SFW religious posters

[magillaG]

The fact is that religious authorities tried to discredit (to put it kindly) their work. What you did was attempt to rationalize that.

Yes, but you took a single example, with a specific cultural, historical, social, political context, and extrapolated from that a hugely general conclusion about all of religion. What's more, I showed you the wikipedia quote saying that this is not really understood by modern historians as the historical relationship between the Catholic Church and science. Apparently (I hadn't heard this, and don't know if it is true) the basis for the conflict thesis of is the difficulty in setting up Cornell University as a secular school.

ADDED-
I also don't know how I "rationalized" it- I specifically said that the Church made a terrible mistake, that was in part due to corruption.

[TheGillotine]

I'm not saying that God is just an idea. I'm also saying that the Christian tradition I am familiar with is that God cannot be described as a person. Of course, there is also the tradition of the trinity, which says that in a sense Jesus was God, but that is not the same as saying that God is a person. If that were the case, then I don't think we would need the trinity- we would simply have Jesus as God.

God isn't a person? Really? The use of "He", "Him", "Lord", etc. littered throughout the Bible seems to suggest otherwise.

[magillaG]

God isn't a person? Really? The use of "He", "Him", "Lord", etc. littered throughout the Bible seems to suggest otherwise.

As an analogy- just because people refer to ships as "she" doesn't mean they think ships have ovaries.

[oirg]

I'm not sure the preconceived conclusion is what you think it is.

I'm not sure where this idea that Christianity simply says "God did it!" comes from. Do you think that? (That is the impression I have gotten, but you haven't said that.) If so, why? This is a genuine question, because it is a very alien concept to me, before I heard it hear. I know that, say, Pat Robertson says that homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina, or what not- but that's all I can think of.

The preconceived conclusion is that God is the source of everything. Some take it as far as Pat Robertson or Westboro Baptists or Wahhabis do.

[magillaG]

The preconceived conclusion is that God is the source of everything. Some take it as far as Pat Robertson or Westboro Baptists or Wahhabis do.

So that is your source- Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptists? Yes, if by "religion" you mean "what Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptists do", then I find it more plausible that that "religion" is correlated with reduced rational inquiry. I'm not sure whether the ridiculous things they say cause people to stop thinking, or that people who have stopped thinking listen to them- but I guess the result is the same.

[TheGillotine]

As an analogy- just because people refer to ships as "she" doesn't mean they think ships have ovaries.

Really? That is one intense metaphor.
So -

All mention of anyone speaking to God is metaphor
All mention of God speaking to anyone is metaphor
All mention of God acting in any way is metaphor
All mention of God's emotions or personal interactions with people is metaphor
All mention of God's personality is metaphor
All mention of God's intentions is metaphor

Is that right? Because that seems to conflict quite strongly with what I've understood as Christianity. I'd like to see if Mel or Uncle Ted or other theists would agree with you that God is an impersonal object.

[TheGillotine]

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved

From the Wikipedia on "Christianity"

Trinity refers to the teaching that the one God comprises three distinct, eternally co-existing persons; the Father, the Son (incarnate in Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Together, these three persons are sometimes called the Godhead,[55][56][57] although there is no single term in use in Scripture to denote the unified Godhead.[58] In the words of the Athanasian Creed, an early statement of Christian belief, "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God".[59] They are distinct from another: the Father has no source, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Though distinct, the three persons cannot be divided from one another in being or in operation.[60]

The Trinity is an essential doctrine of mainstream Christianity. "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" represents both the immanence and transcendence of God. God is believed to be infinite and God's presence may be perceived through the actions of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.[61]
According to this doctrine, God is not divided in the sense that each person has a third of the whole; rather, each person is considered to be fully God (see Perichoresis). The distinction lies in their relations, the Father being unbegotten; the Son being begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and (in Western theology) from the Son. Regardless of this apparent difference, the three 'persons' are each eternal and omnipotent.

The word trias, from which trinity is derived, is first seen in the works of Theophilus of Antioch. He wrote of "the Trinity of God (the Father), His Word (the Son) and His Wisdom (Holy Spirit)".[62] The term may have been in use before this time. Afterwards it appears in Tertullian.[63][64] In the following century the word was in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen.[65]

[abt5]

So that is your source- Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptists? Yes, if by "religion" you mean "what Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptists do", then I find it more plausible that that "religion" is correlated with reduced rational inquiry. I'm not sure whether the ridiculous things they say cause people to stop thinking, or that people who have stopped thinking listen to them- but I guess the result is the same.

Not sure why you say what they say is ridiculous. If anything it seems to be more in line with the bible

[gosuruss]

A statistic that you have mentioned many times, and which has been refuted many times. I still don't believe it.

seriously bro?

do a google search. there have been many polls done. here, i'll do it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

why wouldn't they believe this? if you believe jesus is the son of god, and he didn't say anything about genesis being wrong, why not believe it??

[magillaG]

Really? That is one intense metaphor.
So -

All mention of anyone speaking to God is metaphor
All mention of God speaking to anyone is metaphor
All mention of God acting in any way is metaphor
All mention of God's emotions or personal interactions with people is metaphor
All mention of God's personality is metaphor
All mention of God's intentions is metaphor

Is that right? Because that seems to conflict quite strongly with what I've understood as Christianity. I'd like to see if Mel or Uncle Ted or other theists would agree with you that God is an impersonal object.

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved

From the Wikipedia on "Christianity"

There is also the tradition that God is eternal and unchanging. Such a concept is extremely distinct from what is usually meant by a "person". In this case, then, "person" certainly doesn't refer to some kind of miracle-working superman, perhaps with a long white beard, or to any other use of the word "person" that I am familiar with.

[TheGillotine]

There is also the tradition that God is eternal and unchanging. Such a concept is extremely distinct from what is usually meant by a "person". In this case, then, "person" certainly doesn't refer to some kind of miracle-working superman, perhaps with a long white beard, or to any other use of the word "person" that I am familiar with.

Person does not refer to a human, it refers to a being with personality. What it typically boils down to is a magical spirit. People tend to get upset at this characterization but that's what they describe when they describe a specific God. The most recent person I talked to about this got upset because "Satan uses magic, God uses something different."

And of course we're just going to ignore the whole Jesus miracle worker thing right?

[magillaG]

Person does not refer to a human, it refers to a being with personality. What it typically boils down to is a magical spirit. People tend to get upset at this characterization but that's what they describe when they describe a specific God. The most recent person I talked to about this got upset because "Satan uses magic, God uses something different."

I don't think it is appropriate to characterize magical spirits, as we usually think of them, as perfect, eternal and unchanging.

[Mel-o-rama]

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved

From the Wikipedia on "Christianity"

Man, that is one confusing creed! ;)

[oirg]

So that is your source- Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptists? Yes, if by "religion" you mean "what Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptists do", then I find it more plausible that that "religion" is correlated with reduced rational inquiry. I'm not sure whether the ridiculous things they say cause people to stop thinking, or that people who have stopped thinking listen to them- but I guess the result is the same.

Do you disagree that religoius philosophy has the preconceived conclusion that God is the source of everything?

[TheGillotine]

I don't think it is appropriate to characterize magical spirits, as we usually think of them, as perfect, eternal and unchanging.

God isn't described in the Bible as perfect or unchanging (well he is, but he changes his mind, and has certain attributes I wouldn't classify as perfect, as in his jealousy and anger).

And I see no reason why a magical spirit could not be perfect, eternal, and/or unchanging.

[TheGillotine]

Man, that is one confusing creed! ;)

I agree it doesn't have the aesthetics of the Nicene or Apostles'.

[gosuruss]

religion has always acted immaturely when any scientific finding contradicted established dogma. it's still happening today. most biology teachers won't even teach evolution because they have to deal with crazy religious parents. how far have we been set back by not being allowed to conduct stem cell research in the US?

not to mention most scientists are atheists, and you know, you can't trust those atheists. they have no moral foundations.

i can't believe this is even a point of contention. not only has religion stifled science immensely, it will sit here and deny it til the very end.

[Mel-o-rama]

religion has always acted immaturely when any scientific finding contradicted established dogma. it's still happening today. most biology teachers won't even teach evolution because they have to deal with crazy religious parents. how far have we been set back by not being allowed to conduct stem cell research in the US?

not to mention most scientists are atheists, and you know, you can't trust those atheists. they have no moral foundations.

i can't believe this is even a point of contention. not only has religion stifled science immensely, it will sit here and deny it til the very end.

And yet there are some scientists who claim that their religion taught them to "be all that you can be" and inspired them to go out there and do science.

You talk of Religion as if it's one big evil anti-thought thing that needs to be purged. You bring up several generalities that may be true of some religions and make the jump to say it applies to all.

If Religion were so bad and so evil and so anti-thought, then it never could have come to be in existence in the first place.

[gosuruss]

But I know magilla would prefer a larger post, because i have not supported my claim.

First: Andreas Vesalius 1514-1564
"Andreas Vesalius is considered the father of modern human anatomy and is one of the major contributors to modern science. He published the first complete textbook on human anatomy in 1546, On the Workings of the Human Body. Vesalius was from Belgium, but traveled throughout Western Europe. Vesalius took pains not to make needlessly controversial statements due to his fear of the Inquisition. His religious criticism was a criticism by action, because he knowingly violated Church law by dissecting human corpses. Though he tried as much as he could to avoid controversy while practicing his study of the human body, charges of atheism and heresy were brought against on more than one occasion. He did finally face the Inquisition and was sentenced to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to prove his faith. He died during a shipwreck on his return journey.

Vesalius’ publications on anatomy contradicted the accepted teachings of his day. This is largely because human anatomy in Christian civilization up to that time was not based on the study of the human body, it was based on a combination of animal anatomy and theology. For example, it was believed that there was a special bone within the human body that housed the soul, and this bone was needed for bodily resurrection after the last judgment. This is one reason that convicted heretics were burned and why Christians opposed cremation. It was believed that this bone and the “body” were needed for the body to ascend to heaven after the Final Judgment. Vesalius also documented that men and women have the same number of ribs, which contradicted the Church teaching that men had one less rib because one of Adam’s ribs had been used by God to create Eve."


You really just have to feel bad for these people.


Next: Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)

"Giordano Bruno, from Italy, was one of the most radical cosmologists of the Renaissance. Bruno was not a mathematician, like most other astronomers, but he took Copernican astronomical theory farther than any others of his time.

Copernicus’ heliocentric theory stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which contradicted the Christian view that the Earth was the center of the universe, around which everything else revolved.

Bruno went further and stated that space and time are both infinite, contradicting Christian beliefs in Creation and Final Judgment. He also stated that the Sun is a star, and that all of the other stars in the universe are the centers of their own solar systems, each having their own planets. This deeply upset religious authorities by contradicting the Christian belief that the Earth and humans are central to the universe and uniquely special.

He was arrested for heresy in 1592 and imprisoned for six years prior to his Inquisition hearing. During his trial Bruno refused to accept Church doctrine regarding the nature of Jesus and he refused to recant his views of the universe. Thus he was sentenced to death.

In 1600 Giordano Bruno was taken to a public square in Rome, with his tongue in a vice, and he was burned to death."

Galileo:

it's sad we even have to argue about this

"“The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture… [and]… the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.”

- Judgment of the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei, 1616

“[Galileo Galilei is commanded] in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing.”

- Cardinal Bellarmin decree to Galileo Galilei, 1616"



Honestly, all you need to know is that atheists were burnt alive through atleast the 1600s. Religion doesn't want you disagreeing with them, and atheists do that the most. and the further you move toward a contradictory view, the more criticism and violence you will receive at the hands of religion

[Entropy]

If Religion were so bad and so evil and so anti-thought, then it never could have come to be in existence in the first place.

Your logic needs some help.

[QMO]

As far as I know...I hope you realize that you're leaving yourself wide open, here.

[gosuruss]

And yet there are some scientists who claim that their religion taught them to "be all that you can be" and inspired them to go out there and do science.

You talk of Religion as if it's one big evil anti-thought thing that needs to be purged. You bring up several generalities that may be true of some religions and make the jump to say it applies to all.

If Religion were so bad and so evil and so anti-thought, then it never could have come to be in existence in the first place.

:yikes:

Religion may retard your understanding of the world, but it doesn't explicitly inhibit your ability to be productive. But if you look back over the past 400 years, despite coming from religious backgrounds a great many of the scientists and philosophers have disproportionately become atheists or deists. I tend to believe that a deist in the 1700s is no difference than an atheist now. Without an understanding of evolution, deism is a very reasonable position. The rejection of dogmas is what is most important here.

It is an evil anti-thought thing. Catholics burned atheists alive through the 1600s? It's very clear. Muslims in some countries are still stoning atheists. Is there any question Islam has functioned against educating its citizens? Those are the two biggest religions on the planet. It doesn't matter your actions, all that matters is what you believe. It is about power. It is about control. Here's your bible, and if you want to agree with it, praise the lord. But if you dare to contradict it, shut up, and recant your statements or we will burn you alive. These days, in many times, it's basically, "we don't respect your freedom of thought, so our entire community will not acknowledge you nor will our children be allowed to play with yours."

Such is normal when a society has been convinced that accepting a text as a key to infinite eternity. People respond to incentives. Less intelligent individuals who obviously don't understand the objections are responding rationally in defense of saving souls for eternity.

[Swan]

You need to check your stats. You keep saying 0% chance...
Stats like 0% or 100% are the numerical equivalents of the black and white colours that make up the world in which people like Buck live.

"Eliminate religion and you eliminate 100% of all religion-related school-bus fights."

Wow. Thank you for that, genius. :tup:

[Gentle Giant]

seriously bro?

do a google search. there have been many polls done. here, i'll do it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

why wouldn't they believe this? if you believe jesus is the son of god, and he didn't say anything about genesis being wrong, why not believe it??
So, in addition to the Young-Earthers, that particular 40% would also include the Old-Earth-Young-Creationists and a significant portion of the Day-Age creationists, neither of which is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Of course, I understand that for you, any creationist view is deemed untenable. All I'm saying is, at least a portion of that 40% is, in fact, open-minded enough to accept that the earth is as old as science tells us.

[Gentle Giant]

How far have we been set back by not being allowed to conduct stem cell research in the US?
There is plenty of stem cell research being done that nobody protests. It isn't in the news precisely because it's non-controversial. When medical researchers deliberately choose to research stem cells specifically derived from :qunq:infanticide:qunq: rather than from other promising sources, well, then you get another 20 or so threads over in Political. :shrug:

[Mel-o-rama]

It is an evil anti-thought thing. Catholics burned atheists alive through the 1600s?
I'm not a Catholic from the 1600s.

It's very clear. Muslims in some countries are still stoning atheists. Is there any question Islam has functioned against educating its citizens?
I'm not a Muslim living in one of those other countries.

Those are the two biggest religions on the planet.
Still not my religion. Stop using such a wide paintbrush in an attempt to destroy a natural part of the human psyche.

[abt5]

I'm not a Catholic from the 1600s.


I'm not a Muslim living in one of those other countries.


Still not my religion. Stop using such a wide paintbrush in an attempt to destroy a natural part of the human psyche.

-_____-

[Gentle Giant]

So, in addition to the Young-Earthers, that particular 40% would also include the Old-Earth-Young-Creationists and a significant portion of the Day-Age creationists, neither of which is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Of course, I understand that for you, any creationist view is deemed untenable. All I'm saying is, at least a portion of that 40% is, in fact, open-minded enough to accept that the earth is as old as science tells us.
Oh, and I've mentioned before, that I have trouble believing in the reliability of randomly conducted telephone polls. Rather than polling the general population, they poll the subject of the population that is willing to waste time answering questions posed by strangers who interrupt during dinnertime / family time / kids' bedtime. The results are therefore dumbed down from the general population.

[gosuruss]

Oh, and I've mentioned before, that I have trouble believing in the reliability of randomly conducted telephone polls. Rather than polling the general population, they poll the subject of the population that is willing to waste time answering questions posed by strangers who interrupt during dinnertime / family time / kids' bedtime. The results are therefore dumbed down from the general population.

2004 ABCNews poll 60% of americans believe in genesis literally.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

I don't understand why you are surprised.

[Entropy]

Still not my religion. Stop using such a wide paintbrush in an attempt to destroy a natural part of the human psyche.

Are you confusing religion with philosophy again?

[gosuruss]

I'm not a Catholic from the 1600s.


I'm not a Muslim living in one of those other countries.


Still not my religion. Stop using such a wide paintbrush in an attempt to destroy a natural part of the human psyche.

Indeed, you are not a catholic from the 1600s. Indeed, you are not a muslim living in one of those countries. But you describe religion as a natural part of the human psyche and decry me for trying to destroy it. You, and people like you, are the shade under which barbarous forms of religiosity still relax and luxuriate and thrive, uncriticized for what it really is. I may have quoted Sam Harris somewhere in here.

We are talking about historical impact of religion on science, so of course when I talk about catholics in the 1600s, I am not talking about you. Somewhere in this discussion people were trying to make the claim that religion did not stifle science. I presented a few examples of how it majorly stifled science back in the day (say.. killing and muzzling some of the most intuitive and creative people the world has seen), and examples of how it stifles science today (stem cells, teaching evolution in class room).

Perhaps you think what happens in those muslim countries to people who disagree with their religion is their issue. That, their religion is "natural", and therefore should not be criticized until somehow the collective lot of muslims decide to overturn sharia law. Of course, this will probably take 20 to 30 years on the internet to happen. Information will set these people free. I prefer to speak out where I see injustice, maybe you like to keep quiet. The issue is dogmas. It is unjustified claims about the nature of moral reality and human existence. It is religion trying to be the controller of the truth. One way you control the truth is by impeding those who try to discover the truth on their own. Ala muslims burning libraries. Or declaring heresy on anyone who makes a scientific discovery that contradicts bronze age myths given by a prophet 2000 years ago who you would call crazy if you saw them on the street today.

[gosuruss]

So, in addition to the Young-Earthers, that particular 40% would also include the Old-Earth-Young-Creationists and a significant portion of the Day-Age creationists, neither of which is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Of course, I understand that for you, any creationist view is deemed untenable. All I'm saying is, at least a portion of that 40% is, in fact, open-minded enough to accept that the earth is as old as science tells us.

Are they open minded enough to accept the fossils that show human beings older than 10,000 years old?

No, thought not.

[Gentle Giant]

Are they open minded enough to accept the fossils that show human beings older than 10,000 years old?

No, thought not.
I imagine it didn't even occur to many of them while answering questions over the phone.

Interestingly:
The stories still proved somewhat compelling among those who had “no religion.” A quarter said they believed in Creation, almost a third said Moses parted the Red Sea, and 29 percent believe in Noah.
Just curious: How does one explain that?

[TheGillotine]

I tend to believe that a deist in the 1700s is no difference than an atheist now. Without an understanding of evolution, deism is a very reasonable position. The rejection of dogmas is what is most important here.



Gotta point out as a former Deist that Deism, especially in the 17-18th centuries, is not really like atheism at all. Nowadays Deism is populated by a lot of people like my former self who are in transition to atheism (but don't want to admit it to themselves) but at its' height Deists could be described as highly devout and possibly even evangelical. They believed in God just as much as their Christian counterparts, even if their conception was more sophisticated.

And I think evolution doesn't kill Deism as much as people seem to think. It's really pretty irrelevant since most Deists don't have specific creation myth. The thing that gets you away from Deism is the sheer pointlessness of it.


Still not my religion. Stop using such a wide paintbrush in an attempt to destroy a natural part of the human psyche.

I would say religion is about as natural as sexual shame/guilt. That is to say, part socialization, part nature, not necessarily healthy, not necessarily useless.

[Mel-o-rama]

Are you confusing religion with philosophy again?

What?

[Mel-o-rama]

Indeed, you are not a catholic from the 1600s. Indeed, you are not a muslim living in one of those countries. But you describe religion as a natural part of the human psyche and decry me for trying to destroy it. You, and people like you, are the shade under which barbarous forms of religiosity still relax and luxuriate and thrive, uncriticized for what it really is. I may have quoted Sam Harris somewhere in here.

I don't think that you are free from religion. You're currently engaging in a religious discussion. You clearly have a religious opinion: "God does not exist." Do you feel that desire to convince people to see what you believe? Isn't that religion? (We all float down here. :))

We are talking about historical impact of religion on science, so of course when I talk about catholics in the 1600s, I am not talking about you. Somewhere in this discussion people were trying to make the claim that religion did not stifle science. I presented a few examples of how it majorly stifled science back in the day (say.. killing and muzzling some of the most intuitive and creative people the world has seen), and examples of how it stifles science today (stem cells, teaching evolution in class room).

I actually agree with you on this one. That happens when religionists don't realize that religion and science do mix.

Perhaps you think what happens in those muslim countries to people who disagree with their religion is their issue. That, their religion is "natural", and therefore should not be criticized until somehow the collective lot of muslims decide to overturn sharia law. Of course, this will probably take 20 to 30 years on the internet to happen. Information will set these people free. I prefer to speak out where I see injustice, maybe you like to keep quiet. The issue is dogmas. It is unjustified claims about the nature of moral reality and human existence. It is religion trying to be the controller of the truth. One way you control the truth is by impeding those who try to discover the truth on their own. Ala muslims burning libraries. Or declaring heresy on anyone who makes a scientific discovery that contradicts bronze age myths given by a prophet 2000 years ago who you would call crazy if you saw them on the street today.

Actually, it's not religion controlling the truth. It's people using religion to control the truth. In other words:

Religion = good.
Some people in the religion = doing it wrong.

Though I will admit that religion can be a very useful tool in controlling truth, you don't need religion to accomplish that. Look at our govt.

Reminds me of a saying: Guns don't kill people ...

[Mel-o-rama]

But let me ask this question. I'd like to get your take.

I've seen several people who had their lives in ruin. They tried different things, but nothing worked. Then they found religion. They cleaned up their act. They stopped smoking and put away their alcohol. Then they made something of their lives. Then they say they owe it all to the religion that helped them find the way.

If religion is so bad, what really happens to these people?

[Atheist Man]

But let me ask this question. I'd like to get your take.

I've seen several people who had their lives in ruin. They tried different things, but nothing worked. Then they found religion. They cleaned up their act. They stopped smoking and put away their alcohol. Then they made something of their lives. Then they say they owe it all to the religion that helped them find the way.

If religion is so bad, what really happens to these people?
Some combination of the post hoc fallacy, regressive fallacy, and the placebo effect.

[Mel-o-rama]

Post hoc and regressive? I don't think so. These people have tried other things and they didn't work. But the religion spoke to them and gave them a reason to turn around.

Placebo effect? Maybe.

[abt5]

Post hoc and regressive? I don't think so. These people have tried other things and they didn't work. But the religion spoke to them and gave them a reason to turn around.

Placebo effect? Maybe.

maybe? What other explanations are there.

[gosuruss]

Gotta point out as a former Deist that Deism, especially in the 17-18th centuries, is not really like atheism at all. Nowadays Deism is populated by a lot of people like my former self who are in transition to atheism (but don't want to admit it to themselves) but at its' height Deists could be described as highly devout and possibly even evangelical. They believed in God just as much as their Christian counterparts, even if their conception was more sophisticated.

And I think evolution doesn't kill Deism as much as people seem to think. It's really pretty irrelevant since most Deists don't have specific creation myth. The thing that gets you away from Deism is the sheer pointlessness of it.



I would say religion is about as natural as sexual shame/guilt. That is to say, part socialization, part nature, not necessarily healthy, not necessarily useless.

i kind of thought of deism as: "yeah, i believe in a god or something that created us/started it all, but organized religions attempt explanation of this hypothesis is full of superstition and is extremely poor".

[TheGillotine]

I don't think that you are free from religion. You're currently engaging in a religious discussion. You clearly have a religious opinion: "God does not exist." Do you feel that desire to convince people to see what you believe? Isn't that religion? (We all float down here. :))

Balloon RN :dsmile:

Actually, it's not religion controlling the truth. It's people using religion to control the truth. In other words:

Religion = good.
Some people in the religion = doing it wrong.

Though I will admit that religion can be a very useful tool in controlling truth, you don't need religion to accomplish that. Look at our govt.

Reminds me of a saying: Guns don't kill people ...

I would put it as:
Religion = wrong (almost certainly)
Everyone in the religion = doing it wrong... according to the other people in that religion.

But let me ask this question. I'd like to get your take.

I've seen several people who had their lives in ruin. They tried different things, but nothing worked. Then they found religion. They cleaned up their act. They stopped smoking and put away their alcohol. Then they made something of their lives. Then they say they owe it all to the religion that helped them find the way.

If religion is so bad, what really happens to these people?

I'll again make my point that religion is mostly neutral as a determinant for personal behavior. Good people mostly do good things. Bad people mostly do bad things. Religion may control behavior. It may inspire someone to turn their life around. It may inspire someone to martyr themselves by blowing themselves up in a crowded street. But I don't think many would disagree with me if I would say the most common effects of religion on the average person are to:
a) provide a strong social foundation for their lives. Most people's lives are marked and tied together by various religiously connotated events, from Baptism to marriage to funerals to semi-regular worship services. It can serve to bind your family together, to cross generational gaps, to bring a community together, to provide support in your most dire circumstances.

b) provide cause for personal reflection and meditation. For the majority of the time I was a Christian and attended church regularly, it was one of the few times during the week that I meditate on the bigger questions of life, to stop focusing on the now and consider the big picture.

Religion also provides conviction for ones' goals and values, arguably informs ones' moral framework and many others, but I think the two above are the most common and universal.

These are good things, and I hate to say irreligion does not provide much in its place (not that it has to). These are the reasons I'd say various religions have lasted as long as they have, as opposed to providing some sort of novel or unique insight. And these are the reasons I'd say most intelligent believers continue to believe. It's not easy, and not at all evidently desirable, to give up the social foundation religion provides.

But my absolute salient point is this: It's false. Period. God did not speak the world into existence. Your wrongdoings are not atoned by an ancient human sacrifice. The immigration to the Americas as detailed by Joseph Smith never happened. Morality is not determined by divine command. You are not immortal. Communion wafers are just wafers, no matter what words you say over them. There is no magic. There are no spirits. There are no demons. There are no gods.

The teachings of the major religions of the world are false. To me, that outweighs any practical benefit adhering to the religion may bring. I cannot and will not live a lie. If you are religious, your religion is an integral part of who you are, and casting that off, admitting you were wrong, is not easy at all, and quite frankly not necessary at all, for most purposes. But if you do, when you do, you'll find that the truth sets you free.

If you disagree with my assertions, I'd like to see reasons why, not the inevitable complaints that "you can't prove that".

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/EbA62.jpg

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/pKFvA.jpg

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/h9yLp.png

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/NV3Cw.png

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/EX215.jpg

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/6Wuaa.jpg

it's always weird to me.

when magilla reads this verse. what does he/she think? what is the thought process? does magilla think this is of divine inspiration? or human influence? if so, how do you decide such a thing?

[gosuruss]

reddit.com/r/atheism is like the greatest site ever

"From an angry outsider's perspective, we're just a bunch of know-it-all jerks who want to stick our noses in other peoples' business and piss on their beliefs. We're the ultimate trolls, raining on everyone else's parade for no reason other than we're huge dickheads.

But what these folks are missing is that we're not merely pointing out their convictions out of spite. And we're certainly not upset just because we disagree with their point of view. The problem is that religion - and in the Western world (the U.S. especially), that would be squarely on the shoulders of Christianity - has been so much more than simply another way of looking at the world. It has been a tool of ignorance, hate, rape, slavery, murder and genocide. And in current times, it bombards us (again, especially in the U.S.) with an unceasing shower of judgement, scorn and bullying. Religion creeps into our schools, our science classes even. It makes itself home in our politics, our social views, our very laws. Those who adhere to religion FORCE their beliefs on the rest of us, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to testifying in court, to our currency, to the Cub Scouts. Religion has wormed its tentacles into every facet of our daily lives, often to cruel degrees.

Thanks to religion, our social norms dictate what entertainment we can and can't consume. Thanks to religion, our political leaders feel obligated to thank GOD as our savior. Thanks to religion, my son can't openly admit at Cub Scouts that he thinks the idea of worshipping a god ("Poseidon", to use his example) is just silly. Thanks to religion, countless people die every day in third world conflicts, and in developed countries, folks still have to worry about coming out, or dating outside their race, or questioning moral authorities. Most U.S. states still ban gay marriage, and most fail to specifically make gay adoption legal. Hell, we only let gays serve in the military openly this year. Thanks to religion.

So when someone rolls their eyes and tells you to get over it, remind them how full of nonsense they are. Our waking lives are policed, lawyered, goverened and judged nonstop by the effects of two thousand heavyhanded years of Christianity, and those who don't think that still holds true in our modern day hasn't got a clue. You can't even buy a beer on certain days in certain places thanks to religion. It infests us and our society like a cancer. But because most people like this particular cancer, they don't see the problem. And when we get pissy about it all, they call us jerks and whine about their beliefs.

I hate living in a zealous world, and I hate having to constantly play by their nonsensical, fairytale rules. If I need to vent once in a while about yet another right-wing religious leader banging some guy in a motel room, or yet another church cover-up of child rape, or yet another religious special interest interfering with my political system while simultaneously receiving tax-exempt status, it's not because I'm being mean where their "beliefs" are concerned. It's because I choose to use my brain, and when I open my eyes, the world I see pisses me off. If they could form a critical, independent thought, they'd feel the same way."

[magillaG]

God isn't described in the Bible as perfect or unchanging (well he is, but he changes his mind, and has certain attributes I wouldn't classify as perfect, as in his jealousy and anger).

And I see no reason why a magical spirit could not be perfect, eternal, and/or unchanging.

I think our understanding of God has changed. My understanding is that the Hebrews didn't necessarily see God as perfect or unchanging when they were forming the Genesis stories, for example, although I don't think anybody knows for sure exactly how they understood God. Rather, God was one god among many.

If you say God is just like a magical spirit, but one that is perfect, eternal and unchanging- I'm not sure that criticism really has any point to it. I think you might as well say the spirit also happens to not be magical. Or a spirit.

[TheGillotine]

I think our understanding of God has changed. My understanding is that the Hebrews didn't necessarily see God as perfect or unchanging when they were forming the Genesis stories, for example, although I don't think anybody knows for sure exactly how they understood God. Rather, God was one god among many.

If you say God is just like a magical spirit, but one that is perfect, eternal and unchanging- I'm not sure that criticism really has any point to it. I think you might as well say the spirit also happens to not be magical. Or a spirit.

I don't understand how this isn't getting through to you. God is magic. He has magic powers. God is spiritual. "God is Spirit". God is a magical spirit. What about a magical spirit makes it imperfect, transient, and dynamic?

[magillaG]

religion has always acted immaturely when any scientific finding contradicted established dogma. it's still happening today. most biology teachers won't even teach evolution because they have to deal with crazy religious parents. how far have we been set back by not being allowed to conduct stem cell research in the US?

not to mention most scientists are atheists, and you know, you can't trust those atheists. they have no moral foundations.

i can't believe this is even a point of contention. not only has religion stifled science immensely, it will sit here and deny it til the very end.

I don't think most historians of science see it the way that you see it.

For example, I think there is a strong case to be made that Christianity implied a contingent, rational world that encouraged the scientific revolution.

I don't think it is valid to say "some religious people don't like evolution therefore religion stifles science immensely." Some liberals don't like vaccinations, and don't believe studies that show vaccinations aren't linked to autism. Certainly we cannot conclude from that that liberalism is opposed to science. It depends on the historical, social, political context.

This also applies to the examples in your other posts. I am not claiming that religion, or at least religious institutions, are not sometimes opposed to scientific progress. They absolutely are, of course. However, I think your conclusions are overly broad, and too simple.

[magillaG]

I don't understand how this isn't getting through to you. God is magic. He has magic powers. God is spiritual. "God is Spirit". God is a magical spirit. What about a magical spirit makes it imperfect, transient, and dynamic?

I thought you were trying to make the analogy that believing in God is rather like believing in, say, Aladdin's magical genie. Aladdin's genie is not perfect. It changes with time. It is not the source of all things. It is nothing like God, I would claim.

If you are simply saying that believing in God is to claim that ultimately reality is of a spiritual and good nature- then I think you probably have a point. That doesn't seem to be what you said, though.

[Buck]

This is humans talking about myth: "it is spirit", "it is perfect", "it is imperfect" ...

Then what is god?

[Buck]

The ultimate questions to god-believers:

Do you want to meet your god? You know how you can do that, are you willing to do it?

Then stop being a fake believers.

[TheGillotine]

I thought you were trying to make the analogy that believing in God is rather like believing in, say, Aladdin's magical genie. Aladdin's genie is not perfect. It changes with time. It is not the source of all things. It is nothing like God, I would claim.

If you are simply saying that believing in God is to claim that ultimately reality is of a spiritual and good nature- then I think you probably have a point. That doesn't seem to be what you said, though.

The god Yahweh as described in the Bible is certainly not of a good nature. I would say that believing in God is to claim that the answers to the ultimate questions about the universe are mythical, magical, personal and "spiritual" (whatever that means) in nature.

[magillaG]

The god Yahweh as described in the Bible is certainly not of a good nature. I would say that believing in God is to claim that the answers to the ultimate questions about the universe are mythical, magical, personal and "spiritual" (whatever that means) in nature.

I think that whatever the path to truth is, it doesn't involve drawing sweeping conclusions from a naive reading of a 3000 year old set of myths without any consideration of the past 3000 years worth of introspection and reason about those myths- not Christian fundamentalists deciding that God is whispering to us through the ages a scientific alternative to evolution, and not atheists deciding that Christians basically believe in a flying spaghetti monster, or a superhero, or a magical spirit, or whatever.

[Buck]

I think that whatever the path to truth is, it doesn't involve drawing sweeping conclusions from a naive reading of a 3000 year old set of myths without any consideration of the past 3000 years worth of introspection and reason about those myths- not Christian fundamentalists deciding that God is whispering to us through the ages a scientific alternative to evolution, and not atheists deciding that Christians basically believe in a flying spaghetti monster, or a superhero, or a magical spirit, or whatever.

Believing in God is not about seeking truth -- it's about faith: believing in things known to be false.

Why is faith necessary in some of us at all? That's the part I don't understand.

[gosuruss]

I think that whatever the path to truth is, it doesn't involve drawing sweeping conclusions from a naive reading of a 3000 year old set of myths without any consideration of the past 3000 years worth of introspection and reason about those myths- not Christian fundamentalists deciding that God is whispering to us through the ages a scientific alternative to evolution, and not atheists deciding that Christians basically believe in a flying spaghetti monster, or a superhero, or a magical spirit, or whatever.

Jesus and christianity is the exact same to me as hinduism, islam, greek gods, thor, sumerian gods, african tribal gods, 6th century bc mithras. this is not exaggeration. these are all equally false with respect to natural law. the only reason you view them differently is due to your geographical location and social conditioning. With a broader world view, they are no different. the great likelihood is, if you were born in pakistan, you would be defending islam right now and completely ignoring christianity.

[Entropy]

But let me ask this question. I'd like to get your take.

I've seen several people who had their lives in ruin. They tried different things, but nothing worked. Then they found religion. They cleaned up their act. They stopped smoking and put away their alcohol. Then they made something of their lives. Then they say they owe it all to the religion that helped them find the way.

If religion is so bad, what really happens to these people?

Ah, so you do have a problem with logic.

What about all the people that do these things without religion as their crutch? Oh let me guess, you don't know of anyone like that because the only cases you see are those revolving around your religion, so it must not be the case and your "overwhelming experience" wins the day.

Unless you want to make that point that people can't do this without religion, I'm really not sure what your point is.

[gosuruss]

But let me ask this question. I'd like to get your take.

I've seen several people who had their lives in ruin. They tried different things, but nothing worked. Then they found religion. They cleaned up their act. They stopped smoking and put away their alcohol. Then they made something of their lives. Then they say they owe it all to the religion that helped them find the way.

If religion is so bad, what really happens to these people?

lies can be useful, in certain situations.

but i'm sure you'd agree, given you are a christian, and "thou shall not lie" is in one of the ten commandments, that lying is bad.

[Buck]

"found religion/god" did not happen in almost all the cases -- these people are stupid believers all along and making these testimonies in churches.

Actually there is a logical reason that did not happen: if you never believe it, you know that does not work; how would found god happen?

[Mel-o-rama]

"found religion/god" did not happen in almost all the cases -- these people are stupid believers all along and making these testimonies in churches.

Actually there is a logical reason that did not happen: if you never believe it, you know that does not work; how would found god happen?

You see, there it is--that usual condescension that comes from atheists. You really think people are stupid? I have yet to meet a stupid person. I've met tons of people that believe in stupid ideas, but in most cases I can see why they believe those ideas.

If you do not even make an effort to see why people believe what they do, and simply call them stupid, that's just pure condescension.

For example, I don't think you're stupid. But the idea that religionists would kill themselves just to meet their god is plain idiotic.

[Entropy]

You see, there it is--that usual condescension that comes from atheists. You really think people are stupid? I have yet to meet a stupid person. I've met tons of people that believe in stupid ideas, but in most cases I can see why they believe those ideas.

If you do not even make an effort to see why people believe what they do, and simply call them stupid, that's just pure condescension.

For example, I don't think you're stupid. But the idea that religionists would kill themselves just to meet their god is plain idiotic.

I bet you've never met a smart person either, they just believe in smart ideas. :roll:

Have you ever met an ugly person? Or are you only allowed to think nice things about people? It must be nice to not have a need for antonyms.

[Mel-o-rama]

And we have more condescension. "I'm smarter than you." "I'm prettier than you."

Yes, that'll really convince people. Might I suggest reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650)? You'd get much farther in life.

[The African Queen]

"found religion/god" did not happen in almost all the cases -- these people are stupid believers all along and making these testimonies in churches.

Actually there is a logical reason that did not happen: if you never believe it, you know that does not work; how would found god happen?

If a doctor tells a close relative of a patient that from a medical standpoint that patient is going to die soon and the relative says he doesn't believe it; he belives the patient will pull through. Is that person acting irrationally?

[Bicycle Repair Man]

If a doctor tells a close relative of a patient that from a medical standpoint that patient is going to die soon and the relative says he doesn't believe it; he belives the patient will pull through. Is that person acting irrationally?
Now you're talking about predictions of the future, and those are always uncertain to some degree. Medicine is not an exact science, so there's always some small reason to hope for a cure or spontaneous remission.

Now if someone says they are 100% certain the relative will live, I'd say they are being just as irrational as the person who is 100% sure the relative will die. The future doesn't exist yet, so it makes no sense to believe in it.

This has very little to do with whether the God you believe in exists, though.

[oofta]

Less chat more posters!

[gosuruss]

And we have more condescension. "I'm smarter than you." "I'm prettier than you."

Yes, that'll really convince people. Might I suggest reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650)? You'd get much farther in life.

"I'm going to heaven. You are going to hell. Apparently, my actions and beliefs are worthy of such a reward. And apparently, your actions and beliefs are worthy of such a punishment, of course, according to the beliefs I subscribe to. My beliefs are the divine source of morality. The religion I happen to be born is the same one I believe in and everyone elses is pagan superstition. You are born in sin. You need to be saved."

Religion's arrogance is overt and so ingrained in society you don't even stop to notice it. Sad. Really is sad.

Whether or not you have explicitly said these statements is irrelevant. It's about what you and the churches you subscribe to believe. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you believe in a hell or not. Because the difference between heaven and nothing is still infinite utility. The difference between heaven and hell is infinite utility - -infinite utility = infinite utility.

[Entropy]

And we have more condescension. "I'm smarter than you." "I'm prettier than you."

Yes, that'll really convince people. Might I suggest reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650)? You'd get much farther in life.

Did someone here claim to be smarter or prettier? And trust me, I will never read that book. How about you address my point, unless you can't see it again?

[Entropy]

And we have more condescension. "I'm smarter than you." "I'm prettier than you."

Yes, that'll really convince people. Might I suggest reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650)? You'd get much farther in life.

Also, I'm not actually condescending, I just say condescending things. ;)

[Mel-o-rama]

Also, I'm not actually condescending, I just say condescending things. ;)

Okay - that one is funny and a good one.

[Quasi]

But let me ask this question. I'd like to get your take.

I've seen several people who had their lives in ruin. They tried different things, but nothing worked. Then they found religion. They cleaned up their act. They stopped smoking and put away their alcohol. Then they made something of their lives. Then they say they owe it all to the religion that helped them find the way.

If religion is so bad, what really happens to these people?

You weren't asking me but I'd like to throw in my $.02.

Some people lack the ability to self-police themselves. That's probably not a good term, I mean that some people don't seem to have that internal compass or strong sense of what is good for them (and their friends/family) in the long run. Or they know what's good for them but they lack the discipline and self-control to do what they know is smart.

That type of person will tend to run wild (smoke/drink excessively/drugs/unsafe sex/blow off work or school/etc.) if they don't have strong parents/spouse/mentor/whatever keeping them in line. Religion can fill that role. If they accept that God is always watching them and that the black and white rules from their religion of choice are correct....and that heaven and hell are on the line..... it helps them do the things that will benefit them in the long run. I don't think it really matters whether or not there is a God for this to work, all religions seem to be able to focus out of control people.

I know people that use exercise/diet in a similar way. They were out of control with eating, drinking, smoking, being lazy and ended up obese and ill. Then they became obsessed with fitness and used various diet/fitness experts as their "bible". They can be annoying in their zeal to get others to try their healthy food or latest fitness craze, but they needed a strong black/white structure for how to live their lives. Without that they went wild and hurt themselves. Many people can just eat like a person rather than a pig, exercise some, and be fine without a fitness religion of sorts. My point is that there's nothing special about religion (or any specific religion), some people need structure or they run wild.

Other people do just fine without the structure of a religion. :wave:

Of course I'm not one of those people that think all religions are 100% bad 100% of the time so you probably weren't asking me. Religions can be a great source of comfort and direction. They can also be used for evil.

[Mel-o-rama]

You weren't asking me but I'd like to throw in my $.02.

Some people lack the ability to self-police themselves. That's probably not a good term, I mean that some people don't seem to have that internal compass or strong sense of what is good for them (and their friends/family) in the long run. Or they know what's good for them but they lack the discipline and self-control to do what they know is smart.

That type of person will tend to run wild (smoke/drink excessively/drugs/unsafe sex/blow off work or school/etc.) if they don't have strong parents/spouse/mentor/whatever keeping them in line. Religion can fill that role. If they accept that God is always watching them and that the black and white rules from their religion of choice are correct....and that heaven and hell are on the line..... it helps them do the things that will benefit them in the long run. I don't think it really matters whether or not there is a God for this to work, all religions seem to be able to focus out of control people.

I know people that use exercise/diet in a similar way. They were out of control with eating, drinking, smoking, being lazy and ended up obese and ill. Then they became obsessed with fitness and used various diet/fitness experts as their "bible". They can be annoying in their zeal to get others to try their healthy food or latest fitness craze, but they needed a strong black/white structure for how to live their lives. Without that they went wild and hurt themselves. Many people can just eat like a person rather than a pig, exercise some, and be fine without a fitness religion of sorts. My point is that there's nothing special about religion (or any specific religion), some people need structure or they run wild.

Other people do just fine without the structure of a religion. :wave:

Of course I'm not one of those people that think all religions are 100% bad 100% of the time so you probably weren't asking me. Religions can be a great source of comfort and direction. They can also be used for evil.

I think I mostly agree with you. I think you're saying that religion provides a structure that some people need. Yet, it doesn't have to be religion, but something else could also provide structure. Did I get that right?

You probably guessed that I'm one of those who thinks religions are good 99% of the time, and it's only when they're misused that they're "evil." And I'll add this: when it happens, it's not the religion itself that's bad, but the people misusing it. (Back to that "Guns don't kill people" idea.)

I think a lot of atheists only see the bad things in religion, and the 1% becomes 100% in their minds. Religion is good in when it's in its proper place. It meets some of our human needs. Take it away, and we become a lesser people. (But then again, if religion is really is a natural part of us, it will never go away. :))

[The African Queen]

Now you're talking about predictions of the future, and those are always uncertain to some degree. Medicine is not an exact science, so there's always some small reason to hope for a cure or spontaneous remission.

Now if someone says they are 100% certain the relative will live, I'd say they are being just as irrational as the person who is 100% sure the relative will die. The future doesn't exist yet, so it makes no sense to believe in it.

This has very little to do with whether the God you believe in exists, though.

I never said 100% certain. Simply the relative believed. Belief <> Certainty.

All the medical experts agreed that the person would not live. The patient lived. The relative had no RATIONAL reason to believe, but did.

The problem is that you are likely willing to accept a person's beliefs as long as you don't bring in the G word.

[Entropy]

Other people do just fine without the structure of a religion. :wave:

Of course I'm not one of those people that think all religions are 100% bad 100% of the time so you probably weren't asking me. Religions can be a great source of comfort and direction. They can also be used for evil.
This, and I'm also one of those people.

I think I mostly agree with you. I think you're saying that religion provides a structure that some people need. Yet, it doesn't have to be religion, but something else could also provide structure. Did I get that right?

You probably guessed that I'm one of those who thinks religions are good 99% of the time, and it's only when they're misused that they're "evil." And I'll add this: when it happens, it's not the religion itself that's bad, but the people misusing it. (Back to that "Guns don't kill people" idea.)

I think a lot of atheists only see the bad things in religion, and the 1% becomes 100% in their minds. Religion is good in when it's in its proper place. It meets some of our human needs. Take it away, and we become a lesser people. (But then again, if religion is really is a natural part of us, it will never go away. :))
I was pretty much with you until the bolded.

I would stipulate that pushing your religion on people is evil though, and way too many people/groups/whatever do that. One can believe people rode on dinosaurs if they want, but try getting that taught in a science class and we'll have a problem.

[Quasi]

I think I mostly agree with you. I think you're saying that religion provides a structure that some people need. Yet, it doesn't have to be religion, but something else could also provide structure. Did I get that right?

Yup. A better example would have been the military. A couple of guys I grew up with appeared to be headed for jail. They joined the army instead and were instilled with discipline that straightened their lives up. They were rudderless, the army provided what they needed. Religion might have worked for them also.

You probably guessed that I'm one of those who thinks religions are good 99% of the time, and it's only when they're misused that they're "evil." And I'll add this: when it happens, it's not the religion itself that's bad, but the people misusing it. (Back to that "Guns don't kill people" idea.)

I think a lot of atheists only see the bad things in religion, and the 1% becomes 100% in their minds. Religion is good in when it's in its proper place. It meets some of our human needs. Take it away, and we become a lesser people. (But then again, if religion is really is a natural part of us, it will never go away. :))

We'd disagree on the percentages, but I think religion is mostly good. Especially in private. When people start trying to pass laws based solely on their religion (cough...gay marriage...cough) I think it's less good.

I would disagree that without religion we'd be lesser people. Part of my point was that SOME people would be lesser people. Some people :wave: lead perfectly good and moral lives without religion. I drink a glass of wine with dinner but other than that (and not going to church on Sunday) I'm probably living my life pretty much the same as you.

[Mel-o-rama]

I was pretty much with you until the bolded.
Yes - I think I skipped a few steps.

I would stipulate that pushing your religion on people is evil though, and way too many people/groups/whatever do that. One can believe people rode on dinosaurs if they want, but try getting that taught in a science class and we'll have a problem.

Pushing religion on others could be good or evil depending on how the message is delivered. I'm okay with Creationism being taught in schools if treated as some kind of historical matter (that is, a majority of people, including Christians believe this), but it's wrong to teach it in a science class to explain the origins of the universe. That's religion going too far. Religion can teach Creationism as fact in Sunday School.

Evolution needs to be taught in schools - period. Even if it's a wrong theory. It's still a very important recent development in the scientific community, and it would be wrong to ignore it. Religion can preach against it in Sunday School.

So yes - keep religion in check and we're all okay.

And hey, looking back I realize I started with the condescending tone. Sorry about that.

[magillaG]

Jesus and christianity is the exact same to me as hinduism, islam, greek gods, thor, sumerian gods, african tribal gods, 6th century bc mithras. this is not exaggeration. these are all equally false with respect to natural law. the only reason you view them differently is due to your geographical location and social conditioning. With a broader world view, they are no different. the great likelihood is, if you were born in pakistan, you would be defending islam right now and completely ignoring christianity.

There is a major Christian tradition, which goes back at least to Augustine, that says that if nature tells us something at odds with our reading of scripture, then our reading of scripture must be wrong. So I think it is difficult to say that views which follow this tradition are equally false with respect to natural law as, say, creationism. There are more radical positions as well- for example, process theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology), which I would like to learn more about.

I don't mean to look like I am defending Christianity to the exclusion of other faith. I suppose that any major world religion encompasses enormous genius, and deserves more than to be dismissed as a failed scientific hypothesis. However, I don't know much about any religion besides Christianity, which is why I always mention it.

Certainly my upbringing is a necessary component of what I believe. If I were raised on 14th century Europe, for example, then I would probably believe Aristotelian physics; in 18th century Europe, Newtonian physics; and given my actual upbringing, modern physics. I think what is important point is to be critical about all my thoughts, whatever my upbringing. I try to do that. I don't think my position on God makes it any harder for me to do that. I also don't think I would do much justice to that by simply dismissing all religion as a failed scientific hypothesis.

I think this essay by Thomas Kuhn (http://www.units.muohio.edu/technologyandhumanities/kuhn.htm) and his struggle to understand Aristotelian physics is very interesting. I think part of trying to understand a system of thought very different than your own often requires a great deal of imagination.

There is another point- why is there no consensus on religion the way that there is on mathematics or natural science. Part of the answer is that mathematics and natural science depend much less on our culture than religion does. Religion is affected by social and political structures as much as it affects them. This is a challenge for religious realism. I don't trust any religious claim in the same way, or with the same confidence, that I trust a scientific claim, or especially a mathematical claim. However, that is not the same as simply dismissing all religion because it isn't science, which you seem inclined to do.

[Sparktz]

Okay, I have read the 1329 posts in this thread now.

My opinion is that, overall, religion is a good thing. It helps to provide that moral compass that many people might not have.

There is no Christian god though. That was all just made up to help control the sheeples who aren't smart enough to realize that they are being lied to.

[abt5]

Okay, I have read the 1329 posts in this thread now.

My opinion is that, overall, religion is a good thing. It helps to provide that moral compass that many people might not have.

There is no Christian god though. That was all just made up to help control the sheeples who aren't smart enough to realize that they are being lied to.

:yikes:

[Androzani Major]

:bump:

I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry. For bumping this trainwreck of a thread.

But this poster, which a facebook friend posted, seemed relevant. And interestingly, seems rather self-deprecative, considering its source.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20060918-2.gif

[Baby, ByeBye]

Best thread of 2011

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs27/f/2008/090/a/d/periodic_table_by_ENominiPatri.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs26/f/2008/090/8/6/religion_by_ENominiPatri.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs29/i/2008/090/4/4/snake_by_ENominiPatri.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs25/f/2008/090/e/4/list_of_gods_by_ENominiPatri.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/rkzenrage/bombs/ID/HitlerUnderGod1.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/rkzenrage/Sigs/Last-SupperSig.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://evolutionspace.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/i_know_the_bible_is_true_sophistry.gif

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080119.gif

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uuEaCUoipUg/SUypdAf9JnI/AAAAAAAAAz4/406m1J5fa0o/s400/motivatonaltolerance.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://www.damnedifgodexists.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/have-faith-in-god-motivational-poster.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1202/best-part-of-being-atheist-atheist-oath-full-of-shit-demotivational-posters-1329795979.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/311474_173061576114887_157750900979288_359422_6757 11250_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/422408_320140704701796_100001176063153_817051_2117 629329_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/417315_320126281369905_100001176063153_817018_1305 706155_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/427533_338044526246639_100001232838980_1036295_189 1385896_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/421888_335810279789148_100000805355389_824372_4705 32912_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/423409_10150708078260549_675005548_11570540_490016 728_n.jpg

[Androzani Major]

[God is my co-pilot]
That one is actually quite funny. :tup:

[MathinTucson]

if you look closely, you can see Jesus smiling

#383 is the funniest post I've ever seen.

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://i.imgur.com/mmie2.jpg

[asdfasdf]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zrjuYgZKUns/Tqn-HYcFalI/AAAAAAAABv8/R1NW_WFYsO4/s400/beat_dead_horse2.jpg

[Mel-o-rama]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zrjuYgZKUns/Tqn-HYcFalI/AAAAAAAABv8/R1NW_WFYsO4/s400/beat_dead_horse2.jpg

Dude - miniturize this, and we have an awesome new emoticon!

[TheGillotine]

Dude - miniturize this, and we have an awesome new emoticon!

:horse:

[Androzani Major]

:bump:

This one was quite possibly posted further up the thread:

http://stephenlbaxter.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/snoopy.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://i.imgur.com/B1bhL.png

[Buck]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zrjuYgZKUns/Tqn-HYcFalI/AAAAAAAABv8/R1NW_WFYsO4/s400/beat_dead_horse2.jpg

That's beating a dead donkey?

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/546018_345993275458521_100001435538836_969362_1355 486043_n.jpg

[gosuruss]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/421888_335810279789148_100000805355389_824372_4705 32912_n.jpg

Simply amazing lol

[Baby, ByeBye]

:bump:

[Buck]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/421888_335810279789148_100000805355389_824372_4705 32912_n.jpg

Lol -- there's simply no parallel on the non-religious side.

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/644259_10151399653555155_945471723_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/419661_10151399218385155_1313497307_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/528879_10151397286325155_1094423428_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/598675_10151397281235155_1321901584_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/603146_10151397269220155_1283465999_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295456_10151395645450155_1626127152_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/10577_10151395642455155_572050081_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/407580_10151395323565155_1364973535_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/309739_10151393769480155_780125678_n.png

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/307747_10151393766365155_1209656677_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/535454_10151392208980155_409261790_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/310090_10151390018810155_560525576_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/22095_10151390016545155_243661162_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/734283_10151390012910155_1408898912_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/388703_10151390005965155_442974337_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/550228_10151389485130155_2046622692_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/46819_10151384683165155_1901680080_n.jpg

[Mel-o-rama]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/22095_10151390016545155_243661162_n.jpg

Hah! The guy looking up stands the tallest. So, the guy throwing away religion is de-evolving.

[Baby, ByeBye]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/559764_10151449061085155_2089086030_n.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7110395136/h823C027D/

[Ninestein]

I've never understood why atheists use this argument - I find it hard to believe that early Christians would have had any contact with Mithra and Krishna myths (at the least). Wouldn't these (supposed) coincidences with something they've never had contact with make it MORE likely something was unusual about their story?

[V1per41]

I've never understood why atheists use this argument - I find it hard to believe that early Christians would have had any contact with Mithra and Krishna myths (at the least). Wouldn't these (supposed) coincidences with something they've never had contact with make it MORE likely something was unusual about their story?

Word traveled well enough that the early Christians absolutely could have heard these other savior myths. Not to mention they all had access to the old testament and it's prophesies.

You might have a point with the coincidences if all of these stories were from the same time, but many of these saviors were from hundreds if not thousands of years prior to the Jesus story.

[Sentinel]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/388703_10151390005965155_442974337_n.jpg

To worship God, our Creator, Calvin......duh...