I say this because I don't want Christians thinking I don't believe in Creation or atheists thinking I don't believe the Bible.
Well, do you believe that birds were created before land animals?
As people continue to fight out this idea of proof, I have a supposition to make: you don't have to have everything proved to you.
Yes. You should. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste and you shouldn't let it get twisted around the first convincing, charismatic person to come along and tell you how it is... especially when that means handing over money or other forms of authority to that person.
The exact reason for God to forbid a carved image is so that our hope would not be in something we can 'prove', but instead in something we can witness. There's a big difference. If I tell you about the good God has done in my life, about my sin and the transformation I have been through after becoming a Christian, I won't offer to 'prove' God exists.
And these are the same experiences that have been offered by people since time immemorial. Same experiences, same results, different faces applied to the god.
You know God is there by having the courage to ask God to show up in your life (which you only will when the Spirit prompts you to), and by applying the Bible to your life.
Don't give me that courage bit. Try risking your life when you're staring down the immanent prospect of the cold void of eternal oblivion.
Besides, God seems to have "smite" macroed to me, i want as little attention on that front as possible....
If you're not talking about proof, or at least reasonable evidence, then you have nothing to distinguish you from from the vast hoards of other religions and mythologies that have proceeded you. I don't find the bible to be particularly inspired or inspiring, and in terms of morality the old testament is outright reprehensible.
Nategar05,
First off, if you want not to be offensive, a good start is not accusing the people you're speaking to of lying, cheating, being blind to the evidence and part of some global conspiracy to suppress the truth. That is offensive and saying "no offence" or "I don't mean you guys" does not change that fact.
Before I comment any further on any of this I'd like to clarify something. I'm not accusing a single member of this site of anything and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I always try to assume the best of everyone in real life and on the internet. Perhaps I didn't phrase my posts as well as I should have and for that I apologize. Once again, I never meant to imply that I think any of you are personally lying or purposefully ignoring evidence.
For that matter, I didn't mean to draw a line between "scientist" and "non-scientist" and say that if you're on one side of the line or another you act a certain way. I was just expressing how, according to my worldview, the majority of the people in the respective camps with these beliefs intellectually live. The people that have less exposure to the scientific problems facing naturalism tend to be ignorant (no offense again, just how my thinking works and I have no other way of saying it.) of the need to explain them. Or they assume that someone else already has or that it's unknowable right now but will be discovered soon. The people that have more exposure to them tend to handwave it away as experimental error or in other ways not consider alternatives while they keep researching and waiting for the groundbreaking discovery. In my opinion, even if that's relatively true, it's certainly not true of everyone. I apologize again if I gave the wrong impression to any of the professional scientists here, such as kirth.
To reiterate, my point here is that I don't consider anyone here guilty of any of this any more than I'd consider you guilty of robbing a bank. But even if nobody here has ever robbed a bank, other people have. That would make the possibility of it (bank robbing in this example) applicable because it does happen.
I think I'll leave it at that, at least for now. Once again, I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.
The people that have less exposure to the scientific problems facing naturalism tend to be ignorant (no offense again, just how my thinking works and I have no other way of saying it.) of the need to explain them. Or they assume that someone else already has or that it's unknowable right now but will be discovered soon.
-You're still calling the pro science folks ignorant. The "problems" with methodological naturalism are philosophical in nature, in other words, not worth killing trees for the paper it would take to write out a solution.
-There are no scientific problems facing naturalism. We don't know everything yet. We know that. Its called either job security or a reason to get up in the morning. Just because you and the creationists don't know what the answers (in the creationists websites case, because they haven't bothered to do 15 seconds of googling) are doesn't mean they're not there.
Every example you've given has been outright, completely, and totally wrong. We're not ignoring you out of ignorance, we're not refusing your hear your evidence because of some global conspiracy to serve our otter overlords. We're not physiologically stuck in a paradigm. We know the answers to the "problems" you're bringing up and we know how these things work.
Science and reason are not open mic poetry night. Its a rough business and if you come up with something people will actively try to disprove it. The bigger an idea is and the longer its been around the bigger name you'll make for yourself. Disproving evolution wouldn't get you shamed and shuned, if you somehow did it you'd get the nobel prize and your name in every biology book for the next 200 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only institution designed as it's primary purpose to wrestle with issues of morality is the church. I'm not saying that the church is never wrong, it makes mistakes just like science makes mistakes.
I appreciate your opinion, and I can understand why you see things that way. From my point of view, I look at the largest single religion (Christianity -- 33% of the planet), and the largest sect of that (the Catholic church), and I see the head of this sect, the Pope, has actively covered up for a ring of child rapists who work him (this isn't an unfounded accusation -- his signature is on the documents). That doesn't in any way mean all Catholics are complicit. But it does very strongly imply to me that so-called "spiritual authority" in no way makes one a moral authority, and indeed that the exact opposite seems to be true, at least on the balance. As soon as the rest of that church finds their moral bearing, turns in every last one of the abusers to be strung up, and boots Ratzinger out on his tuckus, then they can claim moral authority. And as soon as whole nations stop oppressing women in the name of the world's second largest religion (Islam, 21%), that will also be a big step towards fulfilling your claims. Until then, I remain skeptical that religion has truly allowed a deeper insight into morality than anything else.
The only institution designed as it's primary purpose to wrestle with issues of morality is the church. I'm not saying that the church is never wrong, it makes mistakes just like science makes mistakes.I appreciate your opinion, and I can understand why you see things that way. From my point of view, I look at the largest single religion (Christianity -- 33% of the planet), and the largest sect of that (the Catholic church), and I see the head of this sect, the Pope, has actively covered up for a ring of child rapists who work him (this isn't an unfounded accusation -- his signature is on the documents). That doesn't in any way mean all Catholics are complicit. But it does very strongly imply to me that so-called "spiritual authority" in no way makes one a moral authority, and indeed that the exact opposite seems to be true, at least on the balance. As soon as the rest of that church finds their moral bearing, turns in every last one of the abusers to be strung up, and boots Ratzinger out on his tuckus, then they can claim moral authority. And as soon as whole nations stop oppressing women in the name of the world's second largest religion (Islam, 21%), that will also be a big step towards fulfilling your claims. Until then, I remain skeptical that religion has truly allowed a deeper insight into morality than anything else.
Indeed, it's quite heartbreaking to see that kind of thing anywhere. If only all of the people that claim to be Christians would live like Jesus did and obey the Scriptures, this world would be a much better place.
some things
Yeah, I've had enough mere arguing for a while. I'll just point out that I'm hardly wasting my brain, and that we've already had the "old testament is immoral' talk. I'm not going to respond to or make personal remarks, or engage folk I feel are looking for a fight. A fight is not an intellectual exercise.
You don't find the Bible inspired or inspiring because you approach it with a priori hostility. That is your right.
Kirth - I think you know better than to ascribe one leader of one 'sect' of one religion (I think many Catholics and protestants would claim that we are actually different religions) and ascribe his failings to the religion itself. No one defends that behavior.
Yes, if we all behaved as Christ did, the Church would have more credibility, a stronger witness and the world would be different, but imperfect people will live imperfect lives perfectly. Which is why we need goverments to keep civil law and send folk like the priests who violated their parishioners to prison.
Finally, the Church should not allow itself to be perceived as having the primary purpose of wrestling with morality. The Church's primary purpose is to make disciples and preach the name of Jesus to every corner of the world. This includes worship, righteousness, etc. But those things should define its character, not its purpose.
Yeah, I've had enough mere arguing for a while. I'll just point out that I'm hardly wasting my brain, and that we've already had the "old testament is immoral' talk.
And you were back to circularity. That circularity is exactly WHY you need to question things from the beginning.
I'm not going to respond to or make personal remarks, or engage folk I feel are looking for a fight. A fight is not an intellectual exercise.
Some people prefer nerf darts, some people prefer fencing, some people prefer boxing. A brawl is not an intellectual exercise.Sparring is.
Speaking of shots below the belt...
You don't find the Bible inspired or inspiring because you approach it with a priori hostility. That is your right.
Ad hom and also flatly incorrect. I was raised catholic. I started nominally with the position that christianity is true.
You're attacking my conclusion based on the person making it. It is entirely possible that I find it uninspired on perfectly rational grounds such as its resemblance to other local moral systems, the ease with witch it meshes with the actions necessary for a xenophobic desert tribe, that god coincidentally happened to agree with a patriarchal group he had chosen and gave a set of laws that benefited the older males. Its incredibly rude and dismissive, no less so for being paired with my "right" to my allegedly poor and lazy thinking.
You do not need an apriori mental defect to question the morality of genocide. Its disingenuous of you to dismiss a conclusion without considering the rational behind it.
One of the funniest parts of this thread is the atheist who denounces religion.
It's funny because the absence of proof is not proof of the absence. Atheism is very much a faith based belief.
This is an old, tired, and simply untrue cliche. You use negative evidence every day of your life. You pull up to an intersection, you look, you don't see a car. You conclude there is no car that's going to hit you and you pull out. When you turn a corner to walk down a hall to the bathroom and you don't see a brick wall, you conclude there's no brick wall there and step forward. Likewise you do not see a snake on the toilet seat, so you do not act as if there's a snake there. You're ridiculing the very reasoning you risk your life on.
I do not believe in god for the same reason i don't believe in existent sasquatch: Its an idea that should have produced evidence by now if it was there. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when presence can reasonably be expected to produce evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth - I think you know better than to ascribe one leader of one 'sect' of one religion (I think many Catholics and protestants would claim that we are actually different religions) and ascribe his failings to the religion itself. No one defends that behavior.
That's not quite what I'm doing, though, because I make no claim that religious people should be without failings -- that would indeed be a straw man of the first order. The claim I'm addressing is that religion is better-equipped to deal with morality than any other type of thought or philosophy -- implying that those most deeply steeped in it should also, in general (but not in every case) be the most moral of us.
So I'm looking at the organized leadership of the largest single religious group in the world -- i.e., the people viewed as having the greatest spiritual, and hence supposedly moral, authority by more people than any other single group in existence. If these people had higher morals than those of ordinary men, this would be clear evidence that religion inspires morality better than other methods. If they had the same morals, the results would be inconclusive. As it is, they have lower morals than those of the people who look up to them as moral exemplars.
That tells me that those most deeply steeped in this particular religion have gained no moral insight whatsoever from it.
Then I look at Islamic leaders -- a more disparate group, some good, some bad, but in general those in liberal Westetrn countries show what I would consider to be better morals than most of those in Islamic countries -- at least in terms of oppression of women, advocacy of assassination over books and cartoons, advocacy of the destruction of their neighbors (e.g., Iran via-a-vis Isreal). In short, those most deeply steeped in that religion also do not show the highest morals, but rather the reverse is true.
I know many religious people whose morals are indeed extremely well-developed, and who credit their religion. I do not deny their claims -- they're probably true. I know as many people, however, more deeply "dedicated to their faith," who are morally bankrupt. The most moral person I've ever met, however -- a man I consider to be an exemplar in terms of loving his fellow-man, never committing an evil act, and protecting those around him from evil -- also happens to be a closet atheist. Anecdotal? Sure, but one would assume, given the bold statement that "religion inspires morality better than any alternative," that some pattern supporting this assertion would be visible somewhere.
---
EDIT: Sorry for the wall of text! A quick summary: I believe that theistic religions can indeed inspire morality in some people. The weight of evidence suggests to me that these religions may not be the best way of doing so in many cases, and that they are certainly not the only way of doing so.
|
One of the funniest parts of this thread is the atheist who denounces religion.
It's funny because the absence of proof is not proof of the absence. Atheism is very much a faith based belief.
This is an old, tired, and simply untrue cliche.
I don't think so. Certainly not cliche. I think it is just one of those things that CAN'T be answered properly, and it also puts the science/atheist outside of the defensive position. (Typically they are one the side of "you show me proof").
You use negative evidence every day of your life. You pull up to an intersection, you look, you don't see a car. You conclude there is no car that's going to hit you and you pull out. When you turn a corner to walk down a hall to the bathroom and you don't see a brick wall, you conclude there's no brick wall there and step forward. Likewise you do not see a snake on the toilet seat, so you do not act as if there's a snake there. You're ridiculing the very reasoning you risk your life on.
A better comparrison would be along the lines of not looking for a car, but since there wasn't one the last 30 times, going forward, or there has never been a brick wall there in the past, or despite what someone told you today, you have never seen a snake in the toilet, so why check now?
I do not believe in god for the same reason i don't believe in existent sasquatch: Its an idea that should have produced evidence by now if it was there. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when presence can reasonably be expected to produce evidence.
I'm not saying your wrong, but what qualifies as "evidence" and "reasonably expected" are both very open to debate.
Quote:
You know God is there by having the courage to ask God to show up in your life (which you only will when the Spirit prompts you to), and by applying the Bible to your life.
Don't give me that courage bit. Try risking your life when you're staring down the immanent prospect of the cold void of eternal oblivion.
The first time I read this, it really bothered me. I've had some battles die recently, and part of this struck home in a real way, for some related issues. Originally, I was going to say something else, but after rereading it, I'm not sure of the tone and context. But, on a related note, I will say that, from my personal experience, there is a distinct difference, in the field between religious and non-religious and devout atheists, both along the moral and morale side, and along the general attitude. For the most part, what religion (with the exception of humanist and atheist types if you group them that way) do tend towards a healthier moral, mental fortitude, and lessened fear. Not all, by any means, but there is a distinct difference over all. I also tend to treat less patients (bodily or mentally) amongst the more faithful, (from what I can tell).
Again, this is not at all universal, just trends I personally have noticed, religious soldiers tend to be more concerned for other soldiers (and civilians and locals) long term well being and tend to go out of their way to help <with non-religious matters> much more so than non-religious ones, <when their job is not making them and does include people they do not know at all and may not ever see again>. They also tend to have a high level for mental and emotional issues. Not sure about the fear of death. What I think is based more on personal opinion than evidence I've seen, and is probably biased.
Sorry for the wall of text! A quick summary: I believe that theistic religions can indeed inspire morality in some people. The weight of evidence suggests to me that these religions may not be the best way of doing so in many cases, and that they are certainly not the only way of doing so.
I'm more directing this at a lot of things you said rather than this quote specifically, but also didn't want to have a more massive text than I had to.
For the most part, I would lay a great deal of the blame for this on politics rather than religion. Both in the sense that such individuals, because of their position, are almost necessarily very political and also because the various places of the world do not hold the same politics or ethics or standards of morality. I don't mean this as a way of excussing them, just that it should really be concidered in your judgement. Also the fact that, in your example, how certain are you that all those allogations are true? <I'm not, in all honesty I avoided the news, so I honestly can't say if there was evidence or not>, but I can say that ruining peoples lives for false allogations, to me, is a hundred times worse than most of the actual allogations themselves. It happens all the time, and there is usually little to no proof whatsoever. It is estimated that well over half (sometimes as much as 80%) of the individuals in jail right now and since the 70's for rape are completely innocent, and are themselves the victims of P'd off ex-girlfriends, some they didn't even do anything to offend except break up with. Groups of people coming together to make free money by sueing "the man" is nothing new, especially when the allogations alone are enough to ruin a groups reputation, even if they are proven 100% to be false.
For the most part, I would lay a great deal of the blame for this on politics rather than religion.
Sure, power corrupts. The point is that the religion totally failed to instill any morality that the politics didn't send directly into the toilet.
Also the fact that, in your example, how certain are you that all those allogations are true?
As I said, his signature is on the documents. What was being covered up? Here are some typical examples.
|
|
For the most part, I would lay a great deal of the blame for this on politics rather than religion.
Sure, power corrupts. The point is that the religion totally failed to instill any morality that the politics didn't send directly into the toilet.
I'm less saying power corrupts (obviously) than the world is a big place with different ideas of right and wrong besides the American ones (do we really even have any?), and that for some religious groups, the more athority the more political you must be, regardless of the religion, and is it the politics or the religion (two seperate things) that really need to be targetted. <I am not saying rape or child abuse is ok, by the way.>
As I said, his signature is on the documents. What was being covered up? Here are some typical examples.Also the fact that, in your example, how certain are you that all those allogations are true?
The first one reads like a tabloid or an hobby conspiracy theory <and a Regional Command East/Command Joint Task Force 1 badge thingy pops up on my computer>, really making me question this. Don't get me wrong, it may very well all be true. But I personally find it difficult to believe that all those priestly abuse claims, especially at the time or just how frequent they where in comparisson to each other are all completely authentic. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that, especially in cases like this, it should be manditory to find as much evidence as humanly possible. The first site itself talks about how dangerous the simple allogations are to hurting the Catholic church. I know individuals who where accussed by an entire class of sexual activity, lost both their position and their rank, and went to jail, and every single girl admitted to lying. They simply got kicked out. He is still in jail, can never get back into the military, and has to register as a sex offender should he ever get out, despite the fact that every single girl admitten he did absolutely nothing, officially. To me, that is even worse than if he had done anything.
Evidence? All the data I've seen says that most rapes aren't even reported and even fewer are prosecuted because it's so hard to win a conviction in all but the most extreme and violent cases. 80% of convicted rapists just being innocent victims of ex-girlfriends just strikes me as nonsense.
For the child abuse scandals, there was a run of repressed memory cases in the 80s that turned out to be false. Those were pretty lurid, involving torture, Satanic conspiracies, cults, etc. The Catholic scandals are far more realistic, don't involve repressed memories, and far better supported.
It's a bit off topic, but it really depends on what "evidence" you see. Most of the facts we have about rape are wildly misrepresented, (including things that the victims <who didn't even know they where being classified as victims> would not consider rape, and also of their own choice remained with their "raper"). Most statistics on rape and household (martial) abuse where not at all well researched, and actually didn't document anything about their sources, including the specifcs of the altercations, who initiated the altercations, or even check to see that the described incidents actually had any official documentation (ie really happened). The idea that most rapes are unreported is not believed to be true either, but rather propoganda, and is believed to be much closer to about 5% than 51+%. However, for male victims, this is believed to be much more true for both rape and abuse. Additionally, especially for females, we are stepping away from the idea of "repressed memories" as studies are showing that repressed memories are more likely a form of "brain washing" and an individuals empathic response rather than actual memories of horrific things. In most cases, repressed memories are accessed by repeated leading questions over time, not by non-leading questions that cause the victim to need to answer in detail.
"Where you attacked by a tall, balck man? Can you describe him. Anything. Tall? Darker skinned? What sort of cloths did he wear? A jersey? Do you remember any colors?. . . . . . Did he do anything else? Are you sure he didn't touch you. . . "
vs
"Can you describe your attacker? Black, white, male, female, tall, short?"
For the victims that are looking for sympathy and the battered woman syndrom, the first both leads to easy answers to bypass the system.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...OK. No evidence. As I assumed.
I do agree on the repressed memories. But most rape convictions have nothing to do with repressed memories.
Sorry, wrote so much I forgot to mention that part. The evidence is from the (a?) federal law enforcment database, I want to say started in 2008, and in DC. I will say I do not know how accurate it is, both that I don't know the actual guidelines used for collecting data, only that it called out many defeciencies in the past methods of collecting data and that the data was collected by various women's groups and feminist groups.
I should also point out, what I said was, or what I tried to say was it is believed up to 80% are false. I am deployed and I honestly do not have my books and papers to look at to find sources. Sorry. I wasn't trying to ignor that part. I'll see if I can do a little research here, but I am severely restricted in internet time and site access.
It requires faith to assume that the absence of evidence is evidence of the absence.
Ah yes. This again.
Take a fairly notorious atheist -- Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has freely admitted on multiple occasions he cannot prove that God does not exist. He contends only that, in the absence of evidence, the existence of god is highly unlikely -- and no more worthy of consider as are the existence of the tooth fairy, Thor, and any number of (often mutually exclusive!) beings.
No, it is the belief in the teapot that requires faith. Which is, of course, the whole point...
** spoiler omitted **...
Spend just fifteen minutes looking at some of the news stories from any outlet of your choice before you dismiss the whole thing. Conspiracy? Yes. Paranoid conspiracy theory? Unfortunately no.
Here's a copy of the letter from the Vatican nuncio, instructing Irish bishops to handle things internally and not report offenders to civil authorities.Regarding not believing the extent: If 80% of cases are false (using the number in the jeff's reply; investigation indicates that a larger proprtion are true), that would STILL be a vast problem, international in scope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't know if there's a God" is agnosticism, not atheism. Soft agnosticism doesn't require faith.
Most "hard" atheists are something like "I don't know for sure, but to the same extent I also don't know for sure that I'm not really Superman, so I feel that I can safely dismiss both hypotheses (as a working model of reality), unless some evidence for either one comes to light."
Atheists tend to be comfortable with a small amount of lingering doubt being part and parcel of the human condition. It's the religious-minded who tend to demand certainty and all-or-nothing Truths.
If you look at it like this:
A large majority of your fellow humans that you share the planet with believe in a higher power. You do not. So, you must have faith that all of those people are wrong. Faith that your assumption is correct.
Maybe not big F faith, but a steadfast understanding in your own mind that you are correct, contrary to popular belief.
I'm not saying this is the case, just offering up a different angle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at it like this:
A large majority of your fellow humans that you share the planet with believe in a higher power. You do not. So, you must have faith that all of those people are wrong. Faith that your assumption is correct.
Maybe not big F faith, but a steadfast understanding in your own mind that you are correct, contrary to popular belief.I'm not saying this is the case, just offering up a different angle.
Shoot, a large majority of my fellow humans that I share the planet with are convinced that they drive better while texting and otherwise playing with their cel-phones. They can't all be wrong, can they?
Appeal to popularity? For real?
Shoot, a large majority of my fellow humans that I share the planet with are convinced that they drive better while texting and otherwise playing with their cel-phones. They can't all be wrong, can they?
It's not an appeal to popularity, just trying to maybe better explain why some folks think being an atheist is still faith.
It's not an appeal to popularity, just trying to maybe better explain why some folks think being an atheist is still faith.
See above. What's popularly believed isn't a particularly good indicator of anything at all, faith or otherwise. Most atheists start out as skeptics: people who say "Show me the money!" When they ask enough times, and receive enough evasion in return, they eventually start suspecting that maybe there's nothing to show after all. Given enough no-shows and enough "negative evidence" (things that make better sense using other explanations), eventually their suspicions get upgraded from hypothesis to theory. It's still not 100%, but as pointed out, it's not 100% that there's not a real Tooth Fairy, either.
Ermm ok. I'm not arguing for or against athiests requiring faith.
Was just adding a different angle, which apparently you feel has no validity.
Ok then, no problem.
You certainly don't need to justify a lack of faith to me.
Deep breaths...
You certainly don't need to justify a lack of faith to me.
Sorry -- just trying to explain it, because it seemed like you weren't fully grokking it. Apologies if this is stuff you already clearly understood.
It's ok man. I understand your personal position, especially in regards to your location.
I grokk.
"I don't know if there's a God" is agnosticism, not atheism. Soft agnosticism doesn't require faith.
I guess I have to question the utility of any definition of atheist that excludes Richard Dawkins. Though his position would be more accurately summarized as "I don't know if there's a God, but it's pretty damn unlikely."
|
|
Spend just fifteen minutes looking at some of the news stories from any outlet of your choice before you dismiss the whole thing. Conspiracy? Yes. Paranoid conspiracy theory? Unfortunately no.
I'm not dismissing the whole thing. In all honesty, I accept that it may be true. Just on the evidence I see, I am leaning towards no. I also am not catholic, so it's not that I am defending the church. I am certain, without doubt, that there are, and always have been, some very bad seeds in it and any religious group. I just don't buy this one (that is to say the majority of the reported abuses). I do not believe that one shold either blame the whole group for it, and I also do not believe that most priests are bad seeds. That's where I'm coming from. I have no love <or hate> for the Catholic church, myself.
I do not believe that one shold either blame the whole group for it.
If the organization as a whole intentionally and systematically covers up the actions of the bad priests, and shields them from justice, then I believe one should blame the organization. Read the letter from the Vatican, or any of the dozens of others like it from over the years (some of the really damning ones are in Latin, though; I linked that one because it was in English).
Again, a claim was made that religious thought had a monopoly on the best morals. If that were true, there should be fewer incidences of abuse per number of priests, and less likelihood of a cover-up by religious leaders, than in any equivalently-sized secular institution. Find me some equally large secular groups with similar scandals of this scope, and which also covered them up, and then we can re-examine that claim. Until then, I'd say it seems to be false so far.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I feel very secure that there's no tooth fairy. I would go as far as to say one hundred percent, bro. : b
I disagree that calling someone's approach to the Bible hostile is ad hominem. There's no insult there. My approach to Keynesian economics is pretty hostile these days. In some ways, Kirth is right about the progress from suspicion to theory to avid belief. I was wililng to give progressive economics a chance once, and the responses to qquestions and revision of history was what you might call negative proof. ENough of the things said in support turned out to be garbage that the actual theory doesn't have much credibility.
In applying that to Christianity, I'd prefer to answer questions for atheist friends base don life and belief and not on negative evidence. I am aware I have argued from such a position before, but then again, even I can mature.
Finally, the Bible definitely says to test the spirits (that is, the motive and truthfulness of a given doctrine or statement), and to always have a reason to account for your faith. I endeavor to obey that. I am not saying Christians should not discuss Creation or develop it as doctrine. I am saying 1) the power to save is in the Gospel and not in my argumentative nature, and 2) I have led several to accepting Christ as savior (including atheists); I have never once dragged a nonbeliever across the aisle because I 'proved' to them God exists and made the earth in six days six thousand years ago. Growing up, I have learned the difference between essential, saving doctrine, and less essential theology. Which is different still from more 'trivial' doctrine, which I don't spend any time studying anymore. I might one day test my post-trib leanings against scripture, but for now I'm satisfied to say "I dunno, as long as I go when everyone else does".
: b
I feel very secure that there's no tooth fairy. I would go as far as to say one hundred percent, bro. : b
And Dawkins is just as certain that your God doesn't exist -- his mind is simply too accustomed to precision for him to say one hundred percent, "bro." The point is that the arguments you use to dismiss the tooth fairly are the same ones he uses to dismiss God.
Oh snap. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a biologist becomes an expert on culture just because he screams alot.
I've read some of his books, and seen him on TV, because I was wondering what all the hype was about. I'm still disappointed that I've never heard him scream -- can you link a YouTube video or something, so I can share?
I don't think a biologist becomes an expert on culture just because he screams alot.
Microbiologists deal with culture all the time.
I don't think a biologist becomes an expert on culture just because he screams alot.
To my knowledge, Dawkins makes no claims on cultural expertise. And even if he did, what would possibly be the relevance of a personal attack on someone not even involved in the conversation? :P
I've read some of his books, and seen him on TV, wondering what the hype was about, and I'm disappointed that I've never heard him scream. Can you like a YouTube video or something?
Me either. Though I can report that he (or his editor) is aware that "a lot" is two words...
Seriously though, with regard to Dawkins "screaming:" If you repeat it often enough, it must be true, right?
I disagree that calling someone's approach to the Bible hostile is ad hominem. There's no insult there.
You consistently tout your non fighting and non confrontational stance while giving backhanded insults at the people disagreeing with you.
You don't find the Bible inspired or inspiring because you approach it with a priori hostility. That is your right.
I make no apology for being hostile against the glorification of genocide. What i object to is the assertions that such hostility is the cause of my conclusions.
You are assuming that its my attitude that determines my interpretation of the bible rather than my interpretation of the bible determining my attitude towards it. At BEST its an ad hom (which is not necessarily the same as an insult) because you are dismissing my arguments because of the person making them. It doesn't matter if I foam at the mouth like a rabid wolverine when someone mentions Genesis: the point that the old testament slaughter of Amelekite children is completely at odds with morality holds weight no matter who says it.
My approach to Keynesian economics is pretty hostile these days. In some ways
And do you have good reasons for that hostility? How would you feel if someone told you that your reasons were a product of your lack of courage or that your reasons stemmed solely from your hostility?
Trying to paint atheism as just another kind of faith is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Now why would someone try to do that? :P
What is the point in bringing up what Dawkins thinks about a cultural dynamic if he's not an expert?
The point was to illustrate the commonly understood meaning of atheist. But I've noticed you get hung up on semantics a lot -- usually when you want to change the subject -- so allow me to remove Mr. Dawkins (and the semantics) from the equation:
Whether you would call me an atheist or an agnostic, I believe God almost certainly doesn't exist, because there is no supporting evidence. It is not feasible (or indeed, possible) for me to assume everything I hear, no matter how fantastical, is true unless proven otherwise, and it is therefore self-evident that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the unobservable and supernatural.
|
|
I do not believe that one shold either blame the whole group for it.
If the organization as a whole intentionally and systematically covers up the actions of the bad priests, and shields them from justice, then I believe one should blame the organization. Read the letter from the Vatican, or any of the dozens of others like it from over the years (some of the really damning ones are in Latin, though; I linked that one because it was in English).
I am actually studying them all fairly carefully. The thing is, what you seem to think they are saying, they are not.
The first one is talking specifically about the issues of manditory reporting vs the the sanctity of confession and how the world has different secular laws, and at the time of this writing (1997), we have no new official stance so the rules of your oaths to become priests are still in effect. It cuncludes by completely dismissing the article you sent it with by stating THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, merely a study document. So the catholic church is having issues with the same things that lawyers, mental and medical specialists, and similar groups are, the diferrences in patient confidentiality and how various local laws invalidate thier their need for confidentiality.
The other one is much along the same lines. It talks about the steps and proceedures that catholics must follow for a variaty of cases, and so far seems to mostly be talking about not breaking thier oaths in relation to confidentiality.
Again, a claim was made that religious thought had a monopoly on the best morals. If that were true, there should be fewer incidences of abuse per number of priests, and less likelihood of a cover-up by religious leaders, than in any equivalently-sized secular institution. Find me some equally large secular groups with similar scandals of this scope, and which also covered them up, and then we can re-examine that claim. Until then, I'd say it seems to be false so far.
American government. Pick any group. Do I even need to mention political parties or local governments?
The military: has it's own entire set of laws (UCMJ) that both invalidate and build upon civilian laws for all military members, and vast amounts of crimes by military members go to the military first, to be handled by the militry, avoid the news at all costs, and then covered up from the rest of the world. I would say that's even bigger scope.
Doctors prescribing meds or treatment that kills babies or causes a variaty of problems, either pushing drugs or just wanting moneys and covering up the evidence (flasifying reports, not telling the patient they where pregnant or that there where easier cheaper, safer methods, etc. . .).
Mental Health docs either influencing or using their unstable or drugged patients above and beyond, or using their knowledge of behavior and the patient records to lead them to do certain things. This is why it is such a huge no-no to even befriend a patient now, you can easily lose your liscence if people even think this is going on.
Dirty cops, raping or taking advantage of people, raping drunks who can't remember, abusing their authority or the notion people have that the cops are there to help (they usually are not), slipping people drugs and beating them, and saying it happened while they where locked up.
Abuse of authority by prison guards on prisoners, especially from female guards.
I'll also point out that almost all governments and most jobs have similar rules about dealing with PR, though often much more severe penulties.
I don't think so. Certainly not cliche.
Its an incredibly common stock phrase that pops up in almost every religious debate and has been beaten more often and further than a necromancers skeletal mount.
I think it is just one of those things that CAN'T be answered properly, and it also puts the science/atheist outside of the defensive position. (Typically they are one the side of "you show me proof")
It can be answered properly: Your question assumes facts not in evidence or is illogical IS the correct answer to a question that assumes facts not in evidence or is illogical.
Whats the correct response from a bachalor asked "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
A better comparrison would be along the lines of not looking for a car, but since there wasn't one the last 30 times, going forward, or there has never been a brick wall there in the past, or despite what someone told you today, you have never seen a snake in the toilet, so why check now?
Do YOU check your toilet for snakes before sitting down? Or mines?
I'm not saying your wrong, but what qualifies as "evidence" and "reasonably expected" are both very open to debate.
Yes they are. But the "atheism is faith based" and "you can't prove god doesn't exist" canard seeks (like most religious arguments i see) to completely AVOID that debate all together. "What should the evdience be" and "what IS the evidence" are questions that mean you're no longer relying on faith.
The first time I read this, it really bothered me. I've had some battles die recently, and part of this struck home in a real way, for some related issues. Originally, I was going to say something else, but after rereading it, I'm not sure of the tone and context.
The tone is grrrr, the context is someone making yet another backhanded insinuation that atheists are cowards and aren't reaching out conclusions through rational means.
But, on a related note, I will say that, from my personal experience, there is a distinct difference, in the field between religious and non-religious and devout atheists,both along the moral and morale side, and along the general attitude.
There are different personalities and mentalities that have a tendency to lead towards or away from atheism/religion. (correlation vs causation)
For the most part, what religion (with the exception of humanist and atheist types if you group them that way) do tend towards a healthier moral, mental fortitude, and lessened fear.
Are you distinguishing between believers or just the "true believers" there?
Now why would someone try to do that?
Balsa wood construction