|
"There is in every village a torch: the schoolteacher, and an extinguisher: the priest." --Victor Hugo
Faith and reason are very difficult to reconcile. Faith is an apriori defiance of reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.
Faith is an answer that cannot be questioned. Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered. Science asks good questions. Religion is a collection of bad answers.
Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into skyscrapers.
I should really leave this alone, but this really bugged me. I just don’t get making huge blanket statements like this.
“Religion is a collection of bad answers.” Bad answers to what? My religion is involved in ending slavery worldwide, ending hunger, helping others in natural disasters, and so on. But apparently all that is “bad”.
I hear these comments about how awful religion is and how better off the world would be without it, but so many of the organizations out there to help people are religious based. I can give you a list of 20 organizations that are doing what they can to end slavery and all of them have religious connections. I don’t know of any that don’t have religious connections. If religion is so bad, why aren’t the non-religious stepping up to make the world a better place? (And I’m sure that there are some that do, but compared to the number of religious organizations that are out there, they seem to be lacking.)
Religion may fly us into skyscrapers (and that’s debatable because that event was as much if not moreso political in nature than religious), but religion also feeds the hungry, takes care of the homeless, builds homes, frees slaves (and also provides housing and employment after freeing them) as well as simple things like provides camaraderie. Science may fly us to the moon, but also is responsible for nuclear weapons and generally more effective ways to be crappy to each other.
Religion is generally good. That doesn’t mean people haven’t (or won’t) use it for selfish or destructive means. Science is generally good. That doesn’t mean people haven’t (or won’t) use it for selfish or destructive means.
“Faith is the opposite of reason.” While I understand what you are saying, if you really break it down, is it really? Even if I, or Kirth, or whomever is wrong about our respective religions, as far as the end result is concerned, what have we lost? We’ve helped ourselves and helped others – both of which are apparently “unreasonable”. While on the other hand, it feels like you are saying that it is more “reasonable” to stamp out the “evils” of religion (like ending slavery) – to what end? To join you on your quest to stamp out all religion? Because that is a much more noble cause than feeding the hungry? I guess that when you look at it like that, faith is incredibly unreasonable. James 2:14-26 – What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? … I will show you my faith by what I do … faith without deeds is dead.
I usually try and stay away from the “holier than thou” attitude – I just really find it odd to find it in someone non-religious. I am just trying to do what I feel is right in an incredibly unreasonable world.
If religion is so bad, why aren’t the non-religious stepping up to make the world a better place? (And I’m sure that there are some that do, but compared to the number of religious organizations that are out there, they seem to be lacking.)
Because there's no "United Church of Atheism of Downtown Houston" or whatever. A church isn't just a belief, it's an organization, which gives it a head start in getting people together to help a good cause. I've personally contributed time and resources to "religious" charities because it was more efficient than trying to start my own organization from the ground up. Which unfortunately means that my efforts are being counted towards that particular brand of faith, and are actively counting against me, in the tallies you allude to. If we took the efforts made by religious organizations, and removed all of the efforts made by non-religious people on behalf of those organizations, I think we'd see a HUGE difference in the perceived "level of charity."
EDIT: Then again, if we're comparing total charity in a "religious people give more than atheists" contest, how much has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated? That's an atheist charity that dwarfs any church ones that I know of ($35.1 billion as of October 2008), and Bill's starter money for it ($94M in stock) was after taxes -- unlike churches, which are tax-exempt.
Sorry for the rant; I'm just tired of hearing about how Christians are so much better than atheists. Hogwash! I see no real difference in levels of charitability between them, unless the numbers are intentionally skewed. Some atheists are coldhearted bastards. So, unfortunately, are quite a number of Christians. But the skinflint Christians can hide behind their Church's total efforts, whereas individual atheists don't have a uniting organization to claim membership in.
|
|
If we took the efforts made by religious organizations, and removed all of the efforts made by non-religious people on behalf of those organizations, I think we'd see a HUGE difference in the perceived "level of charity." But the atheist most often contributes to the cause itself, without worrying about who gets the credit.
Probably, but my point is more -- if you take the religious aspect out, how much of a difference would then be perceived in the overall "level of charity"? I know that it's an organization and that's why there are so many, but what would happen if there weren't any religious charities? Would the non-religious then get organized to do something? If it's more convenient to contribute to religious causes for good, why the need to bash religion and talk about how universally bad they are?
I want to get across that more often than not, issues have much more to do with psychotic individuals claiming to do something in the name of XXXXXX than it has to do with the religion itself.
Would the non-religious then get organized to do something?
Well, yeah, they're starting to: that's why Bill and Melinda gates and Warren Beatty have a separate foundation (see edit).
I want to get across that more often than not, issues have much more to do with psychotic individuals claiming to do something in the name of XXXXXX than it has to do with the religion itself.
I agree to a large extent. I have a hard time blaming the long years of conflict in Norther Ireland solely on religion, for example, when overall it was more of a "damn those British occupiers" thing. Then again, no atheist would fly a plane into the World Trade Center solely on the promise of a reward in heaven; you'd have to convince him that his suicide was accomplishing a measurable Earthly goal -- and that's a lot more difficult. Religions aren't to blame, but they provides a convenient indoctrination technique, by indoctrinating people to ignore physical reality in order to think in terms of intangible rewards in a non-material (and some would say imaginary) universe.
|
|
Sorry for the rant; I'm just tired of hearing about how Christians are so much better than atheists. Hogwash! I see no real difference in levels of charitability between them, unless the numbers are intentionally skewed.
I am too and that wasn't my point. I'm tired of constantly hearing about how "evil" or "bad" or whatever religion (or more specifically Christianity) is when more often than not we are actually doing a lot of "good".
This isn't a competition. This isn't about who's better than who. We should be working together but instead there are people out there who seem to want to spend more time repeatedly talking about how evil all religion is because of the Crusades (or whatever).
If you don't believe what I believe, fine. But to tell me that what I believe is "evil" when I feel that I'm doing anything but "evil" -- well it rubs me the wrong way to say the least.
I guess we've all got our "hot buttons".
We should be working together but instead there are people out there who seem to want to spend more time repeatedly talking about how evil all religion is because of the Crusades (or whatever).
I agree! (And I see the Crusades as having been largely political, rather than religious, as well.)
But still, see above. You, personally, Moff, are an eminently reasonable fellow, and strike me as totally unlikely (read: 0%) to kill innocent people on the promise of some kind of intangible spiritual gain. Indeed, it's unfathomable to me that you would ever do so. And most of my Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends are the same.
However, 44% of the U.S. population alone is perfectly willing to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence in all branches of study (geology, chemistry, physics, biology) in favor of what they think is "believing in God." And they call themselves Christians, the same as you, and they don't get called out by the moderates -- only by the new militant atheists. So, sadly, all religion tends to get lumped in with the reality-deniers. Any cult that inculcates its followers into ignoring the physical world in favor of what the cult's leaders tell them to believe is dangerous -- surely moderate Christians can see that clearly. Yet there's no outcry against these churches. Rome doesn't excommunicate bishops for denying evolution. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn't kick out churches for teaching that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And moderate Muslims, while (no doubt correctly) denying that 9/11 has anything to do with the teachings of Islam, nonetheless do little to create a culture in which jihadists are put to death, instead of being allowed to do so to others.
|
|
Yet there's no outcry against these churches. Rome doesn't excommunicate bishops for denying evolution. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn't kick out churches for teaching that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And moderate Muslims, while denying that 9/11 has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, nonetheless do little to create a culture in which jihadists are put to death, instead of being allowed to do so to others.
Ok, but does that make them evil? Does "stupid"="evil"?
One thing I think is interesting is that it seems historically that if a group is persecuted for their beliefs more, they hold onto their beliefs all the more strongly. (Just get into a political disagreement and see where that leads.) Believing that the earth is 6,000 years old isn't evil -- it's stupid. But pressuring them or arguing with them or getting angry doesn't and won't get anywhere. In fact, it seems to have the opposite effect than what's desired. I keep hoping that people will figure it out on their own. Maybe not, but one can hope.
Yet there's no outcry against these churches. Rome doesn't excommunicate bishops for denying evolution. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn't kick out churches for teaching that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And moderate Muslims, while denying that 9/11 has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, nonetheless do little to create a culture in which jihadists are put to death, instead of being allowed to do so to others.Ok, but does that make them evil? Does "stupid"="evil"?
One thing I think is interesting is that it seems historically that if a group is persecuted for their beliefs more, they hold onto their beliefs all the more strongly. (Just get into a political disagreement and see where that leads.) Believing that the earth is 6,000 years old isn't evil -- it's stupid. But pressuring them or arguing with them or getting angry doesn't and won't get anywhere. In fact, it seems to have the opposite effect than what's desired. I keep hoping that people will figure it out on their own. Maybe not, but one can hope.
But it isn't just about what Creationists believe in the privacy of there own delusions. They act upon those beliefs, those actions have very real implications for every one. If you ban evolution being taught, or try to have myths taught as science, it damaged every child, not just the children of the creations.
If some one believes bullets cure cancer, frankly that is fine up until they decide to try and cure peoples cancer. At that point, it is upto every one to try and stop that person, especially those who share common ideas with the bullets curse cancer brigade.
Does "stupid"="evil"?
All too often, I think it does. Why would anyone rob a liquor store, shooting the clerk in the process, in order to buy drugs? Sheer stupidity. And the result is that great evil is done.
As far as pressure and beliefs, I think it depends. I believe that moderate churches and mosques, ones whose congregations have their heads screwed on straight, could do a world of good as far as talking sense to their more benighted brethren. But too often they don't (under the blanket of "religion is good overall -- look at us!"), so we end up with stem cell research going to Singapore (loss for the U.S.), and in the exact same way we end up with Jihadists being tacitly supported (loss for the whole world).
Does "stupid"="evil"?All too often, I think it does. Why would anyone rob a liquor store, shooting the clerk in the process, in order to buy drugs? Sheer stupidity. And the result is that great evil is done.
Perhapes a little bit of an over simplifications of a host of factors, ranging from the socialogicial and crimologicial to biological and psychological :P
But other than the choose example, i couldn't agree more :D
|
|
But it isn't just about what Creationists believe in the privacy of there own delusions. They act upon those beliefs, those actions have very real implications for every one. If you ban evolution being taught, or try to have myths taught as science, it damaged every child, not just the children of the creations.
Politicians act on their beliefs as well. Religion doesn't have the monopoly on that.
However, you are correct. Christians (and others) should not force their beliefs on others as "fact" when it isn't.
Politicians act on their beliefs as well.
Which, in the U.S., most often means their religious beliefs, because an "out of the closet" atheist cannot be elected to public office in this country. Not that that's necessarily bad, in and of itself. In fact, I think it would be pretty good, in the balance... if religious fundamentalists also couldn't get in, and we therefore only had moderates like you running things. I'd be really happy with that.
But instead, the moderates and fringe lunatics are lumped together as "religious" and are hence "OK for public office." And that bugs me.
|
|
I believe that moderate churches and mosques, ones whose congregations have their heads screwed on straight, could do a world of good as far as talking sense to their more benighted brethren. But too often they don't (under the blanket of "religion is good overall -- look at us!"), ...
Hmmm... I don't think that's it as much as offending their "brethren" or something similar. Not that that's any better.
But that kind of brings up another question -- how do you feel about the following:
Do people belong to a church (or similar) because of what they already believe or because of what the leadership tells them to believe? Looking at it a different way -- in your example, if the leadership was "talking sense" to their "brethren" and the "brethren" disagreed, do you think they would change their minds, or leave to find a group more in line with their thinking?
Politicians act on their beliefs as well.Which, in the U.S., most often means their religious beliefs, because an "out of the closet" atheist cannot be elected to public office in this country.
Small point of correction Kirth. There is one in Congress:
Rep. Pete Stark
Small point of correction Kirth. There is one in Congress:
Rep. Pete Stark
Right! But he didn't "come out" until 2007 -- after he'd been elected a zillion times.
Stark is the first, and so far only, openly atheist member of the United States Congress.
How many senators and representatives in the history of the U.S.? At what point does a proportion become so small that it's mathematically indistinguishable from zero?
Sadly, Stark, being a bit of a nutcase, sets a poor example for others to follow.
Small point of correction Kirth. There is one in Congress:
Rep. Pete StarkRight! I stand corrected.
Stark is the first, and so far only, openly atheist member of the United States Congress.How many senators and representatives in the history of the U.S.? At what point does a proportion become so small that it's mathematically indistinguishable from zero?
Just a small correction Kirth. You said an atheist 'cannot be elected.' That seemed a little declaritive to me. While he is the first, there has to always be a first, just like there was a first Irishman, Asian, woman, African American, etc. I was just pointing out that an atheist can and did get elected.
You said an atheist 'cannot be elected.' That seemed a little declaritive to me.
Order of operations. He "came out" in 2007, but was elected in 1973 (and periodically re-elected thereafter). Would he have gotten into office in the first place, if he'd admitted his views? I'd say no. Only once did he get in afterwards -- in 2008 -- when he was running unopposed (so he wasn't so much elected then as recycled back in).
You said an atheist 'cannot be elected.' That seemed a little declaritive to me.Order of operations. He "came out" in 2007, but was elected in 1973 (and periodically re-elected thereafter). Would he have gotten into office in the first place, if he'd admitted his views? I'd say no.
But he was re-elected in 2008, so his religious (non)affiliation wasn't an issue. I'm sure the fact that he was an unopposed incumbent helped, but incumbents have been toppled for much less of a bombshell.
I don't want to come across as argumentative, I was just pointing out that 'an atheist cannot be elected' was a false statement. He was a known atheist, and won an election. There were mitigating circumstances, but saying an atheist can't be elected leads others to the conclusion that there are NO known atheists in public office. I was just posting an example of one.
|
:) I said Building upon the past not putting blinders on and loosing all sense of any reality.Would that be just as funny if it were said about Christianity?
Actually I include Christianity in that sentence. Most explicitly in fact. No one should follow a statement or belief blindly. Ever. Not in religion, atheism or science. Always ask questions, even if you know the answers, or believe you do.
|
|
How does one tell the difference?
No, by that timeline, we should all be Scientologists.:) I said Building upon the past not putting blinders on and loosing all sense of any reality.
That is a very good question. Such questions lead us to greater understanding of our world. Which is why we should ask such questions. As well as ask them with a bit of skepticism. At the same time we should not blind ourselves to the truth and listen for answers when we ask these questions.
How do we tell what is right and what is fiction. Some would answer faith. Some that there is no right answer. My best answer and it is honestly not a good one is this, you know because you just know. It is like asking someone how to breathe. You know it because you do it. Practice of belief leads towards use of said beliefs. Be it being a student, teacher, politician, preacher or prophet. My answer is a bit Zen and yet it is the only one I have.
|
|
Politicians act on their beliefs as well. Religion doesn't have the monopoly on that.
However, you are correct. Christians (and others) should not force their beliefs on others as "fact" when it isn't.
Neither should an atheist, but most of them do not see it as such. So what we end up with is a steriotipic responce of attacking those who do not agree with you instead of productive discourse. "If you believe in God you must be one thses crazies." You must be stupid and you must be a crack head who robs liquir stores.
Obviously I have nothing to add here.
But that kind of brings up another question -- how do you feel about the following:
Do people belong to a church (or similar) because of what they already believe or because of what the leadership tells them to believe? Looking at it a different way -- in your example, if the leadership was "talking sense" to their "brethren" and the "brethren" disagreed, do you think they would change their minds, or leave to find a group more in line with their thinking?
Honestly, I think if moderates spent a lot more time berating their "brethren" for irrational, dangerous beliefs -- and spent a lot less time coddling them and telling them it's OK to be a nutcase as long as you believe in God -- then outright refusal to look at physical reality would be relegated to a few fringe churches in the swamps, instead of being widespread across the nation (and almost treated as a badge of honor) as is currently the case. I think the refusal of moderates to address the lunatic fringe is what gives power to that fringe, by sheltering them among a large majority, by giving credence to their views by association. To some extent, I think the moderate Muslims are in some part at fault for 9/11 for not ostracizing, excommunicating, and declaring infidel the jihadists. To some extent, I think the moderate Christians are in some part at fault for every attack on empirical science or rational thought, for not ostracizing, excomminicating, and declaring apostate the young earth creationsits.
So what we end up with is a steriotipic responce of attacking those who do not agree with you instead of productive discourse. "If you believe in God you must be one thses crazies." You must be stupid and you must be a crack head who robs liquir stores.
Let me try to be more clear. I see THREE (3) major groups of people, not two: I see atheists, religious moderates (of various religions), and religious whacko fringe cultists. Of these three groups, the middle group is by far the most numerous and the most influential, and in many cases is by far the most reasonable of the three. Yet they shelter the third group and declare unity with the third group, in opposition to the first. So, yeah, of course a lot of people in the first group will react in the way you've outlined.
Pointing out a reason why they would do so is my attempt at "productive discourse." You can feel free to disagree, of course. In no way am I attacking moderates for their religion; I'm only scolding them for their protective stance towards the people you yourself don't want me to associate with them.
Question for you Kirth. How are the young earth Creationists dangerous? Sure, they're beliefs are irrational, but are they a danger to anyone?
I understand your point, Kirth, but I am not sure I agree with you. Sure, I am likely to lump people together who claim the same banner, but I do not think I am going to blame them for acts (or lack of acts) committed by others.
Most of us are Americans. Does that make us culpable of any war crimes committed by our soldiers over in Afghanistan and Iraq? Sure, I think they may have acted unlawfully and immorally, but because I am not out on the streets demanding their punishment, am I to be held responsible?
I agree that moderates should distance themselves from the acts of the extremists, but more just to identify themselves as actually being under a completely different banner.
|
|
Question for you Kirth. How are the young earth Creationists dangerous? Sure, they're beliefs are irrational, but are they a danger to anyone?
Zombieneighbors and possibly Kirth feel (probably rightly so) that the danger is more in squashing scientific research because it appears to go against what they feel the Bible says. At least that's how I'm reading them and hopefully not misrepresenting their position.
Sure, their beliefs are irrational, but are they a danger to anyone?
I think so, because they teach their members -- and strive tirelessly to teach everyone else -- that one's personal interpretation of the Bible or Koran, in many cases taken out of context, trumps physical reality. In fact, that one should be proud to abandon physical evidence in favor of some idiosyncratic view that contradicts it.
Show me an abortion clinic bomber and I'll show you a YEC -- I'd wager top dollar that all of the former belong to the latter (but the reverse is obviously not true).
I love the U.S. I'd like us to be at the cutting edge of modern science, reaping the benefits thereof. I'd hate to see us lose that edge in the future, and become more and more of a technologial backwater, because somehow it's popular to deny the existence of the physical world, and to therefore abandon science education because of that view.
Question for you Kirth. How are the young earth Creationists dangerous? Sure, they're beliefs are irrational, but are they a danger to anyone?Zombieneighbors and possibly Kirth feel (probably rightly so) that the danger is more in squashing scientific research because it appears to go against what they feel the Bible says.
Don't you mean 'it appears to go against what the Creacionists say'?
Most of us are Americans. Does that make us culpable of any war crimes committed by our soldiers over in Afghanistan and Iraq? Sure, I think they may have acted unlawfully and immorally, but because I am not out on the streets demanding their punishment, am I to be held responsible?
Yes. I hold myself in part responsible for that whole mess. My tax dollars made it possible. Every time I said, "well, America is more good than not," I gave a free pass to every act of torture committed by us. Anything committed in the name of the U.S. that I allow to occur and do not outright denounce is in part committed by me.
Don't you mean 'it appears to go against what the Creationists say'?
Agreed. I see Creationism as a specific, idiosyncratic intepretation of the Bible that is by no means universal among Christians.
I applaud your responsibility, but I still agree to disagree on this point.
|
|
Don't you mean 'it appears to go against what the Creacionists say'?Question for you Kirth. How are the young earth Creationists dangerous? Sure, they're beliefs are irrational, but are they a danger to anyone?Zombieneighbors and possibly Kirth feel (probably rightly so) that the danger is more in squashing scientific research because it appears to go against what they feel the Bible says.
It's a fine line, but no. The problem is that Creationists or other similar beliefs try and use the Bible to explain science. And really that's a backwards way to look at it. You can believe in the Bible and possibly even use it as a starting point, but to use it as the "answer" before the question is determined leaves things open to problems (to say the least). The Bible is not nor was it ever meant to be used as a science textbook.
|
|
Don't you mean 'it appears to go against what the Creationists say'?Agreed. Creationism is a specific, idiosyncratic intepretation of the Bible that is by no means universal among Christians.
Hmmm. I guess I'm addressing the process of their thinking rather than the group. Either case I guess ends up being the same.
Don't you mean 'it appears to go against what the Creationists say'?Agreed. I see Creationism as a specific, idiosyncratic intepretation of the Bible that is by no means universal among Christians.
And this goes to my wonder how anyone can be so absolutely sure. Which interpretation is right? How can one know the Bible is the correct sacred text and not the Torah or the Book of Mormon or the Vinaya Piṭaka?
I have often heard people say that reading the Bible they just felt it was right. Do you think followers of other religions do not get that same feeling reading their own sacred text. Are they all wrong and only your feeling and those who share your feeling are right?
And then I am the arrogant one for denying god?
It's a fine line, but no. The problem is that Creationists or other similar beliefs try and use the Bible to explain science. And really that's a backwards way to look at it. You can believe in the Bible and possibly even use it as a starting point, but to use it as the "answer" before the question is determined leaves things open to problems (to say the least). The Bible is not nor was it ever meant to be used as a science textbook.
So if Kirth disputes Creationists' views it is because of Kirth's implied misunderstanding the Bible. I am sure Kirth appreciates you putting meaning in his mouth.
Despite how you may feel, Moff, questioning (attacking if you want to antagonistic) the Bible is very scientific when it is being offered as proof invalidating science.
I apologize to the scientist for raping semantics here. Feel free to correct me, but I am sure I am making my point understood.
If I say I have theory A and proof B and you come along and say theory A is wrong because of proof Z, I am going to question Z. If Z fails to hold up under scrutiny, then theory A gets to keep going along until someone can offer proof that does stand up to scrutiny.
So, yes, if Creationists want to offer up the Bible as proof of a young Earth, you better expect it to be treated like a science text. If it does not hold up under scrutiny, it is going to be tossed aside as far as 'evidence'. If you want to say the Bible is just a bunch of stories with a moral, well that is all good and fine but has no place in a scientific debate.
44% !!!! Sometimes it blows my mind what a different country the United States really is. Sometimes when I travel south of the border it feels very much like Canada, other times it feels like I'm on another planet.
We should be working together but instead there are people out there who seem to want to spend more time repeatedly talking about how evil all religion is because of the Crusades (or whatever).I agree! (And I see the Crusades as having been largely political, rather than religious, as well.)
But still, see above. You, personally, Moff, are an eminently reasonable fellow, and strike me as totally unlikely (read: 0%) to kill innocent people on the promise of some kind of intangible spiritual gain. Indeed, it's unfathomable to me that you would ever do so. And most of my Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends are the same.
However, 44% of the U.S. population alone is perfectly willing to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence in all branches of study (geology, chemistry, physics, biology) in favor of what they think is "believing in God." And they call themselves Christians, the same as you, and they don't get called out by the moderates -- only by the new militant atheists. So, sadly, all religion tends to get lumped in with the reality-deniers. Any cult that inculcates its followers into ignoring the physical world in favor of what the cult's leaders tell them to believe is dangerous -- surely moderate Christians can see that clearly. Yet there's no outcry against these churches. Rome doesn't excommunicate bishops for denying evolution. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn't kick out churches for teaching that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And moderate Muslims, while (no doubt correctly) denying that 9/11 has anything to do with the teachings of Islam, nonetheless do little to create a culture in which jihadists are put to death, instead of being allowed to do so to others.
Politicians act on their beliefs as well. Religion doesn't have the monopoly on that.
However, you are correct. Christians (and others) should not force their beliefs on others as "fact" when it isn't.
Neither should an atheist, but most of them do not see it as such. So what we end up with is a steriotipic responce of attacking those who do not agree with you instead of productive discourse. "If you believe in God you must be one thses crazies." You must be stupid and you must be a crack head who robs liquir stores.
Obviously I have nothing to add here.
No one, to my knowledge, in this discussion has ever said "If you believe in God you must be one thses crazies."
Even i, a dedicated anti-theist can a, respect many of the things that jesus is reported to have said, b, doubly respect anyone who lives by the things he is reported to have said. Such people are very different from fundimentalists and i don't lump them in together, save where they have points of commonality. For instance, if you believe in a literal Resurrection or a literal deity, then on that point you are as irrational as a fundimentalist, if there is not evidence to support that belief.
If you beleive that atheism is attempting to force their beliefs on others as "fact", could you please provide an examples of campaigns on the scale of the 'teach the controversy', by atheists to teach children as fact that 'god doesn't exist.'
Question for you Kirth. How are the young earth Creationists dangerous? Sure, they're beliefs are irrational, but are they a danger to anyone?
Well, for a whole host of reasons.
The simplest to raise is that when you actively attempt to retard the learning of science amoungst young people, you are damaging your entire cultures future ability to compete in the sphere of science. It is a formular for economic dissaster.
Most of us are Americans. Does that make us culpable of any war crimes committed by our soldiers over in Afghanistan and Iraq? Sure, I think they may have acted unlawfully and immorally, but because I am not out on the streets demanding their punishment, am I to be held responsible?Yes. I hold myself in part responsible for that whole mess. My tax dollars made it possible. Every time I said, "well, America is more good than not," I gave a free pass to every act of torture committed by us. Anything committed in the name of the U.S. that I allow to occur and do not outright denounce is in part committed by me.
Because like any government, it is an extention of the will of the people. If your country does something wrong, it is your responciblity to make sure it doesn't do it again.
|
|
So if Kirth disputes Creationists' views it is because of Kirth's implied misunderstanding the Bible. I am sure Kirth appreciates you putting meaning in his mouth.
I'm trying to catch up.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Kirth disputes Creationists' views because they are wrong. It has little to do with understanding or misunderstanding the Bible.
The problem is that Creationists use the Bible to "answer" things when the "answer" wasn't what was being addressed in the first place.
It's like reading Aesops Fairy tales and coming to the conclusion that foxes talk. Then trying to "prove" that somehow while ignoring what the story is actually about.
Genesis 1 was not written to provide a scientific explanation of the origin of the planet. The geneology account in Genesis was not meant to give a timeline on the age of the planet.
My apologies, Moff. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying Kirth was disputing Creationists due to Kirth's misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bible.
I'm trying to catch up.
Yeah, sorry about that too. I should know better than get on my soapbox. Friends?
|
|
And this goes to my wonder how anyone can be so absolutely sure. Which interpretation is right? How can one know the Bible is the correct sacred text and not the Torah or the Book of Mormon or the Vinaya Piṭaka?
I have often heard people say that reading the Bible they just felt it was right. Do you think followers of other religions do not get that same feeling reading their own sacred text. Are they all wrong and only your feeling and those who share your feeling are right?
And then I am the arrogant one for denying god?
At least recently, Mormons used to say that you would know the Book of Mormon was "right" because you would get a "burning in the bosom".
Sometimes, it's kind of a process of elimination -- but in doing so will probably make things considerably less "civil".
The truth is that most religious texts have really good stuff in them. Does it matter which one? In the end, possibly. But that's probably a discussion for the "Civil Conversion Thread" (if such a thing can exist).
As for the "Do you think followers of other religions do not get that same feeling..." -- I'm not sure. I'm not even sure if that is true for my own religion. It seems like more often than not, people "believe" or at least go through the motions because it's what's expected of them instead of a conscious decision or warm fuzzy feeling from reading the sacred text.
|
|
I'm trying to catch up.Yeah, sorry about that too. I should know better than get on my soapbox. Friends?
Did my post come across as a bit harsh? If so, sorry. I keep hoping I'm providing something different than what appears as "the norm". It's difficult believing as I do, in the environment I'm in. Nearly every Sunday I hear something from the congregation where I say, "not only are you wrong, but how does that help at all?" So I continue to try show Christians how better to "show" and "demonstrate" Christ instead of hitting people over the head with their Bible while also trying to get the other side to understand that not every Christian is a blinded moron bombing abortion clinics. And every time I feel like I'm making progress, something happens and I feel like I end up taking two steps back.
And, yes, I'd love to have that beer with you. I still aim to collect from Kirth.
It's like reading Aesops Fairy tales and coming to the conclusion that foxes talk. Then trying to "prove" that somehow while ignoring what the story is actually about.
Genesis 1 was not written to provide a scientific explanation of the origin of the planet. The geneology account in Genesis was not meant to give a timeline on the age of the planet.
It's guys like you that make me want to be a Christian! But, seriously, I wonder why so many people like you are so afraid to denounce and marginalize the snake handling, tambourine-shaking, reality-denying, can't-wait-for-the-apocalypse people who claim to be members of the same religion. Like I wonder why violent jihad isn't universally declared apostate among moderate Muslims.