe anymore and not restricted to a particular political outlook - no! It's right in the mainstream and it encompasses people from all sides of the political spectrum. I'm very, very religious. I saw some Hebrew above and found it amusing - I'm a Hebrew-speaker and have been brought up in a very stern tradition of judaism. I still follow it. Personally, especially as a student of the sciences, I'm well aware that my faith wouldn't stand scrutiny for five minutes without being ridiculed or simply debunked. That's why it is my FAITH: it's grounded on my confusion as to what the world and life is about, my weaknesses, all that - but in the end of the day, I truly believe in it, to the point of having the need to devote part of my time to my religion: it brings me a lot joy, it's a source of wisdom for me and a beacon to someone who's quite insecure and has to make her own way in the world. It makes me happy, it brings me a lot of joy, it's an occasion for me to meet people. All above doesn't legitimize my religion in a cognitive way: by no means. But it does help pulling myself together and making me happy. I think that'd be it. Folks, take care you all. I wish you well and I hope you have a great day. Thanks for the great thread and I've been enjoying it a lot. Regards! Yara |
| GuitarGod_ 09.06.2009 05:59 |
I think both sides (athiests and believers) can be guilty of being too forward or hassling - it just depends on your experience of them. Whilst athiests might try to ram their opinions down everyones throat, how many times has a religious man been at your door and near-on refused to go away? I'm a church-goer myself, so I can't really bad-mouth Christians, but peoples opinions of Christians seemed to be based on that one guy with a bible at your door who just won't leave you alone. Of course, Christians and the like would be more pleasant to talk to as being nice seems to be part of our nature, where as athiests seem to get really bothered if you don't agree with them. Neither side can give you solid proof - no one can prove that God does or doesn't exist - you just have to believe or not believe. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.06.2009 06:06 |
FriedChicken wrote: I think the difference between a fundamental religious believer and a fundamental atheist is that the atheist one would admit that he was wrong if some good evidence for a god would turn up. I seriously doubt that, really. Throughout scientific history as well as religious history we have seen that fanatical exponents of one theory or another refuse to yield, even if proven wrong. The most likely scenario in the case of a fundamentalist atheist confronted with evidence for a god of some kind would be a postmodernist critique of epistemology in which he/she would argue, very eloquently and very incoherently, that the foundation of the evidence is flawed and that the evidence is thus not beyond reasonable doubt. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.06.2009 06:07 |
GuitarGod_ wrote: Of course, Christians and the like would be more pleasant to talk to as being nice seems to be part of our nature, where as athiests seem to get really bothered if you don't agree with them. That's a pointless generalization. I know pleasant and unpleasant atheists, and I know pleasant and unpleasant Christians, Muslims and Jews. |
| The Real Wizard 09.06.2009 10:31 |
Yara wrote: "Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever That makes him an extremist, which is actually a loose term based on acts they commit in the name of their faith. Fundamentalist is a term we came up with about 100 years ago to describe religious folk who think their sacred text is the divine word of their chosen higher being, and live their life as that text suggests (or "commands", as they see it)... and that there cannot be any other alternative. They are the ones who tend to be extremists, but not all fundamentalists are extremists. But the definition in itself is flawed, because there are parts of any sacred text that contradict one another, since they were written by a number of people over a long period of time. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.06.2009 11:17 |
Sir GH wrote:Yara wrote: "Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whateverThat makes him an extremist, which is actually a loose term based on acts they commit in the name of their faith. Fundamentalist is a term we came up with about 100 years ago to describe religious folk who think their sacred text is the divine word of their chosen higher being, and live their life as that text suggests (or "commands", as they see it)... and that there cannot be any other alternative. They are the ones who tend to be extremists, but not all fundamentalists are extremists. But the definition in itself is flawed, because there are parts of any sacred text that contradict one another, since they were written by a number of people over a long period of time. Technically, a fundamentalist would be one who lives according to the fundamentals of his religion (which *can* be a holy scripture, as in protestantism, or an authority figure, as in Catholicism, or a judicial orthodocy, as in Islam, depending on the basis of a religion), i.e. who complies with his religion to the strictest extreme, including the outlawing of everything that is not literally covered by their religious beliefs. |
| catqueen 09.06.2009 11:18 |
This is a great thread, I've been reading it with great interest but hesitating to comment so far. I especially enjoyed PMA's and Yara's comments, as well as many others. I've noticed too that (some) athiests are becoming more vocal and united, and was talking to someone last week who was talking about some of the ads going up in parts of England. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I'm finding people's reactions to the more 'in your face' athiesm interesting. Christians are sadly not generally known for the kindness, generosity, patience and love that is taught in the Bible, especially with regard to communicating with people who are different from us. Christians have given athiests (and 'heretics') an extremely hard time, and don't seem overly willing to really listen or engage in genuine discussion with either athiests or any people holding any other ideology that differs greatly from Christianity. Which is a bit strange really, as if someone really believes something, another point of view shouldn't be a threat, and if you don't really believe it, what harm is there in hearing another viewpoint? (Having said that, I haven't read Dawkin's books, as, even though I really do believe in God and Jesus, it's not based on reason - I just 'know' it and feel it, wierd as that sounds. In most other things I'm fairly rational, but I am a bit scared to hold my faith up to the genius of Dawkins, as it's not something I can rationally defend.) Anyway, I think it's interesting to see Christians getting very worried, almost frightened at times, about athiests being more 'evangelistic'. We have shoved our beliefs down many, many people's throats, and it's probably good for us to know how it feels! Personally, although I'm not especially happy to have any ideology aggressively pushed at me, it's great to see people thinking and talking about the nature and meaning of life. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 09.06.2009 12:13 |
catqueen wrote: This is a great thread, I've been reading it with great interest but hesitating to comment so far. I especially enjoyed PMA's and Yara's comments, as well as many others. I've noticed too that (some) athiests are becoming more vocal and united, and was talking to someone last week who was talking about some of the ads going up in parts of England. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I'm finding people's reactions to the more 'in your face' athiesm interesting. Christians are sadly not generally known for the kindness, generosity, patience and love that is taught in the Bible, especially with regard to communicating with people who are different from us. Christians have given athiests (and 'heretics') an extremely hard time, and don't seem overly willing to really listen or engage in genuine discussion with either athiests or any people holding any other ideology that differs greatly from Christianity. Which is a bit strange really, as if someone really believes something, another point of view shouldn't be a threat, and if you don't really believe it, what harm is there in hearing another viewpoint? (Having said that, I haven't read Dawkin's books, as, even though I really do believe in God and Jesus, it's not based on reason - I just 'know' it and feel it, wierd as that sounds. In most other things I'm fairly rational, but I am a bit scared to hold my faith up to the genius of Dawkins, as it's not something I can rationally defend.) Anyway, I think it's interesting to see Christians getting very worried, almost frightened at times, about athiests being more 'evangelistic'. We have shoved our beliefs down many, many people's throats, and it's probably good for us to know how it feels! Personally, although I'm not especially happy to have any ideology aggressively pushed at me, it's great to see people thinking and talking about the nature and meaning of life. Are you SURE you're an evangelical christian? |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.06.2009 12:38 |
Evangelical Christianity means Christianity with a missionary drive. You don't really seem to match that profile. |
| The Real Wizard 09.06.2009 13:16 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Technically, a fundamentalist would be one who lives according to the fundamentals of his religion (which *can* be a holy scripture, as in protestantism, or an authority figure, as in Catholicism, or a judicial orthodocy, as in Islam, depending on the basis of a religion), i.e. who complies with his religion to the strictest extreme, including the outlawing of everything that is not literally covered by their religious beliefs. Fair enough, Mr Webster. :-) |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.06.2009 13:41 |
Sorry, it's a contagious disease one gets at Arts faculties at university... |
| FriedChicken 09.06.2009 15:50 |
If some very good evidence of a god turns up, which of the religions are going to claim him? What I'm trying to say is, I know we can't disprove the absence of a god, but that doesn't mean +1 for Christianity. It also means we can't disprove Allah (yeah I know it's the same jerk), Vishnu, Mithras, Hercules, Aphrodites, Russel's Teapot, the dragon in my garage, giants and barbapapa's. Come on, ThomasQuinn. You're a smart guy. You can't seriously think that if you can't prove the absence of something, it is a point for the losing team. |
| catqueen 10.06.2009 14:25 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Evangelical Christianity means Christianity with a missionary drive. You don't really seem to match that profile. Hehe, that's to lull you into a false sense of security so I can hit you really hard over the head with it when you least expect it! I do feel strongly that Christ is real and is who he said he is. But I don't think he's necessarily like we/Christians often portray him. He was accused of being a glutton and alcoholic and associating too much with sinners (incl. prostitutes and other social outcasts)! Not the image that jumps to mind when thinking about him, but its in the Bible. So he was presumably a nice guy. When asked to comment on the judgment (seemingly legally it would have been death) of 'woman caught in adultry' he said something to the effect that whoever of the accusing group was innocent could throw the first stone to kill her, eventually releasing her and saying to 'sin no more' or something like that. He went around healing and helping people and had a big following. And I'm starting to rant, sorry about that! It's frustrating to me when Christians become so narrowly focused on their own ideas and whats right and wrong that they forget to live, and forget that people with different viewpoints are also human, and are the same as us. We all (or most of us!) want to find meaning and fulfillment in life, and we are going to follow whatever seems to provide that. I guess even though I believe strongly in Christ, I feel that that should give me more empathy and respect for people who were made in God's image. There is something sadly wrong when people are seen as 'projects' to be 'converted' to a particular belief system. And I'm ranting again! Have I scared you yet? This is something I feel so strongly about, I really hope I'm not offending anyone, and I'm very sorry if I am. |
| john bodega 10.06.2009 16:26 |
I am a champion horse. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.06.2009 07:42 |
FriedChicken wrote: If some very good evidence of a god turns up, which of the religions are going to claim him? What I'm trying to say is, I know we can't disprove the absence of a god, but that doesn't mean +1 for Christianity. It also means we can't disprove Allah (yeah I know it's the same jerk), Vishnu, Mithras, Hercules, Aphrodites, Russel's Teapot, the dragon in my garage, giants and barbapapa's. Come on, ThomasQuinn. You're a smart guy. You can't seriously think that if you can't prove the absence of something, it is a point for the losing team. That's not what I'm arguing; my whole point is that the match will remain undecided. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.06.2009 07:55 |
catqueen wrote: It's frustrating to me when Christians become so narrowly focused on their own ideas and whats right and wrong that they forget to live, and forget that people with different viewpoints are also human, and are the same as us. We all (or most of us!) want to find meaning and fulfillment in life, and we are going to follow whatever seems to provide that. I guess even though I believe strongly in Christ, I feel that that should give me more empathy and respect for people who were made in God's image. There is something sadly wrong when people are seen as 'projects' to be 'converted' to a particular belief system. I think that is very admirable of you. I do not mind religion at all (even though I have none myself), but I do object to closed-mindedness (which is not limited to religious folk), and you are certainly not guilty of that. If you ask me, the point of religion is not to provide people with rules and ready-made answers, but to point their attention to questions they should think about. The answers aren't important, but thinking is, I'd say. |
| catqueen 11.06.2009 11:23 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I think that is very admirable of you. I do not mind religion at all (even though I have none myself), but I do object to closed-mindedness (which is not limited to religious folk), and you are certainly not guilty of that. If you ask me, the point of religion is not to provide people with rules and ready-made answers, but to point their attention to questions they should think about. The answers aren't important, but thinking is, I'd say. Thanks so much! That's the nicest thing I've been told for a while! :) I think you're right that the most important thing is to think and ask, rather then try to boil down a comprehensive set of rigid answers which have to be twisted so that they apply to real life. So many people have been hurt by other people forcing their beliefs at them and refusing to listen and hear things from the other point of view. Although I believe in the Bible, (in my opinion), it is damaging to take random pieces out of context and use them to make people conform to MY point of view. Religion can unfortunately be used as a particularly effective way to control others, as you can claim 'God's' authority to make people do what you want, with a fear of punishment if people don't want to comply - which is completely wrong according to the Bible (and presumably other religious books also). |
| FriedChicken 11.06.2009 12:39 |
I think it's also a problem that it's hard to know the right context. What IS the right context? The content of the Bible has been written, rewritten, translated, translated again and again and revised over the course of 2 thousand years+. I think it's hard to say what is symbolic and what isn't. As to ThomasQuinn (Sorry... I forgot your real name..): I understand what you mean, but I don't seem to agree that something which is not provable makes the match a tie. If its not provable that there is, or isn't a god doesn't make it 50/50. The chances of the existance of Leprechauns... Either they exist, or they don't. They have never been spotted by scientist, although some people believe they exist, and some people actually saw some, or had conversations with them. That surely doesn't make it 50/50. In the court of law you're innocent untill you're proven guilty. That's why it's the task of believes in god(s) to prove it's existence, and not the task of the rest. |
| catqueen 12.06.2009 14:01 |
Fired Chicken, you have a point - you can argue over what is literal and what's symbolic in the Bible until the cows come home and never agree. And the arguements over stuff like that tend to get fairly nasty and personal, unfortunatly. I listened to about half a podcast months ago about who has the 'burden of proof' and needs to prove their side of whether there is life outside the universe or not, and gave up in disgust because neither side would give an inch, and the athiest side of the argument was winning handsdown while the intelligent life side got very angry and defensive and refused to listen to them, but now I'm kind of wishing I would have listened to the rest of it! One thing I would wonder about the whole 'proof' thing - as you said, people have spoken to leprechauns, etc. This makes me wonder what kind of 'proof' would be given and or accepted universally to prove existance of something 'other'. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (people telling that something happened to them) and many religions have holy books, which claim to be inspired. The existance of the universe is given as 'proof', but is obviously not universally accepted. I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just wonder if the whole proving or disproving thing is even possible. I mean, someone I know was miraculously cured of cancer - was it a miracle or a twist of nature? Because I believe in God, I would say it's a miracle, if I didn't believe in God, I'd say it was an accident of nature or the scans were switched in the hospital or something. I agree that generally we don't set out to prove that things are not there, we prove and study things that are there, but what constitutes proof depends, to some extent, on your point of view. I'm really, really enjoying this thread, I don't usually get the chance to hash stuff like this around! And now I'm off to prove that there are no monsters in the kitchen! |
| FriedChicken 14.06.2009 10:53 |
I don't think the universe as a proof is a very good one. That's the same as saying Smurfs exists because we can see their houses all over the forest. You don't have to see the things you're trying to prove to prove them. That's the whole thing in science. You can't see black holes. But still, there are thousands of things that point to the excistence of them. When it's a good hypothesis the results of a test can be predicted and will be the same as the outcome. Then the theory will be accepted by most of the scientific world. If the god hypothesis would be a good one, you could predict the outcome of tests. For example, if you pray for the return of a severed limb, the limb would return. Unless the god you're testing happens to work in mysterious ways. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.06.2009 11:44 |
Ah, but that all depends on what you define as your Gods function. If you simply go for the Deist interpretation of a 'Great Clockmaker' who designs the universe, 'presses the start-button' (big bang) and disappears from the scene, your hypothesis will consist of entirely metaphysical arguments, and is thus a matter of philosophy and not of 'hard science'. |
| FriedChicken 15.06.2009 06:53 |
That's why I think most philosophy is useless and outdated |
| FriedChicken 15.06.2009 06:54 |
I also think the chain rection god doesn't solve a problem, it just adds one link to the problem. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.06.2009 07:50 |
FriedChicken wrote: That's why I think most philosophy is useless and outdated I recommend you become familiar with philosophy before making silly remarks like this. The philosophical branches Logic and Epistemology, for instance, are the very foundation of the science you so adore. Not just in the past, but as we speak. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.06.2009 07:52 |
FriedChicken wrote: I also think the chain rection god doesn't solve a problem, it just adds one link to the problem. Until you stop seeing it as a problem to be solved. Science concerns itself with HOW the Universe evolved from the very first moment on. Anything before that is outside the scope of science and, thus, "not your problem", so to speak. It is, and is likely to remain, unanswerable, but that does not mean it is useless to ask the question what came before the Universe. |
| FriedChicken 15.06.2009 19:23 |
Sure, I get your point. But I'm sure 99.99% of the believers don't see their god as a part of philosophy. And I really don't know why God should be taken more seriously than the Hindu's golden egg creation myth. |
| catqueen 17.06.2009 16:46 |
FriedChicken wrote: I don't think the universe as a proof is a very good one. That's the same as saying Smurfs exists because we can see their houses all over the forest. You don't have to see the things you're trying to prove to prove them. That's the whole thing in science. You can't see black holes. But still, there are thousands of things that point to the excistence of them. When it's a good hypothesis the results of a test can be predicted and will be the same as the outcome. Then the theory will be accepted by most of the scientific world. If the god hypothesis would be a good one, you could predict the outcome of tests. For example, if you pray for the return of a severed limb, the limb would return. Unless the god you're testing happens to work in mysterious ways. This is kind of what I was getting at when I said that what you see as evidence or lack of evidence for the existance of God or of powerful intelligent life outside the universe depends on your starting point. My immediate thought was that the Smurfs make no claims to have created the forest, we know for a fact that they were 'created' by humans. So to me, this isn't a valid argument. And with regard to the severed limb, if God (I'm only using the Christian God, as I don't know enough about other religions) is who the Bible says he is, he is outside natural laws and the universe, is more powerful then us, and therefore not obliged to do what we want. (I am aware of how this sounds. "There is a God! He healed you!" or "There is a God! He didn't heal you but this proves that he is powerful!" :) ) But although God being outside of the universe's laws makes sense to me, I don't know if its a valid argument, as its kind of circluar logic - if it's true, it makes sense, if its not true the argument falls apart. Which is why I don't generally try to defend God with logic. Apart from the fact that I don't think it can ever be proven beyond any doubt, I believe that God relates to people in a personal way and this is very hard to defend logically - how do you logically defend any relationship or emotion. |
| The Real Wizard 17.06.2009 18:39 |
catqueen wrote: how do you logically defend any relationship or emotion. Physical things (including a person or place) can trigger an emotional response. There can be some form of justification in those cases, as one can explain why they feel what they feel by offering tangible proof that can be seen by anyone regardless of their beliefs. Metaphysical things, on the other hand, are a completely different situation. For something of no proven existence to have an emotional effect on you is a matter of choice, and can be only "understood" by those who have a similar belief system. |
| FriedChicken 17.06.2009 20:23 |
Emotions and relationships are nothing more than a chemical reaction in your body. You're nothing more than a big pile of chemical reactions, I'm noting more than a big pile of chemical reactions.. Isn't that wonderful? :D |
| FriedChicken 17.06.2009 20:27 |
My immediate thought was that the Smurfs make no claims to have created the forest, we know for a fact that they were 'created' by humans." Well, we also know for a fact that the trinity was created by humans. But still there are a billion people who believe thats the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help them Smurfs. |
| catqueen 21.06.2009 11:13 |
Ok, another one bites the dust. I have all these lovely ideas that really don't hold up - this is why I don't read Dawkins. :) I've always heard it preached that you can't logically prove emotion, it's not tangible, you can't see it, etc, and if we acknowledge the existance of emotions, why not God. But when I actually reread what I had written that doesn't completely stand true. Emotion is universally acknowledged and accompanied by measurable physical changes (crying, change in pulse rate, etc). I know people who would probably say that we know actors aren't really feeling emotion when they demonstrate or 'prove' that they are, but there again, that isn't really a strong argument. But this could go around in circles forever! |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.06.2009 11:38 |
FriedChicken wrote: Well, we also know for a fact that the trinity was created by humans. But still there are a billion people who believe thats the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help them Smurfs. No, we don't. You assume it, and Christians (excluding Unitarians) assume that it wasn't. It's a matter of faith either way. |
| catqueen 22.06.2009 11:52 |
An author called Don Miller who wrote this brilliant book Blue Like Jazz, A Non Religious Look at Christian Spirituality, once said that there is enough evidence to prove both that God exists and that he doesn't, which I think is probably true. You can argue very well that people started out monotheistic, and you can argue equally well that people were originally polytheistic. Many scientists feel that there is no intelligant creating force, while others have studied for years and come to the conclusion that there was intelligent design in creation, whether that be God or something else. You can prove that the earth is old and young, depending on what dating system you use. There's an organisation called Answers in Genesis that publish various things that give scientific credence (is that the right word? make it credible?) for creation as taught in the Bible. (Eg, unreliability of carbon 14 dating, fossils being found perfectly preserved through numerous layers of rock which were all supposed to have been formed millions of years apart, etc. They argue that the flood in Genesis explains why the earth looks as if it should be billions of years old, but that the pressure caused by the flood would have caused the formation of coal, rock layers, etc in a very short time.) With regard to having faith, I've heard various people say that athiests just don't want to have faith in something, etc, and that in reality everyone has faith in lots of things. Such as when we sit in a chair, we have faith taht it will hold us up, we have faith that if we go out, we will return safely, we have faith that the sun will rise and atoms will keep spinning around, and that gravity will always work. I really don't like when people use things like this to justify faith in an unseen God, as to me those things aren't faith - they are based on previous experience and on laws of nature. We don't have faith that gravity will work because it is a natural law, it will work. That's just the way it is, we can study it and learn why it works, scientifically prove that it will work or else just accept it based on previous experience. But when I tried to say that to someone, they got kind of huffy with me. What do other people think? Sorry about the long post. |
| FriedChicken 22.06.2009 14:09 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:FriedChicken wrote: Well, we also know for a fact that the trinity was created by humans. But still there are a billion people who believe thats the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help them Smurfs.No, we don't. You assume it, and Christians (excluding Unitarians) assume that it wasn't. It's a matter of faith either way. Thomas, you really surprise me. So as long as it's a matter of faith nothing anthing will hold up, no matter how rediculous it is? |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.06.2009 06:51 |
FriedChicken wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote:Thomas, you really surprise me. So as long as it's a matter of faith nothing anthing will hold up, no matter how rediculous it is?FriedChicken wrote: Well, we also know for a fact that the trinity was created by humans. But still there are a billion people who believe thats the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help them Smurfs.No, we don't. You assume it, and Christians (excluding Unitarians) assume that it wasn't. It's a matter of faith either way. The problem is that you insist on taking everything about religion literally. In that sense, you're as bad as an orthodox protestant. Most religious 'dogmas' like the trinity are philosophical abstractions. The fact that popular religion abuses them is of no interest to me: I can only applaud churches emptying and growing antipathy towards priestly authority. I do not, however, appreciate reductionists who want to throw 3000 to 4000 years of serious philosophy out the window, just because the masses can't understand them and are too lazy to make an effort. There has always been a dichotomy between the ordinary believers, towards whom religion was used as a method of maintaining the laws, and an open elite (mystics, monastics, saints and heretics) who seriously considered the underlying notions. For instance, the two creation stories offered in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 respectively make little sense when read in translation, but when one looks at the original Hebrew, the first word (bereshit; "in the beginning") alone reveals a cosmogenesis that is quite close to the Big Bang theory, namely that when the letters Beth and Shin (air [any kind of gas] and fire respectively) met, there came "a beginning" which consisted of "expansion" (the Alef and Jod of the word "Elohim", meaning god [as a function/job, not a name], which have the numerical value 11, which is the Hebrew expression for "expansion" [1 becomes 11, or two ones]). The final letter of the first word, the Tav, means ending, by which is expressed that the ending is contained within the beginning, or that everything that has a beginning will end, i.e. that the universe is not eternal. I think it's too bad that you are too dogmatic to be willing to appreciate the value that is present in ancient texts. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.06.2009 07:30 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: For instance, the two creation stories offered in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 respectively make little sense when read in translation, but when one looks at the original Hebrew, the first word (bereshit; "in the beginning") alone reveals a cosmogenesis that is quite close to the Big Bang theory, namely that when the letters Beth and Shin (air [any kind of gas] and fire respectively) met, there came "a beginning" which consisted of "expansion" (the Alef and Jod of the word "Elohim", meaning god [as a function/job, not a name], which have the numerical value 11, which is the Hebrew expression for "expansion" [1 becomes 11, or two ones]). The final letter of the first word, the Tav, means ending, by which is expressed that the ending is contained within the beginning, or that everything that has a beginning will end, i.e. that the universe is not eternal. I think it's too bad that you are too dogmatic to be willing to appreciate the value that is present in ancient texts. I was raised strict catholic and am now an atheist with issues who - right or wrong - finds it personally upsetting when someone talks about their religion/faith. 9/11 and all the righteous crap from 8 years of the Bush administration made it worse for me - constantly having 'god' as the cause and effect of everything just made god and its believers seem yet more ridiculous and suffocating to me. However, I've never lost the need to understand why there are believers in the first place. I find what you've said here to be fascinating. Ever think of teaching this stuff or writing a book in layman terms about the origins of religion and how it's been used/abused/force-fed over the centuries? |
| FriedChicken 24.06.2009 13:23 |
Thomas, I too know about the originals, and have read most parts, as well. I don't have a problem with old philosophy, but the way that the bronze age ideas are forced down our throates every day. |
| catqueen 24.06.2009 16:23 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: For instance, the two creation stories offered in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 respectively make little sense when read in translation, but when one looks at the original Hebrew, the first word (bereshit; "in the beginning") alone reveals a cosmogenesis that is quite close to the Big Bang theory, namely that when the letters Beth and Shin (air [any kind of gas] and fire respectively) met, there came "a beginning" which consisted of "expansion" (the Alef and Jod of the word "Elohim", meaning god [as a function/job, not a name], which have the numerical value 11, which is the Hebrew expression for "expansion" [1 becomes 11, or two ones]). The final letter of the first word, the Tav, means ending, by which is expressed that the ending is contained within the beginning, or that everything that has a beginning will end, i.e. that the universe is not eternal. I think it's too bad that you are too dogmatic to be willing to appreciate the value that is present in ancient texts.I was raised strict catholic and am now an atheist with issues who - right or wrong - finds it personally upsetting when someone talks about their religion/faith. 9/11 and all the righteous crap from 8 years of the Bush administration made it worse for me - constantly having 'god' as the cause and effect of everything just made god and its believers seem yet more ridiculous and suffocating to me. However, I've never lost the need to understand why there are believers in the first place. I find what you've said here to be fascinating. Ever think of teaching this stuff or writing a book in layman terms about the origins of religion and how it's been used/abused/force-fed over the centuries? Magical Freddie Mercury, I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with church/religion, etc. Many, many Christians do not agree with the radical right, it's so sad that that whole fundamentalist, far right thing has gotton so tied up with christianity - war, exploitation and western domination of the world is not what Jesus represented. It still amazes me that Christ, who came to bring light, love and peace is now used to support and justify such extremely harsh views towards others. I mean, seriously, we are supposed to be bringing Christ's love to a suffering, broken world and to do this we ostracise gay people, loudly condemn people who don't happen to share our worldview, support sweat shops and start wars? I am neither a Bible scholar nor a saint, but you don't have to be to see that Jesus attracted people to himself, he was a nice guy - his harsh words were mainly restricted to the extremely religious of his day, he was always nice to the normal average 'sinner' and was well liked. It would be interesting to see where things changed and when the church started being so condemnatory and harsh to others. Thomas Quinn, that was really interesting. I've never read Genesis (or anything for that matter) in Hebrew, that's fascinating. |
| FriedChicken 24.06.2009 16:52 |
Well, it was the same love bringing Jesus that said: “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine" But I'm sure someone will say it's all a big metaphor. :-) |
| FriedChicken 24.06.2009 16:53 |
Matthew 10:34 by the way |
| catqueen 25.06.2009 15:00 |
Touche. I think I'm battling my intellectual superior here. How'd you get that reference so fast? I can never remember references and I believe and read the Bible frequently. You've heard the 'metaphor' explanation, obviously. Almost as handy an argument as that God moves in mysterious ways. I've heard several explanations of this. 1. It's a prophecy (it quotes from the prophetic book of Micah in the Old Testament) and refers to the subsequent invasion of Jerusalem that happened shortly afterwards. This invasion is also often used to explain Paul's reccommendation that people should remain single, and that it would be difficult for pregnant and nursing women - they had to flee Jerusalem and lived in extremely difficult circumstances for a while. 2. It's a metaphor, meaning that we should love Christ above everything and everyone else. (As in loving the person of Christ, not a specific religious denomination or group.) The paraphrase version of the Bible, The Message, seems to indicate this, as it says that Jesus has come to make a cut between attachment to things here, so that people can worship him more effectively. 3. It means that Christians will be disliked and kicked out by their families. And you can see that this is true because many people who aren't fundamentalist Christians thought the war in Iraq was bad! :) It is one of those passages that is basically imposible to analyse and fully understand, although I'm sure to someone who is not trying to make it 'fit' with the rest of the Bible it is perfectly clear! It would certainly explain why there have been so many 'holy' wars. But again, I think it is important to take things in the context of the whole. Thomas Quinn, please rescue me here and say that it makes sense from a philosophical standpoint! :) |