Pointing out that "atheism is true" needs to be proven IN NO WAY is saying that "theism is true" does not need to be proven. There's no shifting being done here. All that is being done is pointing out that "agnosticism is true" is a third option (and the only one of the three that doesn't require a statement of faith about anything other than what is in one's own mind).
Linguistic equivalence does not equate to conceptual equivalence. Further, it is by definition impossible to "prove" that an omnipotent being (who presumably may not wish to be found) doesn't exist, and no rational person (atheist or no) would claim otherwise. "God absolutely doesn't exist" is a strawman. That is not what atheists believe. Atheists believe that the burden of proof must rest with he who asserts the unobservable, lest we inescapably conclude that belief in God is exactly equivalent to belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
|
Trying to paint atheism as just another kind of faith is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Now why would someone try to do that? :P
I would say that's what anti-religious atheists, evolutionists, and anti-religious scientists have done from the start. By constantly pretending the burden is outside, they can play defensive and basically control the field in the way most advantagous to their point of view.
I believe God almost certainly doesn't exist, because there is no supporting evidence. It is not feasible (or indeed, possible) for me to assume everything I hear, no matter how fantastical, is true unless proven otherwise. It is self-evident that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the unobservable and supernatural.
See, that's the thing. To me, the lack of a creator(s) is both unobservable and far more supernatural and unlikely in the creation of everything. So with the rest of your statement, what does that mean?
I've already said, multiple times, that agnosticism (at least the weak version) doesn't require the kind of faith that the other two options we've discussed do. If you think, when I say that, I'm changing the subject, I'd like to know how.
I'm pretty well read on the subject, yet I've never encountered anyone who holds the position you describe. But by all means, keep tilting at windmills.
See, that's the thing. To me, the lack of a creator(s) is both unobservable and far more supernatural and unlikely in the creation of everything. So with the rest of your statement, what does that mean?
It means your definition of evidence is incomprehensible to me. Since we apparently don't speak the same language, I doubt meaningful conversation is possible. Seriously...lack of God is "more supernatural" than God?
*boggle*
To repeat: The burden of proof must either rest with he who asserts the unobservable, or it follows that belief in God is exactly equivalent to belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The other one is much along the same lines. It talks about the steps and procedures that catholics must follow for a variety of cases, and so far seems to mostly be talking about not breaking thier oaths in relation to confidentiality.
Yes, and the case in point is when those oaths prevent them from turning in people who are victimizing children. Even a psychiatrist or lawyer is expected to report actual felonies, regardless of confidentiality. Calling the order a "study document" doesn't change that, at least from my point of view; YMMV.
Your example of the coverups of sexual abuse in the armed forces was an excellent one, by the way, as it's similar in both scope and egregiousness. "All governments" doesn't help, though. I still feel that, on the balance, the claims that religious leaders are more moral than other people is not one that I'd put a lot of faith in (pun intended).
If you're "well read" on the subject, then it is curious that this is new material to you. When I got my degree in anthropology, we covered this at the freshman level.
You're going with an ad hominem? Really?
|
|
Do YOU check your toilet for snakes before sitting down? Or mines?
Absolutely yes I do!!!!! But I'll qualify that with the fact I'm deployed in Afghanistan. I also can't watch your video. :(
The tone is grrrr, the context is someone making yet another backhanded insinuation that atheists are cowards and aren't reaching out conclusions through rational means.
Actually that not what I got at all. If this was the tone and intent, than I would say the other guy was complimenting one group, and you are actually dishonoring the individuals they spoke of, which IS why I have an issue here. It doesn't imply anything about aethiests just as it doesn't say all christians or whatever are superheroes at heart.
But, on a related note, I will say that, from my personal experience, there is a distinct difference, in the field between religious and non-religious and devout atheists,both along the moral and morale side, and along the general attitude.
There are different personalities and mentalities that have a tendency to lead towards or away from atheism/religion. (correlation vs causation)
I actually do not know. I do wonder this alot myself. Keep in mind this is referring to arguement about weither religion has any observable good qualities, <that secular groups do not or something>, and is also noted multiple times to not be a blanket staement, just my personal observation.
For the most part, what religion (with the exception of humanist and atheist types if you group them that way) do tend towards a healthier moral, mental fortitude, and lessened fear.
Are you distinguishing between believers or just the "true believers" there?
I would guess just believers. ? Again, it really doesn't matter when taken with the response above.
I would say that's what anti-religious atheists, evolutionists, and anti-religious scientists have done from the start. By constantly pretending the burden is outside, they can play defensive and basically control the field in the way most advantagous to their point of view.
I still owe you one for your excellent military example (for which I'm indebted, because I had indeed forgotten it), so in partial thanks, a word of advice: no one but Young Earth Creationists will take posts seriously that say things like "evolutionists" with a straight face. Also, the last-minute need to paint science as somehow hostile to religion could be construed as a defensiveness that would tend to undermine confindence in your objectivity.
I would say that's what anti-religious atheists, evolutionists, and anti-religious scientists have done from the start. By constantly pretending the burden is outside, they can play defensive and basically control the field in the way most advantagous to their point of view.
The burden IS on the person making he positive claim, that's how science or any use of reason WORKS. You have an idea your prove it. Someone shows up at the nobel price comitee and says "I've discovered cold fusion, go ahead and prove i didn't. Nobel prize please!" is going to get laughed at if not dragged out by security and put in a mental ward. You want to claim you invented cold fusion then you have to cough up the reactor.
The scientists point of view is that the evidence should decide. I have yet to hear whats wrong with that besides its giving an answer people don't like.
See, that's the thing. To me, the lack of a creator(s) is both unobservable and far more supernatural and unlikely in the creation of everything. So with the rest of your statement, what does that mean?
In terms of the creation of life, life is designed in such an ad hoc, nonsensical way that it would be completely incomprehensible for a creator to design us the way we are. These confusing observations don't make any sense except in light of evolution. Dolphins have the genes for detecting airborn particles (they're turned off) The laryngeal nerve shooting down around the heart and back up to our vocal cords makes absolutely no sense for a land animal.. but makes a lot of sense for a fish who's organs have been moved around through evolution.
Apparently, my having a degree that covers the topic of this thread offends you.
Actually, my reaction can be more accurately be described as "disappointed, but unsurprised." :)
Can one win an argument or discussion, simply by way of no one left willing to argue or discuss anything with them any longer?
Absolutely yes I do!!!!! But I'll qualify that with the fact I'm deployed in Afghanistan. I also can't watch your video. :(
The video is the scene from lethal weapon where the guy is stuck on the toilet.
Well, given your location, do you often check the latrines for penguins?
Actually that not what I got at all. If this was the tone and intent, than I would say the other guy was complimenting one group, and you are actually dishonoring the individuals they spoke of
You know God is there by having the courage to ask God to show up in your life (which you only will when the Spirit prompts you to), and by applying the Bible to your life.
isn't honoring anyone.
I think it takes more courage to face death for what it is than to face it with the thought that its going to be a wonderful entry into paradise.
I would guess just believers. ? Again, it really doesn't matter when taken with the response above.
How many atheists do you actually see?
|
|
Yes, and the case in point is when those oaths prevent them from turning in people who are victimizing children. Even a psychiatrist or lawyer is expected to report actual felonies, regardless of confidentiality. Calling the order a "study document" doesn't change that, at least from my point of view; YMMV.
I'm just not sure you understand the true signifigance here. I say this because it equally pertains to doctors, medical professionals, lawyers, and mental health specialists (amongst others). But it really hits home for mental health and religious professionals. The problem here is that all of them are prevy to sensitive information. By law, they have always had the right to deny anyone access to that information. It is a way for people to unburden their souls (so to speak), especially when they can't tell their closest friend or whatever. The governments, more recently, have started developing many different laws. In American alone, each state has it's own specific laws as to the priest/penitenet or patient privacy rules do not apply, (typically to a crime, to rape, to child abuse, or similar or not at all related things).
The issue is, if this sort of confidentiality is not actually confidential, it hinders those individuals from actually doing their jobs. If you, (as a faithful follower) know that the priest has to tell everything you say, you are not going to go say it. So what's the point of having it in the first place. Add that to the fact that priests believe that it is both their duty and a divine law not to tell anything tey hear in confession, and that many others are not comfortable telling what was told them in confidence (betraying the person who told them), and it is much different than what is usually presented.
Your example of the coverups of sexual abuse in the armed forces was an excellent one, by the way, as it's similar in both scope and egregiousness.
Thank you.
"All governments" doesn't help, though.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I honestly thought it was just too obvious. Where I lived about 5 years ago, the state had a vote to see if people wanted to pass a tax law allowing them to build a new football stadium. The debate was over increasing taxes vs the later benefit of higher revinue from a new sports center.
They passed it, though it was later found out that the results had been almost unanimously against it. Not same scale, but things like this happen all the time. A governer fired all of his council because they found out that they had conviened without him, and decided to replace his wife as the treasured. Instead of letting anyone know, he put them all out and kept his wife in the remainder of his term, as it was all locked up in procedure until it was too late to matter. The city treasurer stole thousands of dollars by wrighting city checks, and to my knowledge to a series of false billing account she set set up, and to my knowledge, they still have not tracked either her or the money down, and are still also suffering from issues of finding out way to late just how many legit bills she didn't pay and hid the evidence. Guess who gets double screwed. . .
Darkwing: Using available evidence to come to a conclusion is the exact antithesis of faith. Thats what you do whether you look and see "car" or you look and don't see and conclude "no car"
|
|
Actually that not what I got at all. If this was the tone and intent, than I would say the other guy was complimenting one group, and you are actually dishonoring the individuals they spoke of
You know God is there by having the courage to ask God to show up in your life (which you only will when the Spirit prompts you to), and by applying the Bible to your life.
isn't honoring anyone.
I think it takes more courage to face death for what it is than to face it with the thought that its going to be a wonderful entry into paradise.
To me, it seems like they where giving a group praise for something, and you are knocking them by not including another group that wasn't even related to the statment. Sort of like if I said something good about a group of dead soldiers ("they died bravely for a good cause" and someone retorted "F. them, people die bravely all the time, why are they special"). Like I said, this is hitting a little to close, so I'm going to drop it. I am not sure if that is how you intended it, which is why I asked. I think the original poster was trying to say that those that did believe are more often willing to go out to do the things that get them killed, or embarrassed or whatever than those that don't, (and that doesn't always mean religion, it can be those that believe in the ideals of their nation, or their job, etc. . .)
How many atheists do you actually see?
I can't give numbers (legally), but my estimation would be about 3/5ths. I'm also including individuals I see unofficially. This is not me saying I'm write and you are wrong. This is just an observation I have made, from a fairly small population. I also, admittedly, am not documenting results nor am I aware of all of the factors.
you are knocking them by not including another group that wasn't even related to the statment
The statement has nothing to do with soldiers. Plenty of people risk their lives for what they believe in. I don't like someone telling me that my reasoning is flawed and i would agree with them if only i didn't lack courage when my jobs have included massaging wolves, handling bats, heading into the woods for a week at a time, having a crazy farmer point an ak 47 at my head, and working in a muslim country shortly after 9 11.
I can't give numbers (legally), but my estimation would be about 3/5ths.
... Ok, so either
1) Every atheist in Afghanistan is bonkers
2) Someone in the military thought it would be hilarious to assign all the atheists to you (some sort of creationist i conclude?)
3) Dawkins opened a recruiting station for the US army.
or 4...
Your definition of atheist is a little screwy. We're at best 5-10% of the population, and the military is hardly known as a hotbed of atheism. I think you're including the non devout in your total.
|
|
a word of advice: no one but Young Earth Creationists will take posts seriously that say things like "evolutionists" with a straight face. Also, the last-minute need to paint science as somehow hostile to religion could be construed as a defensiveness that would tend to undermine confindence in your objectivity.
I meant specifically evolutionist that are anti-religious. I''m not sure I understand what you mean? I wasn't attempting to paint science as hostile to religion so much as specify a group within the group. Last minute?
I can't give numbers (legally), but my estimation would be about 3/5ths.... Ok, so either
1) Every atheist in Afghanistan is bonkers
2) Someone in the military thought it would be hilarious to assign all the atheists to you (some sort of creationist i conclude?)
3) Dawkins opened a recruiting station for the US army.or 4...
Your definition of atheist is a little screwy. We're at best 5-10% of the population, and the military is hardly known as a hotbed of atheism. I think you're including the non devout in your total.
1 - 4 I am not really seeing (outside as a humorous joke:) ), but I will clarify that I mean more along the lines of a division between people I believe follow a religion vs those I do not believe follow a religion. I will say the perception of the military is very, very different than people often assume.
I meant specifically evolutionist that are anti-religious. I''m not sure I understand what you mean? I wasn't attempting to paint science as hostile to religion so much as specify a group within the group. Last minute?
Evolutionists have only been anti religious insofar as the religious have been antievolution. Evolution is not only an accepted fact, but the corner stone of all modern biology from genetic engineering to ecosystem management. The motivations for attacking evolution are 100% religious rather than factual.
Biologists have said repeatedly that the creation hypothesis does not match our observations. That's their job.
but I will clarify that I mean more along the lines of a division between people I believe follow a religion vs those I do not believe follow a religion
Yeah, called it. The real believer thing.
An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god. Applying the word to a marginal believer is just confusing.
|
You know God is there by having the courage to ask God to show up in your life (which you only will when the Spirit prompts you to), and by applying the Bible to your life.
(boldface added)
What does this mean? I'm not asking the argumentative "which Bible," but rather what does it mean to apply the Bible to my life?
|
|
I've read some of his books, and seen him on TV, wondering what the hype was about, and I'm disappointed that I've never heard him scream. Can you like a YouTube video or something?Me either. Though I can report that he (or his editor) is aware that "a lot" is two words...
Seriously though, with regard to Dawkins "screaming:" If you repeat it often enough, it must be true, right?
You know, Sagan never said 'billions and billions'...
|
|
Several thousand pages of philosophy condensed to less than 50 words:
There may or may not be a cup in front of you; and there is no reasonable scenario in which you cannot see it (if it is there): Either it's there or it's not.
Seeing it is proof it's there; not seeing it is reasonable proof that it's not.
You should also know by now that none of us ever sees anything with complete clarity.
I know more than a few people whom you could sit a cup in front of and they couldn't see it. Does that mean that the cup has ceased to exist?
You missed your calling writing cookie fortunes.
Some people look at the evidence and see God.
Which is fine. Evidence can be discussed, presented, debated, critiqued, and used to draw a conclusion. Wild accusations undermining the very principles of rational thought cannot.
You should also know by now that none of us ever sees anything with complete clarity.
Which requires complete and total epistemic nihilism in order to equate any conclusion you reach no matter how good your evidence is with faith.
Some people look at the evidence and see God.Which is fine. Evidence can be discussed, presented, debated, critiqued, and used to draw a conclusion. Wild accusations undermining the very principles of rational thought cannot.
You should also know by now that none of us ever sees anything with complete clarity.Which requires complete and total epistemic nihilism in order to equate any conclusion you reach no matter how good your evidence is with faith.
Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.
Didn't you get the memo? :P
I'm not the topic of discussion here as much as you appear to want me to be.
Well, you have a healthy ego, I'll give you that. :)
To say that Dawkins and I use the exact same thinking to prove my God and the tooth fairy don't exist is just silly. There's no prophecy of the tooth fairy, no anthropological evidence found that contradicts the tooth fairy's claims about history, and several more meaningful differences. You're pulling my chain to get a reaction.
BNW: It is not an ad hominem to suggest you don't like the Bible therefore don't ascribe any credit even if it deserves it. There's no label or insult there. You treat scripture with antagonism, therefore any dfense of it eanrs negative attention from you. A case in point is that you one again bring up this belief that the Bible glorifies genocide. But it doesn'. You take a few words, refuse to research their meaning or intent, refuse to examine the context of their placement in scripture, refuse to analyze the history of these tribes that are wiped, out, apply your own standard for morality without trying to understand the situation, and resuist any attempts by a student of the scriptures to explain them to you. You've decided without exploring and nothing can change your mind. To the point that you'll likely just repeat the genocide thing again in a few threads without having given it another ounce of thought. Again, that's your right, but it doesn't make you right.
And I didn't ascribe the term lazy, or make any other references to your character. I've called you no names, so I'd appreciate if someone else did, you did not ascribe them to me. There are no backhanded insults. If you point me to one, I'll apologize. But let's not be oversensitive - you are hostile towards the Bible, by choice. It is not an insult or a belittling of you, it's your position. Why interpret that as an insult?
And I disagree with you on the matter of courage. There aren't deathbed atheists afraid to face the eternity of insensate nihilism because they might have wasted their life hubristically living for Jesus and loving their neighbor. I don't forsake lechery and accountability because I'm afraid I might have a good time and realize this is the only shot to enjoy life I have. No one stands in a unitarian church clenching the pews with white knuckles because they're afraid of giving up their control to....themselves.
And Andrew: thousands of pages of philodophy does not in any way boil down to "if I can't see it it's not there." That would be the opposite of philosophy. That would be not pondering reality, metaphysics, ethics, the plight of Man, etc.
To say that Dawkins and I use the exact same thinking to prove my God and the tooth fairy don't exist is just silly.
There's enough similarities that if he can't disprove god you can't disprove the tooth fairy. Asking the atheist to disprove god while maintaining your disbelief of the tooth-fairy is therefore disingenuous.
no anthropological evidence found that contradicts the tooth fairy's claims about history
Genesis has the order of creation wrong. Current archeology suggests a much smaller, shorter lasting, or non existent exodus from Egypt than that depicted in the bible. There was no worldwide flood.
BNW: It is not an ad hominem to suggest you don't like the Bible therefore don't ascribe any credit even if it deserves it. There's no label or insult there.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Your ENTIRE argument against my statements about the bible have been that I'm the one making them.
And I didn't ascribe the term lazy
You take a few words
refuse to analyze the history of these tribes that are wiped outwithout trying to understand the situation
Yes dammit, you're calling me lazy. You're calling atheists cowardly immoral philanderers and the attitude is so ingrained that it comes to you as naturally as breathing.
You're doing that because you have no other option because of the patent absurdity of an omniscient being having no recourse to deal with a two year old except to have his very human follower dash the toddlers head onto a rock.
I am not taking a few words. I've shown you large chunks of texts and given you ample opportunity to show me something that would change the meaning of it: a task you didn't perform because you can't: its impossible. The text is clear as crystal , black and white, night and day. Kill the men, kill the boys, kill the women and take virgins for yourself.
What "context" is being missed there? What magical construction of circumstances that I'm allegedly missing that makes it ok for God to have his followers smash children's brains in rather than say, transporting them to a planet in the Andromeda galaxy for safe keeping? You alternate between saying that its not genocide or that genocide was necessary. Pick one.
What miracle of genetics is it that allows these tribes to be so wicked and horrible that an infant raised among the Hebrews would return to their evil ways.... and is apparently confined to the Y chromosome?
I'm left with two possible conclusions.
Either the lord and author of existence and morality itself thinks its ok to commit genocide
OR
Like a hundred other religions on the planet a society justified their atrocious behavior by appealing to their gods.
It does NOT require blinders of rage to rationally and reasonably conclude the latter. Its the only sane, rational choice.
It is not an insult or a belittling of you, it's your position. Why interpret that as an insult?
I have been pointing them out. Every time you say you're not doing it you add another to the list.
Its your insistence that the hostility is A PRIORI that is the insult. It implies that my argument is invalid. You accuse me of sloppy research and only reading a few words here and there when it should be abundantly clear by now that I've read the entire thing.
And I disagree with you on the matter of courage. There aren't deathbed atheists afraid to face the eternity of insensate nihilism because they might have wasted their life hubristically living for Jesus and loving their neighbor.I don't forsake lechery and accountability because I'm afraid I might have a good time and realize this is the only shot to enjoy life I have. No one stands in a unitarian church clenching the pews with white knuckles because they're afraid of giving up their control to....themselves.
Right. Because atheists simply live to be leches. We live for hedonism and pleasure and don't give a damn about other people. Its all sex drugs and rock and roll for us, paaaarty! WooOOo hooo!?
How the hell have I been an atheist since i was 8 and not managed to run into one of these wild devil may care orgies? Am i black listed? Off the list? Someone loose my current address or what?
Dawkins! You got some splaining to do....
|
|
I know more than a few people whom you could sit a cup in front of and they couldn't see it. Does that mean that the cup has ceased to exist?Several thousand pages of philosophy condensed to less than 50 words:
There may or may not be a cup in front of you; and there is no reasonable scenario in which you cannot see it (if it is there): Either it's there or it's not.
Seeing it is proof it's there; not seeing it is reasonable proof that it's not.
Obviously, you didn't read my statement: "...there is no reasonable scenario in which you cannot see it (if it is there)..."
|
|
...And Andrew: thousands of pages of philodophy [sic] does not in any way boil down to "if I can't see it it's not there." That would be the opposite of philosophy. That would be not pondering reality, metaphysics, ethics, the plight of Man, etc.
Firstly, it was a joke. Nonetheless, I'd dare say that the school of physicalism and very much of philosophy of mind would agree with 'my' joke; not to mention Russell himself, who first made the joke...
I meant specifically evolutionist that are anti-religious. I'm not sure I understand what you mean? I wasn't attempting to paint science as hostile to religion so much as specify a group within the group. Last minute?
Beckett -- I was going to absent myself until the fireworks cleared, but it occurred to me I owed you a response.
First off, a quote for context:
Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.
So, first off, the term "evolutionist" is used only by creationists; it's an underhanded attempt to paint everyone except them as a small group of religious-like fanatics. The actual case is that evolution is fairly well settled, some specific details aside, for almost everyone in the world -- including the Catholic church (as of John Paul II) and most mainstream Protestants (especially outside of the U.S.), by the way. Talking about "those evolutionists" is like me talking about "those round-earthers," as if they were a small cult.
"Last minute anti-science" -- your original post would have retained its full import without the addition of scientists into your list of people you perceive as somehow being "against" you. Tacking them onto the end is like taking an off-handed swipe at them and not expecting a protest -- "oh, and those stupid scientists who we all know are always wrong anyway." Saying afterwards, "well, I didn't mean all of them" doesn't help much, especially because your entire quote seemed to presuppose that evolution is somehow anti-religious, which is not the case -- here are some more quotes from "evolutionist" scientists:
In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.
Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained.
To say that Dawkins and I use the exact same thinking to prove my God and the tooth fairy don't exist is just silly. There's no prophecy of the tooth fairy, no anthropological evidence found that contradicts the tooth fairy's claims about history, and several more meaningful differences. You're pulling my chain to get a reaction.
No, I'm really not. Substitute "Allah" or "Khrishna" if that seems less silly to you. Really whatever it takes to move you past your conditioned response so you can actually consider the point -- the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the existence of the unobservable.
First, substituting any religion with any body of philosophical writings for the tooth fairy makes your point ludicrous, man. There is no tao of the tooth fairy, there's not a book the tooth fairy claims to have written about her place in history and her attempt to place a quarter under the pillows of every human, the Jew first and also the Greek. There's no prophecy of the coming of the tooth fairy that she has fulfilled to the letter, or description of her betrayal by her own people, yada. The Gospel of the tooth fairy has not survived persecution, execution, its own corruption and reformation, etc.
Saying it doesn't make it true, BM. There's a wealth of study that anyone dismissive of Christianity ought to engage in. Stopping when your hostility or sense of self-determination is satisfied isn't study. Calling out genocide or whatever else without giving it a second look doesn't amount to an informed decision. You chose to connect the tooth fairy as equally ridiculous as a faith that millions have shared, which has survived hostility for thousands of years, which is based on a book that has been proven right by anthropologists who once doubted it, which expresses foretelling of future events with undeniable accuracy. Your comment about the tooth fairy and Dawkins is unfounded and insulting.
... based on a book that has been proven right by anthropologists who once doubted it, which expresses foretelling of future events with undeniable accuracy. Your comment about the tooth fairy and Dawkins is unfounded and insulting.
Unfortunately, by this logic, belief in Stephen King novels would be a "true" religion, because his books reference real places (Bangor, Maine) and real people -- and he also makes accurate foretellings of what's going to come later on -- or even in his other books. But because he marks his books as "fiction," they don't count.
What it boils down to is that some people choose to believe that the Bible is all true, whereas others do not. Some choose to believe the Vedas and Upanishads for similar reasons, and reject the Bible. Some go for the Quran and the Haddiths, and maybe keep the Old Testament, but assume a lot of the New Testament is allegory. Some reject all of these things. And everything in between. The Tooth Fairy analogy is insulting because tradition gives unbreakable respect to any beliefs that have a book and "X" number of followers, and tells us to dismiss the rest. Not following those standards of respect marks a person as a "bad person" because they're not following established social norms, but not because they're illogical.
Also, science in and of itself has no agenda. It is a collection of theories validated by observable data.
It's not some monster lurking in a cave to prove God doesn't exist.
First, substituting any religion with any body of philosophical writings for the tooth fairy makes your point ludicrous, man
As difficult as this may be to believe, I find religion's claims of the supernatural every bit as ludicrous.
There's a wealth of study that anyone dismissive of Christianity ought to engage in.
The same claim could be made of every other religion throughout history, to the point where there literally aren't enough hours in the day. Christianity only deserves special treatment if one presupposes it to be true.
But it has become quite clear that nothing I could ever say will get you to question your position. In fact, I suspect you believe me to be an (albeit unwitting) tool of evil, to which I can say only this:
Come to the dark side, we have cookies... :)
Calling out genocide or whatever else without giving it a second look doesn't amount to an informed decision.
Do you think this is the first, second, or event 20th time anyone here has had this conversation?
Backhanded insults are the only thing you're offering. Yes, they are insults, don't try to pretend otherwise. We have given this a second look, and a third, a fourth. Your insistence that we would see things as you do if only knew what the heck we were talking about requires that we haven't researched this. Its insulting and degrading because i HAVE researched this, and you're still telling me my results are so poor that it looks as though I haven't without even pointing out an error.
You're spending all your time shouting that there is an explanation we're too ignorant to see without spending any time giving it.
The only acceptable context for a christian to read the bible is with the idea that it is true and that Yawey is loving and just: therefore anything that happened was good and just. Without that bit of circular reasoning reaching the conclusion that Yawey is unjust is as inevitable as the conclusion that Zeus was unfaithful.
My dislike for the actions in the old testament is allegedly blinding me to the truth, but your unwavering faith in no way compromises your objectivity? Malarkey.
If you want to argue that the evidence for god is so good that it means yes, genocide was the right thing, do so but realize that the level of required evidence is going to be astronomically high.
The only acceptable context for a christian to read the bible is with the idea that it is true and that Yawey is loving and just: therefore anything that happened was good and just. Without that bit of circular reasoning reaching the conclusion that Yawey is unjust is as inevitable as the conclusion that Zeus was unfaithful.
Not quite, good man, not quite.
If you read the Bible within context, understand what it is trying to convey and determine said message sits well with what you believe in (or if it helps you understand what you really believe in and it goes in the line of what the Bible is trying to say), then you might see it as true (and maybe become Christian of some denomination).
You don't need to start assuming it is true; you need to determine whether it makes sense to you or not. To some of us it does, to others it doesn't.
As shoking as it may be, we religious people are not a bunch of blind fanatics who fail to employ critical thought and reasoning to their beliefs. I hope you can give us at least that bit of credit.
If you read the Bible within context, understand what it is trying to convey and determine said message sits well with what you believe in (or if it helps you understand what you really believe in and it goes in the line of what the Bible is trying to say), then you might see it as true (and maybe become Christian of some denomination).
I can't help but notice that VAST majority of the people who read it and finid it makes sense thought it was true before ever picking it up by virtue of growing up in a culture where it was taught.
I don't think that there is a way for the old testament slaughters to sit with a sane rational manner. Something has to give. For the vast majority of Christians I've spoken to, they are simply unaware of the passages in question. After that you have the very common "well, that's just PEOPLE writing what THEY thought of god". Which makes sense, but takes a step down a rather slippery slope of deciding what you think is right or wrong without relying on the bible. For those that are left, you get the irrational circular logic described above.
|
|
Evolutionists have only been anti religious insofar as the religious have been antievolution. Evolution is not only an accepted fact, but the corner stone of all modern biology from genetic engineering to ecosystem management. The motivations for attacking evolution are 100% religious rather than factual.
Biologists have said repeatedly that the creation hypothesis does not match our observations. That's their job.
No, not at all. Both sides have individuals so zealous and blind that they are actively antagonistic of the other. Evolutionists absolutely believe they are right just as much as the worst examples of the relgious ones, and are just as numerous and pig headed.
My personal motivations for "attacking" (by that I mean I think it needs an update and to get rid of some of the portions that we know don't actually work), are purely from a scientific PoV. You fear that if Evolution where attacked, all science would fall, which is the exact opposite of science. I believe that biology and science can do without Evolution, more or less, and I also believe it is possible that if, hypothetically, one day evolution as we know it is disproven, we can find a more realistic and possible model to base our understanding off of.
QUOTE="BigNorseWolf"] but I will clarify that I mean more along the lines of a division between people I believe follow a religion vs those I do not believe follow a religion
Yeah, called it. The real believer thing.
An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god. Applying the word to a marginal believer is just confusing.
You called what? I admitted that the misunderstanding was between my saying faithful vs unfaithful rather than faithful vs atheist, (because no one can actually agree on a safe definition). No "real" believer thing, so please stop jumping to conclusions to try to prove how right you are.
You know God is there by having the courage to ask God to show up in your life (which you only will when the Spirit prompts you to), and by applying the Bible to your life.(boldface added)
What does this mean? I'm not asking the argumentative "which Bible," but rather what does it mean to apply the Bible to my life?
I didn't write it, so my guess would be along the lines of it taking courage to live by the ethics and rules of the Bible (as oppossed to doing whatever you felt like).
I meant specifically evolutionist that are anti-religious. I'm not sure I understand what you mean? I wasn't attempting to paint science as hostile to religion so much as specify a group within the group. Last minute?Beckett -- I was going to absent myself until the fireworks cleared, but it occurred to me I owed you a response.
So, first off, the term "evolutionist" is used only by creationists; it's an underhanded attempt to paint everyone except them as a small group of religious-like fanatics. The actual case is that evolution is fairly well settled, some specific details aside, for almost everyone in the world -- including the Catholic church (as of John Paul II) and most mainstream Protestants (especially outside of the U.S.), by the way. Talking about "those evolutionists" is like me talking about "those round-earthers," as if they were a small cult."Last minute anti-science" -- your original post would have retained its full import without the addition of scientists into your list of people you perceive as somehow being "against" you. Tacking them onto the end is like taking an off-handed swipe at them and not expecting a protest -- "oh, and those stupid scientists who we all know are always wrong anyway." Saying afterwards, "well, I didn't mean all of them" doesn't help much, especially because your entire quote seemed to...
You may be right, and that was not my intent. But at the same time, are you looking at the responce on it's own, or in the contect it was a response to? I was trying to specify that I was talking about individuals that do believe in Evolution and Science, (but more specifically those that are zealous that they are right and have some sort of personal grudge against religion). That's why I said anti-religious evolutionists, scientists, etc. . . I know that there is a lot of middle ground for both and I'm honestly not sure how your coming to the conclusion you did. It was not meant as a swipe, but rather me trying to be more specific in what I mean, (which basically boils down to there are zealots and bad seeds on both sides). Maybe it will help if I explain that I think there are many types of atheists, evolutionists, and views to the credibility of science, and rather than saying all scientists, all evolutionists, and all atheists, I am talking specifically about the ones that have an agenda to ignor anything from a religious source on principle, (I've know more than a few).
No, not at all. Both sides have individuals so zealous and blind that they are actively antagonistic of the other. Evolutionists absolutely believe they are right just as much as the worst examples of the relgious ones, and are just as numerous and pig headed.
Its a funny thing about having entire mountains of evidence (literally-thank you Geologists ) that point to you being right and the other side having absolutely nothing: you tend to think you're right. There's nothing wrong with thinking you're right when you are and you have the evidence to back you up.
Science is not religion or politics. It is not egalitarian: its a merit based system. If your idea, like creationism, posits events that are contrary to our observations then it gets chucked out. Its put up or quiet down, and creationism has kept yapping long, long LONG after failing to produce anything.
My personal motivations for "attacking" (by that I mean I think it needs an update and to get rid of some of the portions that we know don't actually work), are purely from a scientific PoV.
Then why is it that all of the attacks are coming from the religious community? There is no specific scientific problem with evolution. Increasingly creationists have had to argue for outright epistemic nihlism to toss science itself in the bin in order to take evolution with it.
What portions do you think don't work?
You fear that if Evolution where attacked, all science would fall, which is the exact opposite of science.
Its more like I'm annoyed by the vapid and insipid arguments being offered against evolution. Arguing against evolution on the evidence has been a complete and total failure on the creationists part, so they repeatedly have to turn to philosophical tricks that attack science as a whole.
Its gotten to the point where the trick isn't "Evolution is false" the trick is conning everyone into thinking its still an argument.
I believe that biology and science can do without Evolution, more or less, and I also believe it is possible that if, hypothetically, one day evolution as we know it is disproven, we can find a more realistic and possible model to base our understanding off of.
Its not going to happen because its true. There is simply too much evidence for evolution for us to be wrong at this point. Its explanatory and predictive power has only been increased by our increasing knowledge of biology.
Microbiologists deal with culture all the time.I don't think a biologist becomes an expert on culture just because he screams alot.
Am I the only one that thought this was funny? If so, why hasn't anyone else said so? Oh well, good one. :)
Do YOU check your toilet for snakes before sitting down?
I know someone that found a crawdad in one, so it may not be too bad an idea to check. :P
In terms of the creation of life, life is designed in such an ad hoc, nonsensical way that it would be completely incomprehensible for a creator to design us the way we are. These confusing observations don't make any sense except in light of evolution. Dolphins have the genes for detecting airborn particles (they're turned off) The laryngeal nerve shooting down around the heart and back up to our vocal cords makes absolutely no sense for a land animal.. but makes a lot of sense for a fish who's organs have been moved around through evolution.
Many of the supposed examples of disteleology (flawed design is evidence against unflawed designer) I've seen simply oversell the "bad" aspects of the design or don't consider the need for compromise for the best overall result. Furthermore, the Bible specifically says in Romans 8:19-21 that the world is in bondage to decay, which means that Christians shouldn't expect the world to be perfect at a design level or at a moral level either for that matter.
Several thousand pages of philosophy condensed to less than 50 words:
There may or may not be a cup in front of you; and there is no reasonable scenario in which you cannot see it (if it is there): Either it's there or it's not.
Seeing it is proof it's there; not seeing it is reasonable proof that it's not.
If the cup was the only way to explain anything existing at all and stuff exists, that would be extremely potent evidence for the cup existing even if you can't see it. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Genesis has the order of creation wrong. Current archeology suggests a much smaller, shorter lasting, or non existent exodus from Egypt than that depicted in the bible. There was no worldwide flood.
I know I'm going to get some flack for this, but what makes you think that the exodus didn't happen as recorded? If it's because you're comparing it with Egyptian history I must point out that the dates of the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt as given by historians and archaeologists are by no means absolutely correct. This should be enough to get you started. It's amazing how much a lot of the Old Testament lines up with secular history throughout the ancient middle east if you realize that secular history isn't necessarily perfectly dated. In other words: same events, different time stamps on the events. It's just a matter of determining who is dating the events incorrectly.
It goes without saying that I disagree with your other two points, but I already gave a link with all of the information you could need for it and I don't have a lot of time to get into that again.
Also, science in and of itself has no agenda. It is a collection of theories validated by observable data.
It's not some monster lurking in a cave to prove God doesn't exist.
Science? Yes. Scientists? No. EVERYONE (myself included) has an agenda. I'm not saying that every scientist (or person for that matter) does that or even that many of them do, but it's certainly a possibility that some are.
Many of the supposed examples of disteleology (flawed design is evidence against unflawed designer) I've seen simply oversell the "bad" aspects of the design or don't consider the need for compromise for the best overall result.
The problem isn't just that the design is bad or nonsensical... the problem is that it makes perfect sense if evolution is true. God apparently didn't just do a bad job slapping us together, he purposefully and consistently did so in a manner that that would make sense if he was starting with simpler organisms and working his way out.
What possible comprimise or reason is there for the vagus nerve to go all the way down and around the heart? It made sense when the heart was right up next to the gills, but now that we have trachea it seems rather pointless.
I know I'm going to get some flack for this, but what makes you think that the exodus didn't happen as recorded?
I have my mind on a pizza , i'll give that a closer look when i get back.
The problem isn't a lack of it showing up in egyptian history it just doesn't show up in the archeology. That many people running around the dessert for 40 years would have left fires that we can track even to this day. I don't think this one is completely false, just heavily mythologized history.
While I have no sources to provide at the moment, I do remember reading from a reputable source that archaeologists did find a settlement in Egypt that correlated pretty well with the narrative of the Exodus, and that political problems between Egypt and Israel forced the archaeologists to work only a few weeks per year before having to, literally, bury the site up again only to dig it up again the next year.
Apparently, the site was right in the middle of the disputed territory between both countries, and the egyptian government wanted to avoid giving some rope to the israelites by revealing a site of former hebrew population in the area.
Divine matters aside for a moment, the Exodus makes a lot of sense in the overall history of the ancient hebrew tribes and the way their culture and religion ended up developing.
In any case, I can't speak for other denominations, but at least within Catholicism literal interpretations of the Bible are not permitted, so we are expected to read, study, and attempt to understand the Holy Scripture within its own context, keeping in mind that it is not just a book about faith, but also about law, about historic mysticism, about a national epic, about keeping a troubled nomadic tribe united. The general rule, though, is "Start from the core teachings of Christ, try to determine what they really mean, and then use those as a guide to understand what the rest of the book is trying to say". So when you find stuff like the stonning of women in the Old Testament, and then compare it to stuff like "He who is without sin cast the first stone" from the New Testament, or more to the bone, "Love your neighbour like you would love yourself"*, you can start identifying what is supposed to be actual matter of faith, and what is matter of law (for instance, the Deuteronomy is filled with all manners of lessons that seem to contradict the essence of Christianity/Judaism, but if you take into consideration said book was expressely written as a text of law, the context seems to make more sense). The religion is, after all, called Christianity, not Oldtestamentism or Yawheism. So we need to interpret the Bible starting from the Good Words.
Certainly exegecy is far from an exact science, but learning a bit of it can really help put the Bible into perspective (if memory helps, the Catholic Church alone accepts about 8 possible interpretations of the Bible. Some of the internal theological inquiries within the Church have been going on continously for more than 5 centuries, and that is just accounting for those who have full, unbroking reccording of the process! Sometimes I wonder if my enjoyment of the Catholic Church is purely based on faith, or also because I find its sheer complexity, ceremony, and ancientness so enchanting).
*Note on the word of love for fellow Christians reading the Bible, which I learned in one of my recent courses on Comparative Religion: The correct term from the original greek translation is "Agape", which is not exactly "Love" in the modern sense of the word -that would be either "Eros", which is "Sexual Love", or "Philos", which is friendship/brotherly love), but more like "Selfless Love" or "Respectful Appreciation". The idea is that Christ isn't calling us to hug and kiss those who do us harm, but to treat them like human beings, as for no matter what one does, one is always the child of God. This specific concept is where the First Council of Ephesus got the basis for the idea of the Substance of Man, and what eventually gave way to the principle of the Rule of Law. The more you know <Casts Prismatic Spray>.
|
|
There may or may not be a cup in front of you; and there is no reasonable scenario in which you cannot see it (if it is there): Either it's there or it's not.
Seeing it is proof it's there; not seeing it is reasonable proof that it's not.
If the cup was the only way to explain anything existing at all and stuff exists, that would be extremely potent evidence for the cup existing even if you can't see it. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Please clarify; I don't understand.
The cup is a physicalist example standing in for any thing of matter (or energy), this is to say, anything which may be measured.
Physicalism (and much of philosophy of mind / philosophy of science in general) is chiefly concerned with the thought that everything (and I mean everything) conforms to a certain, measurable condition of being physical.
Some things may not seem to be physical (or measurable), like morals or the feeling of absolute and unconditional love I have for my wife and kids, nonetheless, they're either quantifiable or supervened, else they simply don't exist.