|
To be perfectly honest, I think the problem does exist, and it's not just the same with all viewpoints. In society today, religion has a taboo about it, that basically says "you aren't allowed to question people's religious acts, policies or tenets". The sensible taboo would be "you aren't allowed to question people's religious feelings", but it's grown so far beyond that today. There are massive amounts of religious people who press this taboo further, and want to use it to stifle discussion about their religious practices, law-changing campaigns, and so on. At this point, the religious people who do this (and a good number of others) say that "hey, look at Hitchens and Dawkins, they're doing the same thing to us!!1!!"
However, the proportions are nowhere near the situation where that could be relevant. The religious people are everywhere, and campaign wildly for their viewpoints. Atheists are very, very few in comparison. And laws keep getting changed every day in America, laws that more or less directly strive to give the religious viewpoint complete dominance. Atheists fear, and quite rightly so, that this process will turn America into a theocracy. Some areas of concern are: prohibition of abortion, children being forced to learn intelligent design in school, and limited freedom of speech due to various suggested blasphemy laws. Each of these areas have serious and wide-ranging consequences that are generally ignored by religious campaigners.
As I have previously stated, being forced into paying lip service to some God is, for an atheist, exactly as bad as for a christian to be forced into obeying another religion. However, very few religious campaigners see this as a problem. Can you religious people understand that some atheists become very vocal about this?
There is so much here that I feel needs to be commented on. But to be truthful, I'm not sure about some of it, I just find it hard to believe...
"The religious people are everywhere..." It seems like things would be a lot easier or a lot closer to a "theocracy" if that were actually the case.
"and campaigning wildly..." Again, I feel like the many get blamed for the actions of the few. I will not discount that the "religious right" has a fairly strong presence on Capitol Hill, but so do many others. The tobacco industry for one, the fuel companies for another, and both of them are pushing very, very strongly for laws to be passed to protect them and not the people of the country. I'm not sure why people think that it is so different. If anything, I feel like the "religious right" is trying to help more people than the tobacco industry. In any case these are political issues rather than spiritual ones.
"laws keep getting changed every day in America..." What? As Kirth demonstrated, incredibly outdated laws are still on the books even if they don't make sense. In Denver it is illegal to tie up your horse in front of the Capitol building. And realistically, it nearly takes an "act of God" for many bills to actually become a law -- and for some reason, especially the ones that actually make sense. I mean, what does it take to get a decent health care program in the United States? At any rate, laws are not being "changed daily" -- apparently contrary to popular belief.
"prohibition of abortion..." As of right now, it is legal to have an abortion. But I don't get it -- even from a logical, non-biblical standpoint. Where my children were born, they have "before" and "after" pictures of premature babies that were born in the hospital. Some of these babies were maybe twice the length of my car key. The "after" picture is when they are considerably older -- 5-10 year range. I mean, we are talking VERY premature. Now if these babies were born, but then the parents decided that it was too much work to take care of the baby and the doctor killed the baby at that point, it would have been labeled as "murder" -- I just still don't see the distinction. (And I'm not looking for a debate here. I'm not changing my mind and I don't expect to change yours.) But right now, abortion is legal -- and I'm honestly not seeing the law changed any time soon -- and if it is changed, I don't think that it will be for religious reasons.
"Children being forced to learn..." Does it really matter if it is "Intelligent Design" or "Evolution" (and really the two are exclusive and not really about the same thing as I understand it). If you believe X and don't want your child to learn about Y, does it really matter what X and Y are? Your children are still being taught something you don't want them to learn about. Is it really that much of a surprise then that some group or another will try and push for one or the other?
"generally ignored by religious campaigners..." How many religious political campaigners have you talked to. I've talked to a few and the few that I have talked to have a MUCH better understanding of all the various sides of the argument than I could possibly come up with. Ignoring the media for a minute, they really want to do their best to address and please everyone -- it is much easier to get a law passed that way. There are "serious and wide-ranging consequences" and I feel that they have a better grasp of that than I ever will.
A lot of what you are talking about is political in nature -- and truthfully, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. There shouldn't be laws stating what practices you should or should not be doing on a religious basis. Unfortunately there are things that seem to cross boundaries -- and for those things, I'm just glad I'm not a politician.
I agree with Kirth on his political bent. At the same time, if the area in question is really that strong religiously one way or the other such that they will not change the law, then even if the law was changed, a person (even if more qualified) probably wouldn't be elected anyway. So, while it is something to complain about, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make anyway.
|
|
And again, as I have stated before: If some atheists become vocal, it's very much NOTHING compared to what atheists have to take from religious people. Saying it's just as bad may be true, but it doesn't acknowledge the vast disparity in scale between the two phenomena.
Did you get your daily religious pushing yet today?
You make it sound like you get this on a daily basis. Maybe in Sweden they come knocking on your door on a daily basis to make sure that you have gone through your rituals for the day. When I'm walking on the street, no one knows that I'm a Christian, but I don't get anyone bothering me about this. No one bothers me at work and I don't work for a Christian company. I get on the plane and no one bothers me. Sometimes I wish they would so that I can give them crap about what you seem to be describing. Every so often we get a visit from a Jehovah's Witness and even more seldom, we will get a visit from a Mormon. Other than that -- nothing -- unless I go out looking for it. If you look for weirdos hard enough, I'm sure that you will find them. (And I would call most religious celebrities weirdos -- Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, etc. -- Please don't use them as a Christian example.)
As I'm not omniscient, I do my best not to speak in absolutes.
Let me just say that I haven't personally experienced a hard time at the hands of religious folk, despite the fact that I have no problem explaining my atheism if asked. The minute I tell them that I'm not gunning for them--live and let live--they're not gunning for me either. They still offer me fresh baked cookies.
A little tact goes a long way.
Now if someone in a church congregation loses their faith during their teen years... well, I've heard some stories about sorts of bullying and such. But that's likely born of the insecurity that comes when someone in your own family makes a major change that takes them away from you.
But, always the outsider, people just let me be what I am. Different and happy.
My experience is just my own. But that's the story thus far.
|
|
Well, according to the discussion we've had above, it's pretty clear to me that organized religion more or less ALWAYS gives non-religious people a bad time,Not really, speaking as an agnostic instigator / lurker. So far, nobody's given me a bad time I haven't deserved.
I don't think that you have tried hard enough. ;-)
Actually, you've been really cool. I love it when you and The Jade put in your random thoughts.
|
|
Orthodox judaism is much worse, with every ounce of time regulated with things to do that you have to really believe to appreciate.
I kept thinking about this. There is a LOT of history in Judaism. Every little ritual that they have has a reason. Most of it is fascinating if you take the time to find out about it. We have a Messianic Jewish congregation that meets at our church. If you have a specific question about any rituals, let me know and I will see what I can find out. I think that it would be kind of nice to have a rich and deep history like that.
|
There is a LOT of history in Judaism. Every little ritual that they have has a reason.
Some of the reasons are even kinda proto-scientific. Pork was the meat most likely to cause illness and parasitism if improperly prepared and it was easier / better to just say, 'God says don't eat this stuff.' than try to educate the masses.
Burying waste out of the town limits was another prohibition that promoted good health, but the elders didn't have the ability to provide proof that crapping where you live is bad, so they wrapped it up in a religious proclamation.
Others seem less sensible to a modern reader, but they had their reasons for keeping different foods away from each other and requiring kosher butchery, etc.
This thread is just far too tolerant and reasonable and it should be locked immediately, if not I'll go elsewhere!
This thread is just far too tolerant and reasonable
THERE HE IS! BURN HIM!!!!!
How's that? ;)
Well, according to the discussion we've had above, it's pretty clear to me that organized religion more or less ALWAYS gives non-religious people a bad time, so I'd consider your question well answered to why it's so common that people become atheists due to bad-time-giving organized religion.
While I cannot deny that certain groups and individuals have persecuted atheists, this statement is otherwise completely untrue. Unless you wish to define giving people a "bad time" as "holding an opposing viewpoint", there is very little occurrence of such persecution. However, there is plenty of documented evidence of the reverse - Stalin's persecution of the church, for example, or Hitler's similar persecution. And having been a churchman for decades, I've never once witnessed anyone giving an atheist a "hard time" by any means other than simple debate. If that's your definition of persecution, then the only way out is to hold no opinions whatsoever.
And: Again, very few atheists have a problem with God and people's personal feelings about such a being. What atheists do have a problem with is organized religion shoving their faith down the throats of the atheists in all kinds of ways ("you WILL go to church").
Again, in 2 decades of church service I've never seen this happen even once. Outside of certain medieval events perpetrated by Catholics, I've never even heard of such. My research on the subject finds such occurrences rare in the extreme. Besides which, many atheists DO have a problem with God and religion. Even a brief perusal of legal cases dealing with the subject reveals that in most cases the non-believing party argues that religion (and Christianity in specific) are dangerous.
It's also interesting to note that there is, in several studies, an inverse proportionality between percentage of religious people in a country and measured quality of life in that country.
If you're speaking specifically about Christianity, I can show you just as many studies by equally-credentialed experts that show the reverse. My experience, too, has been that this statement is patently wrong. If, on the other hand, you want to include atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, and various primitive pagan faiths, then you are exactly correct.
Data on this shouldn't be hard to find. There are two possible interpretations of this finding:1) People become religious because they are unhappy.
There's another way to interpret this phenomenon: perhaps these unhappy people are becoming religious because they've found a cure. To say that churches must keep people unhappy in order to thrive is akin to saying that doctors must keep people sick. The truth is, there is no shortage of unhappy people and healthy churches exist to help them find true happiness.
2) People become unhappy because they live in a religious country. This is the one I consider most likely. In a very religious country, people can't live as they prefer, but have to adapt to someone else's interpretation of some religion or other. Religious people make the policy decisions, and base these on what would make their religion stronger rather than on what would make the people in the country happy.
Again, I can offer tons of studies to show this is not the case. People become unhappy because of myriad reasons, and generally speaking true Christianity is not one of them. Aside from that, such statements as yours are misleading from the premise in that they suggest the greatest good is for happiness. It is not.
And again, as I have stated before: If some atheists become vocal, it's very much NOTHING compared to what atheists have to take from religious people. Saying it's just as bad may be true, but it doesn't acknowledge the vast disparity in scale between the two phenomena.
Again, I would argue that your statement is false. I've never seen a true Christian attack an atheist as you've described, I've never heard of such an event, and my research doesn't bear out your conclusion. Rather, the reverse is true. In my own experience, I've been attacked several times for my beliefs (several times physically), while neither I nor any of my colleagues have attacked another. Worldwide there have been more Christians killed for their faith in the 20th century than there were in all prior centuries combined. Thousands of us die every year in China, Sudan, Ghana, Viet Nam, and various other places. Check the news - it's usually atheists perpetrating this persecution. Islam only comes in second. By comparison, almost no atheists are being persecuted to this degree. Accusations like this are one of the primary reasons that many Christians have become so "vocal" (as you put it) in recent years.
Oh, and concerning other statements regarding the teaching of intelligent design, given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true, we are only asking that both be considered worthy of examination. There is plenty of scientific evidence for both. If you shouldn't be forced to learn a "religious" view of the planet's origin, then stop trying to force us to learn your equally religious view.
Concerning related statements concerning "blasphemy laws", I don't see why you have a problem with them. They are in effect asking people to behave decently and inoffensively in public. This is no different than anti-smoking laws, laws against public intoxication, or laws against lewd and lascivious behavior. If the majority wants these laws in place (whether a Christian majority or any other), then it is up to the minority to comply. It would seem to me that the reason so many atheists are upset with the rest of the world is that they don't want ANYONE telling them they have to behave. In other words, they seem to wish that there were no civilization at all and that they didn't have to treat the people around them with respect. If you want to act like a savage, move into the jungle. If you want to live in a civilized country, learn to recognize that civilized people have to follow rules to get along.
There is a LOT of history in Judaism. Every little ritual that they have has a reason.Some of the reasons are even kinda proto-scientific. Pork was the meat most likely to cause illness and parasitism if improperly prepared and it was easier / better to just say, 'God says don't eat this stuff.' than try to educate the masses.
Burying waste out of the town limits was another prohibition that promoted good health, but the elders didn't have the ability to provide proof that crapping where you live is bad, so they wrapped it up in a religious proclamation.
Others seem less sensible to a modern reader, but they had their reasons for keeping different foods away from each other and requiring kosher butchery, etc.
In fact, one could easily argue that it is science that has had to catch up with the Bible, not the other way around.
People too often forget that the scientific method is only one of several systems used to discern truth. It is also a HUMAN method, which means it is subject to all kinds of human error. To say that something "isn't scientific" means nothing in many cases. In the words of my former biology professor, "science is what the majority of scientists define it to be". In other words, if the "bishops" of the scientific community say it's true, then we poor schmucks down here in the dirt have to believe it or else. This is why religious people sometimes have such a hard time getting our ideas included in the public debate - it's not that there's no reason to believe as we do, nor is it that our ideas have been proven not to work, it's just that the secularist scientific majority rejects our ideas out of hand because they haven't gotten around to investigating them yet.
Good response Bubbagump.
But I'm wondering what is a "true Christian"?
I am particularly sensitive to this because I've heard it several times in reference to myself. And I mean that it was used to marginalize me or remove me from a group of worshipers, as in "you are not a true Christian".
And "thousands of us die every year in China"? Where are you getting that? I live in China among Christians and we just aren't seeing Christians getting snuffed over here. Having freedom of religion limited, yes. Overzealous atheist authoritarianism, yes.
Also: saying that "given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true" is probably not a good idea. These two explanations of where everything comes from are not meant to stand on the same ground, and really cannot be compared.
[Sorry: edited]
And: Again, very few atheists have a problem with God and people's personal feelings about such a being. What atheists do have a problem with is organized religion shoving their faith down the throats of the atheists in all kinds of ways ("you WILL go to church").Again, in 2 decades of church service I've never seen this happen even once. Outside of certain medieval events perpetrated by Catholics, I've never even heard of such. My research on the subject finds such occurrences rare in the extreme.
With respect, it's hard to see when you're on the giving, rather than receiving, end. Have you served in the military? I was required to attend church, despite being non-Christian. How many public events (games, graduations, etc.) have you been to that involved big Christian prayers, in which everyone has to bow their heads while someone rambles on about "our Lord Jesus Christ"? It's no big deal if you're praying with them; you probably don't even think about it. But if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, it's a bit of an imposition -- you're a captive audience. Please understand, I have no problem with public prayer; I do have a problem with public prayers that I'm expected to participate in simply by virtue of attending a public function -- e.g., the Houston marathon a couple years ago. Yes, you could claim "that's what civilized people do -- we pray in public -- go live with the savages if you don't like it!" But that's beside the point. No one in the U.S. has ever required you to pray to Allah in public, I'll wager.
In the words of my former biology professor, "science is what the majority of scientists define it to be".
Your professor was either joking to make a point, or just wrong. "Science" is a clear-cut process for maximizing the usefulness of predictions made from explanations of the natural world. Form a question, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and then either (a) reject the hypothesis because it doesn't fit the observations; (b) modify the hypothesis, if possible, so that it fits all relevant observations; or (c) tentatively accept the hypothesis until further testing can be done. If it follows these steps, it's "science." If not, it's not.
We poor schucks in the dirt have the option of learning enough hard science to intepret the published results of scientific studies. We can then make meaningful judgements regarding the state of various hypotheses.
I'd reject intelligent design as a "scientific" hypothesis, for example, not because it "conflicts with Darwinism," but because there is no known way to test for a supernatural "creator." (Note that it remains a perfectly reasonable religious hypothesis by that measure, and stands up perfectly well as such. But that means it would have to be taught in church, not in science class.) As soon as someone comes up with such a test, ID can be studied scientifically; until then, it remains religion rather than science. If anyone would provide an alternative explanation for the fossil record than evolution that still fits the data, any real scientist would consider the debate re-opened. Granted, there are some who, unprofessionally, remain stuck in their ideas despite new evidence, but then again, there are priests who molest altar boys. No field of human endeavor is totally devoid of idiocy.
Note that I'm not putting one field "above" another. "Flood geology" may be a relatively poor explanation for geological observations, but on the other hand, absolutely no scientist in the world can tell you anything at all about how to live a spiritual fulfilling life. Science is good for providing explanations of physical laws. It can't touch metaphysics at all. Religion has the metaphysics covered.
It's always interesting to me that we don't have these sorts of debates between, say, plumbers and lawyers; just between priests/ministers and scientists! Nevertheless, as a religious scientist, I find them to be a lot of fun.
With respect, it's hard to see when you're on the giving, rather than receiving, end. Have you served in the military? I was required to attend church, despite being non-Christian. How many public events (games, graduations, etc.) have you been to that involved big Christian prayers, in which everyone has to bow their heads while someone rambles on about "our Lord Jesus Christ"? It's no big deal if you're praying with them; you probably don't even think about it. But if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, it's a bit of an imposition -- you're a captive audience. Please understand, I have no problem with public prayer; I do have a problem with public prayers that I'm expected to participate in simply by virtue of attending a public function -- e.g., the Houston marathon a couple years ago. Yes, you could claim "that's what civilized people do -- we pray in public -- go live with the savages if you don't like it!" But that's beside the point. No one in the U.S. has ever required you to pray to Allah in public, I'll wager.And: Again, very few atheists have a problem with God and people's personal feelings about such a being. What atheists do have a problem with is organized religion shoving their faith down the throats of the atheists in all kinds of ways ("you WILL go to church").Again, in 2 decades of church service I've never seen this happen even once. Outside of certain medieval events perpetrated by Catholics, I've never even heard of such. My research on the subject finds such occurrences rare in the extreme.
Being present when someone does something religious is not at all the same as being forced to participate. That's like saying that because I'm white and witnessed the Rodney King beating that I'm somehow responsible for it.
Further, by your definition of "forced", I could argue that I'm forced to participate in or witness the activities of other religions on a daily basis. When I went to yeshiva (rabbi school) I had to endure hours of Jewish prayers/lessons/speeches every day. Did I complain? No, because I was there to get a specific portion of knowledge. Was I offended? Not at all. When I went to the temple mount in Jerusalem I had to remove my shoes to enter the mosque. It was an act of worship to them. Did it bother me? Of course not. Every day my children go to school and are forced to learn that the world was created by a big bang. This is a mere hypothesis, and one much argued about even in the scientific community, and yet there's nothing I can do about it. In my business I can't refuse to hire someone because his beliefs are antithetical to mine. In fact, I had to build a special room to allow for Muslim employees to pray, and I have to schedule meetings around the prayer times of the two Muslims who work for me - it's costing me time and money, but there's nothing I can do about that, either. Last year I was threatened with no less than 2 lawsuits because I had a Bible prominently displayed on the shelf behind my desk - I never mentioned it, it was just sitting there. Because of this I am forced to keep my Bible hidden IN MY OWN OFFICE. On a related note, I've been fired twice because of my religious beliefs - once because my wiccan boss (after hiring me only 4 hours before) said it was because "I'm just not comfortable having your type around", and once because I dared to have a Bible in my car (which was in the parking lot). In neither case did I mention a single word about my beliefs beyond what was written on my resume. Not a day goes by when I don't hear an unbeliever say "Jesus Christ" as a profanity, and there's nothing I can do about that, either. My children are taught numerous immoral things in school, my wife has to endure numerous abusive comments, I have to see my religion dragged through the mud repeatedly, and there's nothing I can do about any of it. Why not? Because I'm surrounded by millions of unbelievers who have no respect for or belief in my God. But do I claim that I'm being forced to behave as a secular humanist? No. That would just be silly. And you want to tell me you're being forced to "worship Jesus" because you occasionally have to be surrounded by Christians? Sorry, you're not getting much sympathy from me.
Nobody is making you pray, nobody is making you believe anything, and there are regulations in place in the military to keep you out of church. If the society you live in has rules that you don't like you're free to not participate, you're free to work for change, and you're free to leave. Nobody's forcing you to do anything.
Good response Bubbagump.
But I'm wondering what is a "true Christian"?
I am particularly sensitive to this because I've heard it several times in reference to myself. And I mean that it was used to marginalize me or remove me from a group of worshipers, as in "you are not a true Christian".
I wouldn't dare to judge you this way personally. And it's also confusing when there are so many groups out there claiming to have the "real truth". It sounds simplistic, but when you're a true Christian you know it. I can tell you when your behavior is "unchristian" and I can tell you when your beliefs are "unchristian", but the only person who can say whether or not you've truly met Jesus is you. Believe it or not, neither behavior nor beliefs have much at all to do with determining whether or not one is truly Christian. It is a matter of whether or not one has encountered and become a disciple of the living Jesus Christ. Once that event has occurred, your behavior and beliefs will bear testimony to the fact that it happened.
And "thousands of us die every year in China"? Where are you getting that? I live in China among Christians and we just aren't seeing Christians getting snuffed over here. Having freedom of religion limited, yes. Overzealous atheist authoritarianism, yes.
As if that weren't enough. A good place to begin researching Christian persecution around the world is The Voice of the Martyrs.
Also: saying that "given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true" is probably not a good idea. These two explanations of where everything comes from are not meant to stand on the same ground, and really cannot be compared.
I beg to differ. Both purport to be descriptions of how our planet came to be, where life originates, how old our planet is, etc. They are conflicting accounts of the same events. There is considerable evidence in favor of both, yet neither can be conclusively proven because the creation of the universe is beyond the scope of scientific experimentation. Why shouldn't both be taught? A good place to begin research into the subject is The Institute for Creation Research.
Your professor was either joking to make a point, or just wrong.
Actually, my professor at the time was considered something of an authority in his field (I can't remember what he was working on - it's been a loooooong time). His name was Kitchen, or Kitchner, or something like that.
Anyway, he was speaking in response to a speaker who had spoken in favor of Special Creationism. (This was at a Christian university, and the professor himself claimed to be a Christian, but he vehemently opposed any theory of creationism.) Since this professor was so upset, and since he made such a show of griping about the speaker, and since he spent more than a week trying to prove his (abovementioned) point, some of my fellow students asked him to participate in a debate with the speaker. My poor professor was soundly beaten, and I hear he later left the university.
I appreciate your links, but I'm not in need of a place to begin research on either of those topics. I am quite aware of persecution and I don't think there is any need to strain the truth about it just to prove one's point.
As for creation.... Believing in creation is explicitly an act of faith. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, the veracity of which, in whole or in part, can be tested by the scientific method, and proven right or wrong. They are plainly different and to deny that this is so is wrong and IMO is unworthy of discussion here.
Also, it saddens me when someone of faith feels their faith is tarnished and somehow needs to be polished by scientific evidence. Shall we next try to prove scientifically that Jesus was divine?
While I cannot deny that certain groups and individuals have persecuted atheists, this statement is otherwise completely untrue. Unless you wish to define giving people a "bad time" as "holding an opposing viewpoint", there is very little occurrence of such persecution. However, there is plenty of documented evidence of the reverse - Stalin's persecution of the church, for example, or Hitler's similar persecution. And having been a churchman for decades, I've never once witnessed anyone giving an atheist a "hard time" by any means other than simple debate. If that's your definition of persecution, then the only way out is to hold no opinions whatsoever.
Here we go, this is where yo start equating atheism with various totalitarian and monstrous regimes we've seen. First off, I should say that Hitler made no move against the church. Indeed, the church liked him so much they only took exception with one of the leaders, I think it was Goebbels. He was excommunicated... for divorcing his wife. If this is the level we're discussing at, why don't we try Iran instead? You can fault that regime for many things, but being atheistic isn't one of them.
Again, in 2 decades of church service I've never seen this happen even once. Outside of certain medieval events perpetrated by Catholics, I've never even heard of such. My research on the subject finds such occurrences rare in the extreme. Besides which, many atheists DO have a problem with God and religion. Even a brief perusal of legal cases dealing with the subject reveals that in most cases the non-believing party argues that religion (and Christianity in specific) are dangerous.
Now you're just not reading what I am saying. I have said repeatedly that atheism is a political view, not a religious one, one based on the idea that organized religion is bad. Atheists don't care what people believe in, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others. And from what you write, it seems you agree. "The non-believing party argues that religion (and Christianity in specific) are dangerous" says nothing about "having a problem with God". Stop pressing this issue, please, or find something new to say about it. Also, it should be well noted that what you've never seen happen is based on very few points of measurement, and can't be seen as even remotely relevant in this case.
There's another way to interpret this phenomenon: perhaps these unhappy people are becoming religious because they've found a cure. To say that churches must keep people unhappy in order to thrive is akin to saying that doctors must keep people sick. The truth is, there is no shortage of unhappy people and healthy churches exist to help them find true happiness.
Except that more doctors in a society makes people MORE happy, not less. Otherwise it's a cute comparison.
Again, I can offer tons of studies to show this is not the case. People become unhappy because of myriad reasons, and generally speaking true Christianity is not one of them. Aside from that, such statements as yours are misleading from the premise in that they suggest the greatest good is for happiness. It is not.
Are you perhaps saying that the greatest good is, well, something like "having people turn to christianity"? You understand that this is really proving my point, at least with regards to you?
Again, I would argue that your statement is false. I've never seen a true Christian attack an atheist as you've described, I've never heard of such an event, and my research doesn't bear out your conclusion. Rather, the reverse is true. In my own experience, I've been attacked several times for my beliefs (several times physically), while neither I nor any of my colleagues have attacked another. Worldwide there have been more Christians killed for their faith in the 20th century than there were in all prior centuries combined. Thousands of us die every year in China, Sudan, Ghana, Viet Nam, and various other places. Check the news - it's usually atheists perpetrating this persecution. Islam only comes in second. By comparison, almost no atheists are being persecuted to this degree. Accusations like this are one of the primary reasons that many Christians have become so "vocal" (as you put it) in recent years.
Again, I would argue that what you have never seen, and have no reason to WANT to see, is completely and utterly irrelevant. And if you want to back this up with "your research", then show it. The rest of this seems to be based on very christian research.
Oh, and concerning other statements regarding the teaching of intelligent design, given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true, we are only asking that both be considered worthy of examination. There is plenty of scientific evidence for both. If you shouldn't be forced to learn a "religious" view of the planet's origin, then stop trying to force us to learn your equally religious view.
As someone who has done quite a bit of scientific research, I must say you're on VERY shaky ground saying what you say here. It says to me that you should probably read up on Popper, specifically his demand for falsification. Intelligent design isn't any kind of scientific theory, because there is no test that could prove it false. As long as this is true, ID will remain a thinly veiled religious dogma/theory/whatever. And finally, evolution isn't a religious view, it is a very established and strong scientific theory, with all that that entails. In short, evolution has a given place in science class, ID belongs in religious teachings. And a good suggestion before trying these arguments again would be reading up on basic scientific theory and principles.
Concerning related statements concerning "blasphemy laws", I don't see why you have a problem with them. They are in effect asking people to behave decently and inoffensively in public. This is no different than anti-smoking laws, laws against public intoxication, or laws against lewd and lascivious behavior. If the majority wants these laws in place (whether a Christian majority or any other), then it is up to the minority to comply.
I have a problem with blasphemy laws for a good number of reasons. First: they stifle discussion about religious power over politics, and this is the main reason they are pushed by the religious people, but it's a very bad idea to put crimps in the public debate. That leads to unopposed takeover by unscrupulous people, less openness, and eventually to a more totalitarian government. There was a reason the first amendment was put into place in America, and that was so that all sorts of opinions could be voiced, something good for any country.
Second: They are stringently used for what I mention under the first point, even if people pushing them always say that "it's to protect other people's religious feelings".Third: They force people to pay respect to certain religions above others. Most such laws ban blasphemy against the dominant religion, but not others. Those laws are hypocrisy. Other such laws say that you aren't allowed to blaspheme against any religion. These are just plain impossible to uphold, because people don't even know what offends various religious movements.
These are merely some reasons.
Another VERY problematic point you bring up is when you say that what the majority wants, the minority complies with. This is what is called a majoriarchy, when the majority forces up to just below 50% of the population to comply with various things. The point of the rule of law is that this shouldn't happen. It's not okay for the majority to kill, or enslave, or do any number of stupid things to minorities. Blasphemy laws force people to pay lip service to gods they don't believe in, and that's convenient only for those who believe in those gods. Other people suffer for it, no matter if you've never seen it happen. Again, if this understanding doesn't come easily to you, read up on basic theory of democracy.
It would seem to me that the reason so many atheists are upset with the rest of the world is that they don't want ANYONE telling them they have to behave. In other words, they seem to wish that there were no civilization at all and that they didn't have to treat the people around them with respect. If you want to act like a savage, move into the jungle. If you want to live in a civilized country, learn to recognize that civilized people have to follow rules to get along.
Now THIS is so much offensive screed that I don't know what to do with it. Even so, I'll try. Atheists don't want to be forced to comply with religious teachings of other people. Even so, they are highly moral people who behave politely and in a civilized manner. It's not a question of "behaving", it's a question of "being forced to behave LIKE THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WANT YOU TO".
I'll just end with: If you want everyone nearby to live according to your rules, go design a fundamentalist sect somewhere. It's not a good idea, but you do get your wish. Or else perhaps you shouldn't call me a savage.
I wouldn't dare to judge you this way personally. And it's also confusing when there are so many groups out there claiming to have the "real truth". It sounds simplistic, but when you're a true Christian you know it. I can tell you when your behavior is "unchristian" and I can tell you when your beliefs are "unchristian", but the only person who can say whether or not you've truly met Jesus is you. Believe it or not, neither behavior nor beliefs have much at all to do with determining whether or not one is truly Christian. It is a matter of whether or not one has encountered and become a disciple of the living Jesus Christ. Once that event has occurred, your behavior and beliefs will bear testimony to the fact that it happened.
My bold. So what is it, bubbagump, is it only me that knows, or can others tell if it has really happened by what I do and believe? You can’t have both.
Anyway, he was speaking in response to a speaker who had spoken in favor of Special Creationism. (This was at a Christian university, and the professor himself claimed to be a Christian, but he vehemently opposed any theory of creationism.) Since this professor was so upset, and since he made such a show of griping about the speaker, and since he spent more than a week trying to prove his (abovementioned) point, some of my fellow students asked him to participate in a debate with the speaker. My poor professor was soundly beaten, and I hear he later left the university.
Shall I say then, that bubbagump “claims to be a Christian”?
When I disagree with you are you going to tell others that Kruelaid “claims to be a Christian”?
Interesting choice of words, brother, very interesting.
Now that I've dipped my feet into this thread I realize again why I retired from this debate years ago. Far too many people don't listen, either to themselves or to others. Far too many take from their lessons what they want to learn while rejecting the things that challenge them. And when I say that I am speaking about humankind in general, I'm not picking on anyone in particular.
I see the same old fall-backs: "studies say this or that", "in a debate at my school so and so won", "statistics show ...." These studies are rarely any better than so much rhetoric and most often an indication that someone is too lazy to really make an argument or just unable to. To be honest I would like to trust everyone in here enough to drop that crap (hey, I've done it too) and build our rapport on our own experiences. But I guess that's not possible.
Moff, Erian, you guys have been cool, thank you. Kirth, you are a wise man, don't let the ignorance of others compromise it. Corian, a lot of the stuff you say rings true to me but your generalizations scare me. Bubbagump, real scary.
I'm cool, no hard feelings, but I'm out of here.
Well, I'm very happy that my favorite thread sprang up to life. Now, I just have to catch up to the discussion...
Also: saying that "given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true" is probably not a good idea.I beg to differ. Both purport to be descriptions of how our planet came to be, where life originates, how old our planet is, etc.
Sorry, but as a geologist I'm forced to contradict you on this one. The age of the planet is the province of geology, rather than biology, and can be calculated by a number of different means -- which for the most part yield results that are in agreement with each other. The various hypotheses regarding the formation of the planet are separate from that, and likewise have nothing to do with biology. The origin of life is a scientific unknown; nothing has gotten past the "hypothesis" stage at this point. NONE of the above-mentioned items are in any way part of the Theory of Evolution.
The thing is, I've read scripture; I know the difference between Leviticus and Romans, for example.
Regarding attending church in the military: laws are useful only if they are enforced. In many cases, they are not (quite the contrary, in fact). You mentioned assault previously; if a person is usually so quick to call honest men liars, then rash listeners might react that way -- it's unfortunate, foolish, and illegal, but has nothing to do with the faith of the accuser.
|
|
Now that I've dipped my feet into this thread I realize again why I retired from this debate years ago. Far too many people don't listen, either to themselves or to others.
...
Moff, Erian, you guys have been cool, thank you. Kirth, you are a wise man, don't let the ignorance of others compromise it. Corian, a lot of the stuff you say rings true to me but your generalizations scare me. Bubbagump, real scary.
I'm cool, no hard feelings, but I'm out of here.
Give me a little bit of time...
A whole lot has been written between yesterday afternoon and this morning. I'm at work, but I'll see what I can do to catch up and address what you are referencing.
|
|
While I cannot deny that certain groups and individuals have persecuted atheists, this statement is otherwise completely untrue. Unless you wish to define giving people a "bad time" as "holding an opposing viewpoint", there is very little occurrence of such persecution. However, there is plenty of documented evidence of the reverse - Stalin's persecution of the church, for example, or Hitler's similar persecution. And having been a churchman for decades, I've never once witnessed anyone giving an atheist a "hard time" by any means other than simple debate. If that's your definition of persecution, then the only way out is to hold no opinions whatsoever.
I would really like to end this thread of the debate.
You have the Crusades on one side and Stalin on the other. Persecution happens. It is still happening today. (Kirth -- what you mentioned bothers me as well -- the praying out loud at non-religious functions I have always felt was more than a little out of place and perhaps a bit rude.) For what it's worth, I don't think that Christians have singled out atheists to attack. There really isn't any reason to (from a Christian's point of view). I'm not saying that it is "good" or "bad" -- just that you are really not being isolated.
Also, "persecution" might be a bit harsh -- if you have a prayer at the beginning of a large gathering, while it may be a bit insensitive, it usually doesn't take very long and people can move on. There was a mention of a prayer to Allah -- if I was at a big meeting and they did a prayer to Allah, I would pray to God, sit through it and move on when it is over. We often seem to talk about "tolerance" -- but we seem to mean "tolerate me" rather than "tolerate them".
I work a lot with the youth at our church. I asked them if they knew any atheists. They laughed. "What does that mean?" Apparently there are a large group of atheists at the school that go around and label everyone and harass them throughout the year. After a while they work together and ignore them, but it is still persecution.
I think that Kirth hit it on the head earlier. It is action/reaction. It is a pendulum that I'm sure will come back and the religious people at the school will have had enough in a year or two and will start thumping people with their Bibles again.
Yes persecution happens. Probably a lot less than we really think and a whole lot more than we would like to believe. It happens and it shouldn't. All I can really say is -- don't be a part of it.
|
|
Now you're just not reading what I am saying. I have said repeatedly that atheism is a political view, not a religious one, one based on the idea that organized religion is bad. Atheists don't care what people believe in, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others.
Maybe someone can correct me here.
A couple of thoughts...
As I understand it, atheism is a religious view as much or more than a political view. How is it a political view? Atheists say "there is no God". How is that political? It sounds religious to me. It is still a belief system.
"Atheists don't care what people believe in..." Isn't this closer to agnosticism? I understood that Agnostics are "Don't know, don't care" or are considered "searching". I could be wrong about that, but that was how I understood the difference.
|
|
But I'm wondering what is a "true Christian"?
I am particularly sensitive to this because I've heard it several times in reference to myself. And I mean that it was used to marginalize me or remove me from a group of worshipers, as in "you are not a true Christian".
For what it's worth, so have I.
I feel that "True Christian" is usually thrown out there to show what isn't rather than what is. Without Biblical references, it becomes little more than "you probably shouldn't do that". If I have ever done that here without a Biblical reference and you would like to see one, let me know and I will provide it.
My bold. So what is it, bubbagump, is it only me that knows, or can others tell if it has really happened by what I do and believe? You can’t have both.
Forgive me; I was unclear. What I meant was, while no one can prove or disprove conclusively whether or not you are indeed a Christian, it is possible to aid another in discovering the truth of the matter. Also, if the conversion was real there will be some evidence of it.
Shall I say then, that bubbagump “claims to be a Christian”?
When I disagree with you are you going to tell others that Kruelaid “claims to be a Christian”?
Interesting choice of words, brother, very interesting.
Apparently, I was unclear twice. I meant no judgment on the professor's faith; I was merely trying to explain that he did not attack creationism from outside the faith. And yes, it would be acceptable to tell others that "Bubbagump claims to be a Christian".
Maybe someone can correct me here.
A couple of thoughts...
As I understand it, atheism is a religious view as much or more than a political view. How is it a political view? Atheists say "there is no God". How is that political. It sounds religious to me. It is still a belief system.
"Atheists don't care what people believe in..." Isn't this closer to agnosticism? I understood that Agnostics are "Don't know, don't care" or are considered "searching". I could be wrong about that, but that was how I understood the difference.
I think I might be over-answering the question. If so, my apologies for taking the long way around, but brevity is hard to employ when speaking of the true nature of my disbelief.
All atheists aren't the same person, and they don't all share the same way of thinking, temperment or hat size. I'd differ with Corian on the point that atheists don't care what people believe in... some are very bitter. Some are reacting to losing faith. Some have been persecuted by zealous bullies. That said, many atheists just smile a lot and give lotsa hugs. As I've said before... snowflakes.
My atheism is neither political nor is it religious. I'm more the guy Corian is talking about. Just don't let a guy tell me I have to believe what he believes and don't let him even consider walking up to me to declare I'm going to burn for not sharing his answers to the unanswerables because that's a man on man threat and I will smite the poor judgement right outta his arrogant ass with a series of blows that would make thunder jealous. Let's see him preach with a dislocated jaw in a puddle of his own stewy head tricklings.
"Let's see your lord save ya nooooooooOOOOOOOOW! SHEE?! MYEAH!" (Edward G. Robinson accent--or The Toad from Courageous Cat)
That's just comedy, folks. No one ever tells me I'm going to burn, except for that guy who set me on fire right after saying as much. Spooky... he was like pyro-psychic or something. But I digress...
I am about to use a model full of gonzo elements to explain my thoughts on disbelief. Please do not think I mean to diminish or marginalize anyone's worship of their god through a comparison to non divine, and silly subjects. It's just all I can think of right now on little to no sleep and I'm feeling loopy:
When I disbelieve something as instinctively as I disbelieve and immediately dismiss the premise that Elvis is alive and living it up with Morrison, Hendrix and Joplin on a tropical island somewhere, that disbelief is also neither political or religious. Now none of you believe that either. Can you imagine being asked to explain, in essay form, how you could possibly not believe in Dead Rocker island when the rest of us know it to be true with every fiber of our being, some clearly rational people going so far as to claim they actually spoke to Morrisson about it personally when he visited a Foot Locker in Clifton, NJ trying on hightops last year? Sans philosophical indoctrination of some kind, that boat don't float, thus no trip to said island. Such disbelief could be dissected for the analysis of others, but it seems like more work than one should have to do for something that comes so naturally. Admittedly, belief in god and belief in an island where Bon Scott is the bartender are drastically and absurdly different, but this model nails the way I feel about my disbelief, even if the model itself contains faulty widgets. Out of respect for those of you who have shared so much of yourselves and your deepest and most soul searched beliefs, I risk the unpopularity that comes with being in the minority to expound upon what it is that I think I know about myself, that we might all better understand each other and have a firmer grasp of the world in all its illimitable hues and flavors.
I've already explained my own atheism in this regard (disbelief not being something requiring constant refueling or a deep belief structure) very early on in this thread (perhaps between pages 3 and 6) if anyone's curious.
You guys have to stop posting so much on the weekends! It'll take me all day just to get caught up on the thread...
;^)
|
|
So what is it, bubbagump, is it only me that knows, or can others tell if it has really happened by what I do and believe? You can’t have both.
Yes and no. I think that your belief is really between you and God and no one will really know for sure. At the same time, I think that most people (Christian or otherwise) have at least some idea about what a "Christian life" is supposed to look like. In which case it is probably pretty clear when some one isn't being a "true Christian".
Moff Rimmer, since this seems to be a hard issue to digest:
I have yet to hear one atheist state that "there is no God". That is what YOU say atheists think.
The religious view associated with atheism is agnosticism, because saying anything more would require some sort of proof of nonexistence of God, and atheists know that that's impossible.
I say it again, atheism is a political view that says that organized religion is bad for society.
Since labels are being questioned and defined I don't want to have prove the legitimacy of my title as atheist so I'll state conclusively that I am more of an absurdist than anything else. It's not a perfect fit but it's closer in defining me than anything else.
|
|
Moff Rimmer, since this seems to be a hard issue to digest:
I have yet to hear one atheist state that "there is no God". That is what YOU say atheists think.
The religious view associated with atheism is agnosticism, because saying anything more would require some sort of proof of nonexistence of God, and atheists know that that's impossible.
I say it again, atheism is a political view that says that organized religion is bad for society.
I say?
Atheism -- n.
1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Has very little to do with what I say (or any other "religious person").
Then you say "because saying anything more would require some sort of proof of nonexistence of God..." -- Why? Why does a religious point of view "require some sort of proof"?
Saying it again doesn't make it true. I understand what you are saying, but that isn't (technically) what "atheism" is. I'm not even sure if what you are describing has a word for it. It is a viewpoint and possibly a political one, but it isn't atheism.
I looked in the dictionary and apparently I'm just a pretty rock.
That sucks. What's a rock supposed to believe?
Question for bubbagump: Why do see the big bang (a misnomer) and evolution as an attack on your religion (forgive me if I'm overstating)? While these explanations contradict the biblical accounts (both of them), they don't invalidate the possibility of a demiurge (scientists have little to say about what happened before the big bang).
On the subject of evolution (and I may be repeating myself again): Evolution by natural selection is not just how we understand the history of life, its how we understand the history of everything, from cosmology to organisms to empires to technology both concrete and abstract. I've witnessed this process directly and indirectly in so many aspects of life that (combined with the fossil record and the DNA evidence) I can't believe it's not happening in biology. And if I may veer into realm of opinion, I much prefer a god who can create such an amazing and beautiful process than one who's solution to everything is 'magic'.
Then you say "because saying anything more would require some sort of proof of nonexistence of God..." -- Why? Why does a religious point of view "require some sort of proof"?
EXACTLY! It ISN'T a religious point of view! I knew I could get you to understand!
Because it isn't a matter of faith, it needs to be backed up, and so atheism only states what can be backed up. It would be stupid to demand that people accept what you say just because you believe it, wouldn't it?
Seriously: You seem not to have a very good understanding of atheism, so could you perhaps read up on it before you keep blurting out that it's a religion? You religious people seem to have a hard time accepting that not everything someone holds as relevant is religious in nature. It is also somewhat odd that you try to disqualify things like science by saying they are really religions too.
This continuing insistence on "atheism is a religion" is really getting a bit tiresome, Moff.
I looked in the dictionary and apparently I'm just a pretty rock.Yes -- but what a pretty rock.
LOL. You make me feel... tumbled
|
|
Because it isn't a matter of faith, it needs to be backed up, and so atheism only states what can be backed up.
So since I really seem to be in the dark about this and obviously since the dictionary is incorrect, please point me to a concrete list that atheism states that can be backed up.
Seriously: You seem not to have a very good understanding of atheism, so could you perhaps read up on it before you keep blurting out that it's a religion?
Sorry about blurting out the dictionary definition. Please help point me to a source that says that atheists have no such belief system as that described in the dictionary. I don't want to be misquoting people or beliefs.
It is also somewhat odd that you try to disqualify things like science by saying they are really religions too.
Have I? When? When have I done this? I've learned to shy away from scientific discussions unless I have really spent some time in research. I have a number of people in the fields that I know that are far more knowledgeable about science such that if you wish to have a solid Christian perspective on something let me know and I will find out. I have done so in the past on this thread. Don't get me confused with someone else, please.
|
|
Seriously: You seem not to have a very good understanding of atheism, so could you perhaps read up on it before you keep blurting out that it's a religion?
Ok, so doing a bit of research for your benefit...
Wikipedia has a whole lot to say about atheism. I didn't really see anything about what you were mentioning -- but then I didn't read the article word for word. I'll try to tonight if it will make you happy.
Here is another one that feels a bit heavy-handed in my opinion. (But it is his/her opinion and that is fine.) I list it here because, again, his definition of what "atheism" is, doesn't seem to include anything about what you are talking about.
Here is yet another one that doesn't even mention what you are talking about. What I find interesting is his answer to "What do atheists believe?" is basically, "a lot of people don't know what atheists believe." Not sure how that is an answer, but oh well.
If you would like, I could do some more research.
|
Moff is correct. That is the common definition of atheism.
The root of the word is "no religion" as theism is technically a religion, but most people know atheist means "no god" (which would technically be adeism).
Agnosticism, by way of contrast, means "no knowing". Agnostics might care deeply, but they do not know for certain whether God exists (as religious people know He does) or he doesn't (as atheists do). Of course, quite a lot fall into Hulkism (i.e. believe whatever the hell you want, but leave me out of it).
Speaking personally, I am atheistic in the root sense, having a great deal of problems with religion such that I cannot believe they are divinely inspired, but am agnostic on the existence of God, although I lean towards not.
Question for bubbagump: Why do see the big bang (a misnomer) and evolution as an attack on your religion (forgive me if I'm overstating)? While these explanations contradict the biblical accounts (both of them), they don't invalidate the possibility of a demiurge (scientists have little to say about what happened before the big bang).
Actually, I don't view the big bang theory as an attack on my religion. It is merely one of several theories. My only contention is that there are other theories, each with supporting evidence, that are worthy of consideration.
On the subject of evolution (and I may be repeating myself again): Evolution by natural selection is not just how we understand the history of life, its how we understand the history of everything, from cosmology to organisms to empires to technology both concrete and abstract. I've witnessed this process directly and indirectly in so many aspects of life that (combined with the fossil record and the DNA evidence) I can't believe it's not happening in biology. And if I may veer into realm of opinion, I much prefer a god who can create such an amazing and beautiful process than one who's solution to everything is 'magic'.
Everyone believes in microevolution (for example, a bird evolving into a different kind of bird), including me. It's an established, observable scientific fact. What I and other creationists don't believe in is macroevolution (a bird turning into a lion).
And concerning the "magic" thing, I tend to believe that the vast majority of God's miracles (and probably all of them) are merely examples of Him utilizing the natural laws He put in place. In other words, I submit that God, being "beyond" what we are able to perceive in the course of scientific examination, is able to apply laws and principles that we have yet to discover or define.
This, in essence, defines why I don't believe in the big bang theory, in the old earth theory, or in macroevolution. While there is some science in support of each concept, it is only partial and fails to answer various questions. In essence, I believe that it is "bad science". You may be surprised to know that my belief in special creationism itself was initially sparked not by my religious beliefs but by various scientific observations. That is to say, the aforementioned questions that science thus far fails to answer can be answered neatly by the biblical account, can be supported by scientific observations, and therefore provide a better foundation for further scientific inquiry, IMO.
Then you say "because saying anything more would require some sort of proof of nonexistence of God..." -- Why? Why does a religious point of view "require some sort of proof"?
EXACTLY! It ISN'T a religious point of view! I knew I could get you to understand!
Because it isn't a matter of faith, it needs to be backed up, and so atheism only states what can be backed up. It would be stupid to demand that people accept what you say just because you believe it, wouldn't it?
Seriously: You seem not to have a very good understanding of atheism, so could you perhaps read up on it before you keep blurting out that it's a religion? You religious people seem to have a hard time accepting that not everything someone holds as relevant is religious in nature. It is also somewhat odd that you try to disqualify things like science by saying they are really religions too.
This continuing insistence on "atheism is a religion" is really getting a bit tiresome, Moff.
According to wikipedia: "A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature."
That pretty well describes atheism, doesn't it? In essence, atheism is "the religion of having no religion." Get used to it, friend - if you're making statements about religion, God, or the nature of man and reality, you're making religious statements.
Aside from that, exactly how does one "back up" the belief that there is no God?
|
|
On the subject of evolution (and I may be repeating myself again): Evolution by natural selection is not just how we understand the history of life, its how we understand the history of everything, from cosmology to organisms to empires to technology both concrete and abstract. I've witnessed this process directly and indirectly in so many aspects of life that (combined with the fossil record and the DNA evidence) I can't believe it's not happening in biology. And if I may veer into realm of opinion, I much prefer a god who can create such an amazing and beautiful process than one who's solution to everything is 'magic'.
Ok, way back on page 25 of this thread I talk about the creation story a bit.
Here are my thoughts on this whole evolution thing.
I think that some evolution is possible and very likely. Possibly even to the point of some rat creature (stupid stupid rat creatures) "evolving" into an elephant. Not sure and not sure if science will ever truly "prove" it since it really isn't something that is observable or repeatable in its entirety. I have my doubts, but I will leave it up to smarter people than me to figure this all out.
There still seem to be some fairly significant holes in the theory as a whole that I have some difficulty accepting without proof that most likely will never come. (And Kirth, if you have any insight, please let me know.)
1) The universe, sun, moon, stars, planets, and earth all seem to have had a beginning. I have seen a number of sites that seem to suggest at how old the universe is. It's really really old, but I think that it is interesting that everything seems to have originated from "nothing".
2) Life is a pretty big leap from nothing. I mean a really really big leap. I still find that the odds of it happening by chance are so incredibly astronomical to the point where it almost seems like it's not even an option to say that it happened by chance -- in my opinion.
3) Single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms. I could be wrong, I did a quick search on Google, but it doesn't look like there are any 2-celled organisms. Even to go from one cell to something very small like plankton seems like a pretty remarkable leap and I can't think of anything external or otherwise that would cause single cells to go to that.
4) Intelligence. I still have a hard time accepting that intelligence is a product of evolution. I just don't really see any reason for it. It's one thing to use an existing stick to pick up ants or to pick up a log to bop something over the head with it. It is something else entirely to create a spear. I just have a hard time believing that no other species would have caught on to how great an evolutionary breakthrough intelligence is that it hasn't happened to any other species. I mean we developed intelligence in the proverbial blink of an eye compared to how old the earth is and how long life has been on the planet.
Maybe some of these things will be proven at some point. Maybe not. I'm not saying that this is proof of the existence of God or proof that God doesn't exist. I guess that I am really trying to point out that "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" are not entirely the same thing. I'm also saying that evolution or the "big bang" doesn't shake my faith either. And I hope that scientists keep searching for the truth of things.
That pretty well describes atheism, doesn't it? In essence, atheism is "the religion of having no religion." Get used to it, friend - if you're making statements about religion, God, or the nature of man and reality, you're making religious statements.
Aside from that, exactly how does one "back up" the belief that there is no God?
Mr. Gump, sir... <:) Meaning no disrespect I must disagree.
Bit of a trick there, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that faeries don't exist, you can only fail to prove that they do exist. If proof is what people are after here, it does not fall to the skeptic to produce it. Otherwise we'd have to take everyone's word for everything they ever said that we couldn't disprove.
I'm the emperor of a planet called Carthon, by the way. Pleased ta meecha.
Not believing in a god is not a religion unless you make one of it. Having a set of observations one trusts in no way constitutes a religion. It's like saying a guy who thinks a tiger could kill him in a bar fight has a religion about it because man, nature, life and death are involved in the opinion. If you don't believe that I'm the emperor of Carthon, do you have a religion formed around that disbelief?
Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Mmm... nope. None of that applies to my atheism. I'm just a guy who goes about my business trying not to do harm as a general rule. I don't think about god existing or not existing unless I see this post pop up. And then, I don't comment until I see atheists get lumped together as one specific thing. I have no problem with people having and loving their faith. More power to them and their bliss.