MOD NOTE: Stay on topic and formulate your posts carefully and with dilligence or moderation will follow. No bullshitting around or flaming.
One of my good friends just posted this on facebook.
I am an UN-APOLOGETIC AMERICAN!! I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under GOD, indivisibl e, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all!! I grew up reciting this every morning in school. We no longer do that for...fear... of OFFENDING SOMEONE!! Let's see how many AMERICANS will re post this & not care about offending someone!!
Now as an atheist, I was a little offended, but more-so concerned. Being offended isn't enough reason to present an argument to a friend for me. It's usual for me to present an argument to discover the depth of their opinion, if it is at all present. So I replied like this.
Under God was added to the Pledge in 1954. Historically speaking it's been in the pledge for a shorter amount of time than we have been in existence as a nation. Plus a Federal Judge ruled it unconstitutional, which it is, since it is proclaiming that this is a nation under the monotheistic protestant god, and no other. My stance as an atheist is, that you give an inch they take a mile. If I let them treat me as if I'm not part of the country because of my beliefs (or lack thereof), then how is that essentially any different than the oppression people face in some middle eastern countries where they are bonified theocracies.
Not that I'm against religious people, I just think that religion is a personal thing, and whether the country endorses your God or any other god shouldn't have any bearing on your personal relationship with said deity.
It really is the same as if you lived in a country that was catholic and pledge allegiance to the pope, but you are protestant, and you were like sitting in class and everyone says it, and then you don't, and are socially an outcast because of it. If the law of that country didn't pledge allegiance to anything supernatural or religious, that social conflict wouldn't be inflicted unfairly upon children.
And finally religious belief is yours, not everyone's. This country is about freedom. It was founded on the principles of people fleeing from the catholic church, as protestants. The founding fathers were fighting against a theocracy for their freedom as a nation. Most of the founding fathers were deists, meaning they believed there was a god, but they had no belief in the Christian god. They publicly outcried against religion. Not to say they are right, but to proclaim that this is a Christian nation is only true in the sense that the majority of people that are citizens here are Christians. A country being secular, which ours is traditionally in practice governmentally, doesn't take away from your religious practices whatsoever. You are still allowed to teach your children everything you want to. You wouldn't want the schools to take over and teach your children your personal beliefs that you want to pass on to them would you? That's how it feels for atheist parents, like the government is trying to tell them that there isn't a such thing as raising a child as someone who makes up their own mind one day.
I have yet to get a response, and probably won't get one. Just wanted to open a discussion on this topic though. Under god, your stance on it?
Edit: Ok, apparently I decided to think after I posted.
Since I'm not American, I don't pledge to the God, the Flag or any of that. In fact, I haven't made any pledges because I'm born in Canada. Apparently, if one is born in the country that one resides in, they're automatically loyal to that country, whereas one that moves in the country is not. Anyways, if you're going to pledge your loyalty to the state, then the pledge of allegiance should be to the state. It's not a matter of political correctness, but of whom you're showing allegiance to.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
God is Almighty and Jesus his son died on the cross for our sins. We as Americans have a holy duty to praise His name and acknowledge our sAviOr, for without Him we are lost. America is a Christian Nation and we are all, whether we acknowledge it or not, soldiers in His cause.
it's bullshit (saying under god in the pledge, and really just the idea of the pledge in general) but really who actually recited the pledge in school anway? lol. when i remember doing it in school, only like 3 kids would actually do it.
We all did it graciously in school; and since prayer in schools has been outlawed by the traitorous liberals, I think it was a healthy dose of Jesus for the heathens.
It's unconstitutional. The constitution is fallible, but I believe that it's a good thing for a country not to be affiliated with a certain church. People have to be really dumb not to realize that. I have many christian friends who agree that the US is a secular nation. As it is constituted of many religion, the government shouldn't "pick" a religion.
In this day and age, it even seems ridiculous that a government would have a religion. Grow up people.
On January 16 2011 17:08 Gummy wrote: We all did it graciously in school; and since prayer in schools has been outlawed by the traitorous liberals, I think it was a healthy dose of Jesus for the heathens.
Prayer was never outlawed, it's just illegal to force children to pray in school. I'm not sure if you were kidding though, I have a hard time with sarcasm on forums - it's such a silly thing to say, but yet...
Anyway this is my second language so if you were kidding, my apologies.
Hey DJzapz! I'm glad God finally got through to you and you changed your sig away from that vain quote from l1a. Even though you're not American, in God's eyes you're almost as good.
On January 16 2011 17:17 cartoon wrote: ehhh, Religion I predict many arguments for today's forecast.
On January 16 2011 17:18 Gummy wrote: Hey DJzapz! I'm glad God finally got through to you and you changed your sig away from that vain quote from l1a. Even though you're not American, in God's eyes you're almost as good.
I haven't actually recited the pledge since like 5th grade. I'll stand and be quiet, but no way am I just going to pledge to a flag because I have to. That makes it sound more rebellious than I actually am, but it's sorta what I think of it.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
It's kinda hard to prove that something doesn't exist when there is no "proof" that it exists anyways.....
You want me to believe in your god. Prove to me that he exists. Everyone else has the same thing like "oh you'll have blah punishment if you don't believe in meh god." Give me an incentive.
Um, can we throw in belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster = God while we're at it? After all, who wouldn't want to be touched by "His Noodly Appendage"?
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
The way that logical arguments work forces positive beliefs to be supported. In other words, you can't say "you can't prove that the Sun doesn't have a giant spoon in the middle of it." It is up to you, who makes a positive claim, to show evidence to support your statement.
I am not throwing myself into this argument, just saying that you can't use that as a defense against atheism.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
The way that logical arguments work forces positive beliefs to be supported. In other words, you can't say "you can't prove that the Sun doesn't have a giant spoon in the middle of it." It is up to you, who makes a positive claim, to show evidence to support your statement.
I am not throwing myself into this argument, just saying that you can't use that as a defense against atheism.
Religion operates by faith. Faith requires the absence of evidence. Logical arguments require evidence.
Therefore, it is impossible to have a logical discussion about religion.....
And that's exactly why I don't believe it's real, even though I've been brought up in a highly religious family. Nobody could answer those tough questions properly when I asked at a younger age, because they couldn't. There are no answers that would suffice, because I wanted a logical answer.
Since atheism is the negative we are correct in our thoughts by default. Theism being the positive.
There is some proof for god's existence, but none of it is admissible and it all comes form unreliable sources ie. Christians.
I love coming up with random things to counter the "prove that he doesn't exist" statement.
Its brilliant.
Staples such as FSM or the celestial teapot are nice. Subterranean dinosaurs on Mar's are good. Other religions gods are fun too. Arguing thsi topic is my hobby other than SC to be honest. Its brilliant fun.
But in all seriousness. There probably is no god. and you can believe in whatever crazy theology you want so long as you do not try to poison the minds of children or influence government with your arbitrary archaic doctrines.
In a few hundred years kids are going to be learning about these crazy religion stories that people used to believe in and loling at how gullible and silly people used to be.
"Random omnipotent guy in the sky creates universe, and though he believes in good, creates shitty scenarios solely to test the faith and character of his creations. (well not all of them, he only seems to care about that of the humans)." wtf lol sometimes thinking about religion makes me sad. I lose faith. In people's judgment.
The entire pledge of allegiance is a joke. It is pretty much brainwashing children into becoming loyal American citizens, and the assumption that everyone is America is a Christian is a bit ridiculous. On a side note there sure is a lot of hatred of Christianity here.
On January 16 2011 18:33 Reason.SC2 wrote: In a few hundred years kids are going to be learning about these crazy religion stories that people used to believe in and loling at how gullible and silly people used to be.
Humans have had religions for thousands of years. I don't think they'll fade out in a few hundred.
On January 16 2011 18:33 Reason.SC2 wrote: In a few hundred years kids are going to be learning about these crazy religion stories that people used to believe in and loling at how gullible and silly people used to be.
Humans have had religions for thousands of years. I don't think they'll fade out in a few hundred.
... Religiosity on FB makes me cringe :/
Please tell us if you get a response OP ^^
im pretty sure atheism rates has grown a lot since the dawn of enlightenment and industrialization. people are getting too smart for religion and the quality of life has reached a point for most people in industrialized countries where it doesnt serve a meaningful purpose any more (there's not really a need for religion as the "opiate of the masses" any more).
I really think we can get an openly atheist person as president within 100 years.
edit: also @ Reason.SC2
it's funny because people still do that today at old pagen religions like greek mythology and such. then they go to church and learn about how the REAL god created the earth.
On January 16 2011 17:40 The_LiNk wrote: You want me to believe in your god. Prove to me that he exists. Everyone else has the same thing like "oh you'll have blah punishment if you don't believe in meh god." Give me an incentive.
Here's a slight problem with this. I have no proof, and no proof can be made that you exist. You have proof you exist, because you know you think, but I have no proof and that proof can never be given to me. There is no proof that I'm not just a nameless mind floating in a void of nothingness. If you want everything to be proven before you believe it exists than you're going to have to believe in nothing. Also, in sheer odds, who's better off? If I'm totally wrong, and no god exists, than the exact same thing happens to both of us when we die, but if I'm right and you're wrong I'm much better off
Clearly, you've never studied those "sheer odds".....
On January 16 2011 17:40 The_LiNk wrote: You want me to believe in your god. Prove to me that he exists. Everyone else has the same thing like "oh you'll have blah punishment if you don't believe in meh god." Give me an incentive.
Here's a slight problem with this. I have no proof, and no proof can be made that you exist. You have proof you exist, because you know you think, but I have no proof and that proof can never be given to me. There is no proof that I'm not just a nameless mind floating in a void of nothingness. If you want everything to be proven before you believe it exists than you're going to have to believe in nothing. Also, in sheer odds, who's better off? If I'm totally wrong, and no god exists, than the exact same thing happens to both of us when we die, but if I'm right and you're wrong I'm much better off
As for Pascal's Wager, there are a plethora of counter-arguments out there that completely dismantle the wager. There are consequences if you are wrong. Religion is used to shape laws and guidelines that affect the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. One such example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/28/texas-wrapup-yup-doomed/ . Furthermore, statistically speaking, the odds you pray to the right god is 0, because there are an infinite number of potential gods out there.
I'm an atheist. In fact, I'm anti-religion. Whether god exists or not genuinely doesn't concern me. I don't think he does and I'm completely ok if you do because if it brings you peace and happiness, I support you being peaceful and happy--as long as you're doing something beneficial with your life. In a secular way. Never should these beliefs be put into any meaningful decisions about society.
But I despise the institution of religion. I actively take measures to abolish it in my community. Not personal faith, I have no problems with individuals, but the tendencies of religion to directly oppose beneficial forward progress--like stem cells, and whether or not you can run for public office. As I've studied the history of cosmology I'm astounded at how consistently the manifestations of the religious aspect of man stand directly opposed to progress, to science.
There is no debate about under god, its unconstitutional. If somebody tries to get you to say it, you smile and say no thanks to your fellow American. And then you support the pulling of funding for religious organizations, churches which don't serve the public and vote for politicians who aren't Christian. If they push saying "under god" further than suggesting or politely asking, then let them know you'll say under god if they say under [my name]'s meaty cock. I mean, its just words after all.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
The way that logical arguments work forces positive beliefs to be supported. In other words, you can't say "you can't prove that the Sun doesn't have a giant spoon in the middle of it." It is up to you, who makes a positive claim, to show evidence to support your statement.
I am not throwing myself into this argument, just saying that you can't use that as a defense against atheism.
Therefore, it is impossible to have a logical discussion about religion.....
No it is not, that is just a lazy way to try and separate logic from the argument. Many people use faulty logic when trying to defend theistic views, but that does not mean that everyone's arguments are as such. You saying that is just stereotyping everything into "faith" theists and "logic" atheists, its lazy.
You also have to consider that it comes down to religion and God, which are not intrinsically linked as many people like to say.
I am just trying to say that atheists who say there is no logic behind theistic views are taking the quickest exit from the conversation they can.
Back on topic. I think saying Under God is not constitutionally acceptable. Establishment clause also encompasses atheism as well. This means that to admit to a supreme being would be to ostracize an entire group of people who do not share this belief.
However, for the most part, I think that people worry wayyyyy to much on being politically correct.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
The way that logical arguments work forces positive beliefs to be supported. In other words, you can't say "you can't prove that the Sun doesn't have a giant spoon in the middle of it." It is up to you, who makes a positive claim, to show evidence to support your statement.
I am not throwing myself into this argument, just saying that you can't use that as a defense against atheism.
Therefore, it is impossible to have a logical discussion about religion.....
No it is not, that is just a lazy way to try and separate logic from the argument. Many people use faulty logic when trying to defend theistic views, but that does not mean that everyone's arguments are as such. You saying that is just stereotyping everything into "faith" theists and "logic" atheists, its lazy.
You also have to consider that it comes down to religion and God, which are not intrinsically linked as many people like to say.
I am just trying to say that atheists who say there is no logic behind theistic views are taking the quickest exit from the conversation they can.
You can't have a logical debate about something that doesn't follow any rules of logic at a fundimental level..... It's not taking the easy way out - it's the fucking facts.....
I have not seen a convincing argument from the religious side that has not had a more convincing argument pointing out the flaws in said religious argument..... Show me one, if you can, because I've seen a lot of arguments so far, and I'm definitely interested in reading an indisputable argument, if it exists.
You're right that God and religion are not as linked as I'm making it out to be. However, almost every religion debate I've ever read/heard has eventually lead down to the "no logic behind theistic views" path at some point..... Maybe I am trying to take the quickest way out, but I'd rather do that than waste my time beating a dead horse. However, at the same time, the same thing can be said about God as well.
For further interesting information:
It's about 15 minutes of video between the two, however, it gives a really, really good overview of how many debates go, and, seriously, most of the arguments that are presented sound a lot like this:
To quote Nvyone, this isn't really an argument about theism and atheism. It's about the promulgation of religious beliefs via asinine facebook posts.
Furthermore, a side-topic is the notion of a separation between Church and State.
So to be on topic myself, instead of morality being removed from religion, I'd like morality to be removed from the state. Laws should not dictate morality, only incentivize social utility-maximizing behavior.
Attributing petty human emotions to a supposedly omnipotent super-being has always struck me as the height of mortal arrogance. If such a being(s) exists, it/they will be so far beyond our understanding as to be burdened with our selfish human desires.
What need does an all-powerful god have of flawed human jealousy? Spite? Anger? Why create thousands of new people when 30,000 children starve to death daily? Why create those millions of new souls when what, 3/4 or so will supposedly end up in hell? Besides, when your god hates everyone you do, you can be quite sure you've created him in your own image.
Unconstitutional or not, why exactly do we venerate our founding fathers so goddamn much? Sure they may have been revolutionaries of their time, but at the end of the day, our nation was founded on the principle that all White Land-Owning Males were created equally. Why on earth the words of those who lived 300 years ago, (much less 2000 years ago) should have such a strong effect on our thinking has always boggled my mind. It's fine to have pride in your country, but some people go nuts and elevate it to what you see in the OP. Just comes off as ignorant and downright annoying imho.
On January 16 2011 17:40 The_LiNk wrote: You want me to believe in your god. Prove to me that he exists. Everyone else has the same thing like "oh you'll have blah punishment if you don't believe in meh god." Give me an incentive.
Here's a slight problem with this. I have no proof, and no proof can be made that you exist. You have proof you exist, because you know you think, but I have no proof and that proof can never be given to me. There is no proof that I'm not just a nameless mind floating in a void of nothingness. If you want everything to be proven before you believe it exists than you're going to have to believe in nothing. Also, in sheer odds, who's better off? If I'm totally wrong, and no god exists, than the exact same thing happens to both of us when we die, but if I'm right and you're wrong I'm much better off
My Bible Literature teacher at my Catholic High School used the same argument. But the simple counter argument is this: you deny atheism but by believing in the Christian god, you also deny every other religion out there from Hinduism and Islam to Scientology and Pastafarianism. What about those religions? In sheer odds, if you take into consideration other religions, you are not better off.
Religion at it's origin is actually good, all it tried to do was explain the unexplainable(Greek gods, pagan gods were there to explain natural occurrences that people didn't know the science behind yet). Religion stopped being actual religion and started being a means of control when Constantine decided to convert his kingdom to Christianity simply because it was becoming popular and he wanted to maintain power over more people.
He got together with a bunch of bishops in the Council of Nicaea and they basically just picked one belief/bible out of several conflicting Christian beliefs, in other words the one they liked the most.
Religion is a noble thing at it's core because it tries to present answers to the unknown (so do some scientists but only like .0001% of the population truly understands wtf they're doing.) Religion is simple and made for the masses to understand. Too bad different religions=slightly different beliefs cause so many wars. Fighting over an answer to a question noone will ever be able to really answer is just pointless. I will never respect Christianity because historically it tried to force itself on everyone. I mean do they really care that everyone is saved? Sure a lot of people were brainwashed into it, but the truly smart people who took advantage of the system just wanted control over the masses.
I'm not saying it's the same now but that's what it was based off of.
If people knew there was no hell or heaven would people still believe in religion? i doubt it but heres a tip dont waste time arguing for or against religion since you cant prove or disproof it OUTRIGHTLY so that anyone can understand, just stick to one and change if you want but please dont preach to others on the street its annoying.
As a believer in religion, I don't personally mind the "under God" in the allegiance. However, if someone makes a movement to change the allegiance back to the original God-less pledge, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion at all. America sure used to be an under God nation (though not when they changed the allegiance in 1954) but we used to also believe in a lot of now questionable policies.
Both sides, religious and non-religious, just have to chill. Understand one another.
On January 17 2011 06:59 dudeman001 wrote: As a believer in religion, I don't personally mind the "under God" in the allegiance. However, if someone makes a movement to change the allegiance back to the original God-less pledge, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion at all. America sure used to be an under God nation (though not when they changed the allegiance in 1954) but we used to also believe in a lot of now questionable policies.
Both sides, religious and non-religious, just have to chill. Understand one another.
This is my view as well. Both sides are often flagrantly condescending towards each other and should definitely calm down.
I used to be a "tolerant" atheist, but I'm now a Christian and am just as tolerant of atheists without putting arrogance in my actions. I don't think neither side understands the other well enough oftentimes (not saying I do, but just an observation), which leads to pointlessly heated debate with a mutual lack of understanding.
Religion over facebook isn't that bad, you can just click the x and ignore them. The worst is when you have bible thumpers knock on your door in the middle of a sc2 match.
*hears knock at door, pauses game, runs to door* thumper: hi would you be interested in learning about christ (or whatever) me: god fucking damnit *slams door*
Religion is personal, and shouldn't be mandated by the state. In terms of it on facebook, I wouldn't hesitate to block anyone who spout such nonsense, if I've learnt anything when it comes to religion, as an atheist, some battles are just not worth fighting, so if it means cutting someone out of facebook, something which I don't care much for, so be it.
As OP stated in response to his friend on facebook "a Federal Judge ruled it unconstitutional". Given that, and not having read the judge's official opinion, I can't comment further. Given that I generally trust the U.S. legal system I'll give said judge the benefit of the doubt in making a good legal interpretation. I'm not about to go look into it further because, frankly, it doesn't really bother me.
Your friend's original facebook post seems more political than anything else. In that's the case I'm disgusted at the fact that political affiliations come standard with their own religious beliefs. Otherwise good for him for being unapologetic (and I admit, it would be really funny if they said "sorry" anywhere in a response IF there's a response!).
As a Christian yes, it feels a bit like a defeat. But then I ask myself "was it ever really a victory?". You're right, the U.S. was founded on the basis of religious freedom, not the religious majority. I was in public schools until 1998 and had the phrase "under God" in the pledge the whole time, so naturally I would think it belonged there. Public schooling, as well as the courts (and government in general) are secular institutions, so it came to no surprise when I learned of the words' removal years later.
However, this just means that I will witness my faith down other avenues. Is it really that big of a deal? Not to me, no, but I realize it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Then again, I'm more of a soft-spoken person when it comes to my religion. This has its advantages since I can talk to a lot of people who lost their beliefs or rebelled against them, more often than not due to bad past experiences, and show them that we're not all that bad. On the other hand, as individuals in faith we all have different ways of expressing it and sharing it with others. I'm not going to attack my fellow Christians who want to institutionalize religion with anything government-related, but I do think they should focus their energy on fights that haven't been lost.
I don't get why people get worked up over this? Believe don't believe its your choice and people should just let people live believing in whatever. People get way to over offended over things on both sides. Both sides have retarded people who taunt or are aggressive towards the other sides. Who cares if two words are in the pledge? People shouldn't have to have people shouting "PROVE IT" or "DISPROVE IT" to each other.
Basically: Just shut the fuck up with the God vs No God shit since it is literally impossible for either side to win.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something.
And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers:
I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it?
I responded to that with:
Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated.
and
The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally:
wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha
And then my response:
Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind.
and
This is what I want to avoid.
This was the hawaiian guy's response to that:
Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come.
To which I replied:
The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness.
She then replied on her post:
oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p
Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted.
I'm not going to attack my fellow Christians who want to institutionalize religion with anything government-related, but I do think they should focus their energy on fights that haven't been lost.
Would you feel differently were Christianity not the majority religion?
Easy to say "I'm not going to disagree with the people who share my views attempting to institute their faith as law."
Would you feel differently in a different situation? Say with a Pagan majority? Perhaps I wish to have every Esbat as a federal holiday, a stance which would affect many jobs and schools.
Might you change your views on religion affecting government were it not your views being legislated?
That's not a very good graph. It assumes only two variables whereas that is not the case. In fact if you look, there is a greater emphasis/impact due to region than to "religiousness".
It's so huge that the whole gimmick of being American is that you have the freedom to preach and believe whatever you want and yet the pledge suggests that all Americans are under a single god.
From a modern perspective, not much good has came out of a country with a single state religion. In my opinion, a lot of countries with state religions are being held back. People are being oppressed just because they don't worship a certain religion.
I believe in God and Jesus as personal Saviour. I also believe in separation of Church and State. I'm not an American so I can't really comment, but I do think that the pledge of allegiance should in some way omit the "under God" for those that don't want to say it. In Australia, during the citizenship ceremony swear-in, we were given 2 options on what to say - one included God and the other doesn't.
I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
What I don't accept is that for those that wish to omit the "under God" part is somehow considered unpatriotic, etc.
On January 17 2011 18:15 Azzur wrote: I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
Please explain to me how intelligent design is science. Also, could you clarify whether or not you believe evolution is a real phenomenon?
On January 17 2011 18:15 Azzur wrote: I believe in God and Jesus as personal Saviour. I also believe in separation of Church and State. I'm not an American so I can't really comment, but I do think that the pledge of allegiance should in some way omit the "under God" for those that don't want to say it. In Australia, during the citizenship ceremony swear-in, we were given 2 options on what to say - one included God and the other doesn't.
I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
What I don't accept is that for those that wish to omit the "under God" part is somehow considered unpatriotic, etc.
In America anyway;
Absolutely not. Intelligent design is not a science, it is religion disguised under a disgusting term, thats all it is. And thats against our rights as Americans to have that forced down our throat in schools, even as an "option". Even if the students are told that what they are learning is religion, it still wouldn't work.
A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote: A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
On January 17 2011 05:21 Kalingingsong wrote: a side comment to help noob atheists out there:
trying to reason people out of religion is like trying to reason a person out of their fear of spiders.
you really should try a different approach: aka wear a spider suit until they start to think spiders are stupid instead of scary.
You shouldn't be reasoning anybody... I'm tired of both Atheists and Religious nut jobs preaching... how bout we all stfu?
I do agree that there are certainly a lot of obnoxious religious people out there. But if I may use a TL example, the majority of posters are pretty decent but a few bad apples can ruin the experience for a lot of people. This analogy applies to many things, including religion. My point is that religion is viewed as a taboo subject. For instance, talking about God is nowhere as socially acceptable as talking about your favourite sports team, for instance. I'm saying that this shouldn't be the case; but the religious people do need to be sensitive when approaching this subject.
Saying that "I went to church yesterday" as part of a conversation I think it's a non-invasive topic (but some ppl still feel that this is a bit taboo?), but unwanted preaching crosses the line.
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote: A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
I won't argue too much about the specifics of creation and intelligent design because this will drag the post off-topic. But in a free country, people should be free to be able to do and learn what they want (provided of course it doesn't break the law). Many people, for instance, are not atheists, but rather agnostic (i.e. don't know what to believe). Shouldn't they be allow to freely explore and take in information and then make up their own minds?
A lot of the world has not been discovered yet. For instance, it is now known that Einstein's theory is now incomplete (because of quantum physics).
you wanna offer a class on religion or paranormal beliefs you can talk about intelligent design all you want. but its not science, it has no place being taught alongside evolution. and evolution is in no way related to atheism.
also children are built to be impressionable, its irresponsible to teach them everything and hope they figure out whats right. if there are opposing view points that both have merit then yes, both should be taught. but mentioning intelligent design in the same breath as evolution is laughable.
I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
But to address the OP, I do feel that the facebook post is over the top because it implies that they are deliberately making the facebook post because they "don't care about offending people". A deeper implication is also perhaps that anyone who is offended is possibly unpatriotic? This is where I believe it crosses the line.
Instead, if the facebook poster posted the pledge of allegiance and said I'm a proud American (without the offend part), then it's probably ok. Religious people need to be aware that some of their actions may be construed as obnoxious.
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote: I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
"weaknesses" in the theory tend to be holes that have yet to be filled, not evidence that the whole theory is possibly wrong. People advocating intelligent design seem to advocate the latter idea, which is completely wrong.
It's like gravity: even though physicists have quantum mechanics understood to over 12 significant digits, the gravitational constant has only been measured down to 4 or 5, and the whole theory of gravity seems to be incomplete as of this moment. That does not undermine the entire idea nor cast a shadow upon what we already know: bodies with mass attract, for the most part, by a very well understood mathematical equation. Weaknesses are not suggestions that the whole thing is wrong, they are just slight adjustments that we've yet to find how to make.
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote: I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
Should we teach geocentrism alongside astronomy too while we're at it?
On January 17 2011 18:15 Azzur wrote: I believe in God and Jesus as personal Saviour. I also believe in separation of Church and State. I'm not an American so I can't really comment, but I do think that the pledge of allegiance should in some way omit the "under God" for those that don't want to say it. In Australia, during the citizenship ceremony swear-in, we were given 2 options on what to say - one included God and the other doesn't.
I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
What I don't accept is that for those that wish to omit the "under God" part is somehow considered unpatriotic, etc.
Do you think that intelligent design should be taught in a theology class or in a science class? That's where the debate actually is. See, intelligent design isn't scientific. All the "research" that the intelligent design proponents have claimed to have done, has either been God of the Gaps fallacious arguments that have been debunked thoroughly by scientific evidence, or just claims to the idea that maybe a god could have done it. Not all opinions are as informed as each other. Evolution is, by now, a fact. You have DNA evidence, fossil evidence, multiple types of radiometric dating, that all meet up and confirm the same thing. They do not contradict each other. How everything evolved may be in some debate with people, but the fact of evolution itself is not any kind of controversial subject among the scientific community, it's an established fact. It's as established as gravity, light, time, etc...
Also people are free to express what their religion is, but teaching things to children require those things to be factual, when it comes to science. I'm all for a theology class teaching the idea of intelligent design, but I also want them to equally teach of ancient religions, modern religions, pagan religions. I want them to teach the archaeological evidence of the polytheistic ancient hebrews from the old testament, the linguistic evidence, the historical evidence that the bible was written and rewritten. That at times the hebrews worshipped Baal, Ashtoreth, Yahweh, Elohim (many gods, it's the plural word for lord). I would like them to thoroughly teach everything we know from history of all of the religions. We currently do not teach an equal picture that would give a grand perspective of all the religions. You are right, religion is a taboo subject, because if they actually taught religion in an academic light, like any other class, schools would turn into atheist machines.
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote: A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
That doesn't sound like a lot of scientists to me. It sounds like the minority. Also there have been studies on religiosity versus level of education. All of these studies showed that on average, the more education people received from college, the less religious they were.
People are free to learn what they want, but intelligent design isn't science, it should be taught in theology class.
Intelligent designs claims can be debunked, and what it proposes, that a supernatural being is pulling the strings, is not falsifiable. Science by definition, the theories, must be falsifiable. A giant teapot in the sky could be pulling the strings, but that theory is not falsifiable so it has no place in the science class.
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote: I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
But to address the OP, I do feel that the facebook post is over the top because it implies that they are deliberately making the facebook post because they "don't care about offending people". A deeper implication is also perhaps that anyone who is offended is possibly unpatriotic? This is where I believe it crosses the line.
Instead, if the facebook poster posted the pledge of allegiance and said I'm a proud American (without the offend part), then it's probably ok. Religious people need to be aware that some of their actions may be construed as obnoxious.
The optional unit should be a theology class. Where every supernatural "theory" is taught as equal, including the theory of zeus, apollo, the theory of fairies, and the theory of titan carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Flat earth theory should be taught as well.
Where is the weakness of the theory of evolution, please indulge us. Maybe you are misinterpreting why it is called a theory. The word theory in this context is the equivalent of a mathematical theorum. Meaning there is overwhelming evidence backing up the model of evolution. A scientific theory is a model that the evidence pieces fit into. Evolution has not contradicted itself. The claims that many intelligent design proponents make to it being weak, have either been debunked (the eye, the bacterial flagellum), or been explained (piltdown man).
Well my argument is that the facebook poster was simply historically ignorant.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something.
And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers:
I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it?
Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated.
The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally:
wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha
Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind.
Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come.
The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness.
oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p
Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted.
I'm going to say it outright: that girl's beyond hope for both 1. understanding politics and 2. understanding why her religion can be so damaging. I've met numerous people like her, none of them have changed no matter how much I've cited evidence and discussed the stuff you've discussed at length. These people just don't change, they've been trained at a very young age to not question the authorities that have given them the answers, where they should have been given questions.
I hope for your sake I'm wrong, and you should give starting a dialogue with her another shot, but don't waste enormous energy on people like her, there's better discussions to be had.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something.
And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers:
I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it?
Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated.
The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally:
wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha
Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind.
Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come.
The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness.
oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p
Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted.
I'm going to say it outright: that girl's beyond hope for both 1. understanding politics and 2. understanding why her religion can be so damaging. I've met numerous people like her, none of them have changed no matter how much I've cited evidence and discussed the stuff you've discussed at length. These people just don't change, they've been trained at a very young age to not question the authorities that have given them the answers, where they should have been given questions.
I hope for your sake I'm wrong, and you should give starting a dialogue with her another shot, but don't waste enormous energy on people like her, there's better discussions to be had.
I'm from QC and my gf is from TX, originally she was very very religious (christian), and I kinda turned her into more of a deist or something. It's a good upgrade as her point of view is approaching sanity.,
Btw, I attended a Catholic High School (lol) and I actually did take a religious class that taught me the theory of intelligent design. Even in freshmen year of high school, I could tell it was utter bs. The main proof that the teacher kept using was that in order to create life there have to have like ~32 conditions met and with all the planets that are known to us, it is statistically impossible for an "Earth" to happen again in the universe unless it was done by a higher being.
On January 18 2011 03:26 Wyred wrote: Btw, I attended a Catholic High School (lol) and I actually did take a religious class that taught me the theory of intelligent design. Even in freshmen year of high school, I could tell it was utter bs. The main proof that the teacher kept using was that in order to create life there have to have like ~32 conditions met and with all the planets that are known to us, it is statistically impossible for an "Earth" to happen again in the universe unless it was done by a higher being.
On January 18 2011 03:26 Wyred wrote: Btw, I attended a Catholic High School (lol) and I actually did take a religious class that taught me the theory of intelligent design. Even in freshmen year of high school, I could tell it was utter bs. The main proof that the teacher kept using was that in order to create life there have to have like ~32 conditions met and with all the planets that are known to us, it is statistically impossible for an "Earth" to happen again in the universe unless it was done by a higher being.
I attended a Catholic school from elementary to high school and intelligent design was never ever taught. I guess it's different per school board.
Intelligent design is a more reasonable alternative to adam and eve, and magic talking snakes. I'm sure that's what the catholic church would rather have you learn than intelligent design, which doesn't show any affiliation with any specific god.
On January 17 2011 21:29 IdrA wrote: you wanna offer a class on religion or paranormal beliefs you can talk about intelligent design all you want. but its not science, it has no place being taught alongside evolution. and evolution is in no way related to atheism.
also children are built to be impressionable, its irresponsible to teach them everything and hope they figure out whats right. if there are opposing view points that both have merit then yes, both should be taught. but mentioning intelligent design in the same breath as evolution is laughable.
What IdrA said. It's simply not science. And the children being built to be impressionable is demonstrable through the evolutionary explanation by observing many different species of mammals and their behavior as children. BTW IdrA commented on my blog yay. Glad to see my favorite zerg is on the same page as me on this subject.
Maybe you have the right to learn whatever you want but at least where i live you do not have the right to teach made up bullshit like intelligent design thats not proven in any way at university or a school. If you want to learn about intelligent design and stuff go an watch some youtube videos or conspiracy homepages
What peaple dont understand is, that the principle of the survival of the fittest in an ever changing envoirment is really literally intelligent design.
Anybody who would make all that 1.25 million complex animal life forms and all the plants and microscopic lifeforms by itself is pretty dumb.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
Thats because it IS a fact.
Intelligent design is merely a cloaked religion under as I said, disgusting terms. It tries to sound "intelligent" but falls off quickly.
"What peaple dont understand is, that the principle of the survival of the fittest in an ever changing envoirment is really literally intelligent design."
No, horribly wrong.
Intelligent design implies design, nothing here was "designed" sorry. It's called adaptation, not intelligent design.
On January 18 2011 07:57 guN-viCe wrote: I think the whole god thing in the pledge of allegiance doesn't even matter. It's kind of missing the bigger picture(devotion to your country).
How the fuck did we get to evolution and intelligent design? The topic was "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. This is why the Internet's not allowed to talk about religion, it all just... goes to hell.
For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need.
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it.
On January 18 2011 11:08 Jacobine wrote: For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need.
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it.
See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it.
The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular.
All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that).
I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound?
I wonder if people could accept this? That none of us know. You can't say there is a God, you can't say there is not a God. You cannot prove the existence of a God, you cannot disprove it. If you claim to have absolute knowledge of God's existence, or lack thereof, I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, to see how you know this thing.
I was reading Plato's Apology today, and it made me start to think, that was the result as far as this thread is concerned.
On January 18 2011 13:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound?
I wonder if people could accept this? That none of us know. You can't say there is a God, you can't say there is not a God. You cannot prove the existence of a God, you cannot disprove it. If you claim to have absolute knowledge of God's existence, or lack thereof, I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, to see how you know this thing.
I was reading Plato's Apology today, and it made me start to think, that was the result as far as this thread is concerned.
The way I see it it's really simple: you are an atheist because you do not believe in any deity(s) or whatever random fantasies you will find in old texts written by bitter old men or whoever writes them.
If you don't actively believe in a god or religion you are an atheist since you are not a theist, there's really nothing else to it that matters in my opinion.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway?
Featured on that website is a statement signed by over 700 scientists that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.". To sign that statement, they must "either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine". At the very least, we can say that a significant minority of reputable scientists do not accept Neo-Darwinism wholesale.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway?
IdrA's mind or your mind or my mind are mostly irrelevant in considering what a legitimate biologist is. The scientific community has its own methods. These methods involve clarifying knowledge over time with new evidence. Evolution by natural selection (I assume you wouldn't be daft enough to dismiss evolution by artificial selection) is no longer the baby of a few scientists in the 19th century (although you don't say this, the page you link is dissent from Darwin, who is long dead). Basically the central theorem of biology *is* evolution by natural selection. Skepticism is laudable, but don't turn it into ignorance-fueled bigotry.
On January 18 2011 13:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound?
But you ought to acknowledge that there is no evidence in favor of any supernatural cosmogony or especially interfering gods. Particularly there is no evidence for any such claim made by your fellow man (who have the same mammalian brain you have).
Edit: A good point is that while there are disputes within evolution by natural selection (as you would expect in science), there isn't serious dissent from evolution.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway?
IdrA's mind or your mind or my mind are mostly irrelevant in considering what a legitimate biologist is. The scientific community has its own methods. These methods involve clarifying knowledge over time with new evidence. Evolution by natural selection (I assume you wouldn't be daft enough to dismiss evolution by artificial selection) is no longer the baby of a few scientists in the 19th century (although you don't say this, the page you link is dissent from Darwin, who is long dead). Basically the central theorem of biology *is* evolution by natural selection. Skepticism is laudable, but don't turn it into ignorance-fueled bigotry.
All right then, I guess you agree that none of us laymen have the right to state "no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design".
Ignorance-fueled bigotry is not the aim at all. Rather, I'd just like to submit that scientists with good credentials dissent from Neo-Darwinism(not simply Charles Darwin as you might assume from the URL). I'm happy to see you agree skepticism is laudable.
My god, over half that list is people who work in other fields like mathematics or engineering. How many were lured there by the language of rational skepticism, and you think the list is a point for intelligent design? Do I have this right? A list of people with a belief is by no means an argument, evidence, an insightful piece of material, or remotely convincing of anything. It's ambiguous and ultimately impotent. At best it's a statistic.
On January 18 2011 23:04 Derme wrote: All right then, I guess you agree that none of us laymen have the right to state "no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design".
I think emancipation from being a layman comes from being able to read, and when biologists say "we by and large dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience, and when we do accept it and other religious beliefs, specifically divorce these personal beliefs from the world of science," it's not a stretch for a skeptical mind to take their word.
I'm fine with it being a statistic. From the start I was saying I just wanted to point out there is a significant minority of good scientists dissenting from Neo-Darwinism, and I see many biologists and chemists along with the engineers and mathematicians.
Saying "we by and large dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience, and when we do accept it and other religious beliefs, specifically divorce these personal beliefs from the world of science," does not actually mean nobody believes in intelligent design and does not mean there isn't a significant minority. In any case, I'm not interested in discussing intelligent design as much as showing there is dissent against Neo-Darwinism(again).
Edit:
On January 18 2011 23:40 oBlade wrote: you think the list is a point for intelligent design? Do I have this right?
No, I don't think the list constitutes any form of evidence for Intelligent Design. All I'm saying is that it's a LIST that shows there are many scientists with good credentials that dissent. In other words, the list actually lists a fairly great number of good scientists that dissent. Hence, there is a significant minority that do not agree with Neo-Darwinism. Choose to make of that what you will, but to me it says the case for Neo-Darwinism is not water-tight.
On January 18 2011 23:56 Derme wrote: I'm fine with it being a statistic. From the start I was saying I just wanted to point out there is a significant minority of good scientists dissenting from Neo-Darwinism, and I see many biologists and chemists along with the engineers and mathematicians.
Saying "we by and large dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience, and when we do accept it and other religious beliefs, specifically divorce these personal beliefs from the world of science," does not actually mean nobody believes in intelligent design and does not mean there isn't a significant minority. In any case, I'm not interested in discussing intelligent design as much as showing there is dissent against Neo-Darwinism(again).
On January 18 2011 23:40 oBlade wrote: you think the list is a point for intelligent design? Do I have this right?
No, I don't think the list constitutes any form of evidence for Intelligent Design. All I'm saying is that it's a LIST that shows there are many scientists with good credentials that dissent. In other words, the list actually lists a fairly great number of good scientists that dissent. Hence, there is a significant minority that do not agree with Neo-Darwinism. Choose to make of that what you will, but to me it says the case for Neo-Darwinism is not water-tight.
Intelligent design is not within the realm of science so I posit that it's completely inappropriate for "credited scientists" to comment on its possible validity. It's a matter of faith. It's like an engineer who studied nothing of theology saying "as an engineer, I will sign a petition supporting my belief in the miracles of Jesus." In that case, his credentials would be called a red herring, there's simply no logical connection between what said scientists know and what they're attempting to talk about. Skepticism of Darwinism itself is fine, but positioning intelligent design as its main opposing 'theory' is completely unscientific.
EDIT: having read your description of the link, I realize that that site doesn't have that much to do with ID. I apologize. However, your implicit suggestions that their acceptance of the validity of 'irreducible complexity' as an argument against Neo-Darwinism lends credence to intelligent design are offensive.
Intelligent Design Documentary A topic of debate that has affected religion and science a like is evolution. The theory of evolution has been a extraordinary advancement in science but has also created negative effects on communities with traditional religious beliefs such as in a rural town in Pennsylvania. What originally was a beautiful mural created by a high school student, depicting apes evolving into man, honoring the evolution theory, was burned to ashes by Bill Buckingham, a man who rejected the theory of evolution. Since this event, there have been multiple issues and controversies that have arisen over the theories. Bill Buckingham attempted to have textbooks redistributed that do not discuss the theory of evolution, but instead contain information on the intelligent design theory, which some experts refer as creationism in disguise. Aquinas would disagree with Bill Buckingham and possibly creation-science because it is demonstrates hypocrisy. Aquinas would not agree with these ideas because they went against everything he had learned through philosophy and his experiences. Aquinas would be the one to speak out against creation-science as it tries to hide its motive such as it replacing creationism with intelligent design in the first draft of the book, “Of Pandas and People.” This documentary offers many lessons that help me and others. Intelligent design only created more issues and controversy. This documentary perfectly describes the conflict that this whole case has caused and has caused this town to completely separate. It goes against our Christian values and promotes hypocracy. The intelligent design theory was designed to replace the evolution theory, because many people believed that it had multiple “gaps”. This replacement theory has been accepted by some of society, as well as being referenced by figures such as George W. Bush during his election, a president who supports the intelligent design theory. A study shows that roughly one-third of the US does not believe in the theory of evolution; intelligent design theory is the closest replacement content wise to creationism as it mentions an “intelligent agent” who created all life forms. The theory states that humans and animals were too complicated and complex to be created over time but were instead created at once and were only partly affected by evolution, such as an already existing species of bird that, over time and because of an environmental need, developed a larger beak. There is some, though not a large amount of evidence supporting the intelligent design theory, such as the bacterial flagellum, that is said to be too complex to be made from evolution. This evidence, has however been debunked, therefore leaving little tangible evidence to support this theory at this time. People seem to have replace the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design for only two reasons: for one, it is the closest scientific theory about the creation of life to Christianity and other religions, as well as because it is considered a more “modern” discovery. It will take a long time to settle the debates such as one in Dover; school board officials apparently received sixty copies of a textbook by an anonymous donor that contains the intelligent design theory, called “Of Pandas and People”, that fails to mention the theory of evolution. Yet, it was later found that the school board itself bought the textbooks, though they may not have actually distributed the books to the children. However, the school board officials read a one minute statement to science classes, stating that there were “gaps” in the evolution theory, and would therefore teach intelligent design. Since this has taken place, several lawsuits have been filed including one filed by twelve parents against the school board. This lawsuit is known as Darwin v. God. In conclusion, scientific evidence collected up to this point still supports evolution as the prime factor in the development in human beings, the source of life as we know it on Earth. It has passed tests for nearly 100 years which is incredible for any scientific theory while Intelligent Design Theory is constantly being debunked.
Some of the things I talk about are from this video:
Interestingly enough, I had to write this last week. In case any of you haven't heard of this trial, it's basically about a group of parents suing a school board because they were trying to teach intelligent design. School board was a bunch of hypocrites.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway?
Featured on that website is a statement signed by over 700 scientists that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.". To sign that statement, they must "either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine". At the very least, we can say that a significant minority of reputable scientists do not accept Neo-Darwinism wholesale.
1. List included anyone with a PH.D, not just biology related degrees 2. Using the terms "Darwinism\Neo-Darwinism" as if they mean anything 3. Quotes people talking about abiogenesis, not evolution (learn the difference)
Pretty good clues you\the website have no idea what you are talking about.
And finally religious belief is yours, not everyone's. This country is about freedom. It was founded on the principles of people fleeing from the catholic church, as protestants. The founding fathers were fighting against a theocracy for their freedom as a nation. Most of the founding fathers were deists, meaning they believed there was a god, but they had no belief in the Christian god. They publicly outcried against religion. Not to say they are right, but to proclaim that this is a Christian nation is only true in the sense that the majority of people that are citizens here are Christians. A country being secular, which ours is traditionally in practice governmentally, doesn't take away from your religious practices whatsoever. You are still allowed to teach your children everything you want to. You wouldn't want the schools to take over and teach your children your personal beliefs that you want to pass on to them would you? That's how it feels for atheist parents, like the government is trying to tell them that there isn't a such thing as raising a child as someone who makes up their own mind one day.
Just wanted to throw in my two cents here to the original topic (seems like we've gotten derailed into intelligent design?), as a Christian I agree with most of what's in the OP, though I just wanted to point out that only Ben Franklin was an outspoken proponent of Deism .. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's religious views are in controversy, with conflicting testimonies and evidence. Adams was Uniterian, John Jay was Anglican, and Alexander Hamilton was Presbyterian.
In any case, what's more important than their religious views is what they had fled from -- a suppressive feudal gov't that persecuted Protestants (as opposed to the ruling Catholics). It's interesting to note an excerpt from the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Further, an entry from Madison's papers includes:
Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....
If you read it carefully, these words seem to be spoken from the point of view of protecting religion from the government, not the other way around -- makes sense if you think about the cultural context of which it was written under.
As a Christian, as much as I think there is good that comes out of legislating "morals" and such, I'd rather lean towards the separation of church and state -- both in support of our individual freedoms, and also because for me it's not hard to imagine a time in the future where Christians may be persecuted by the law. (As they already are in other countries around the world)
On January 18 2011 11:08 Jacobine wrote: For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need.
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it.
See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it.
The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular.
All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that).
But yeah, think about it.
As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "God" is written on my money. I can still buy things with it.
I grew up saying "Under God" everyday at school for my entire public school life. I still grew up and came to my own conclusions about religion.
I do however care when someone else's religious beliefs start to hinder my personal freedoms.
And let's be frank. Christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past.
On January 18 2011 11:08 Jacobine wrote: For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need.
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it.
See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it.
The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular.
All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that).
But yeah, think about it.
As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "God" is written on my money. I can still buy things with it.
I grew up saying "Under God" everyday at school for my entire public school life. I still grew up and came to my own conclusions about religion.
I do however care when someone else's religious beliefs start to hinder my personal freedoms.
And let's be frank. Christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past.
Prison reform, mental hospital reform, abolitionism of slavery, women's right to vote, minority's equality, and caring for all kinds of sick (especially those dying of very infectious diseases like the plague and tuberculosis), orphaned, and the impoverished, to name a few things?
On January 18 2011 11:08 Jacobine wrote: For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need.
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it.
See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it.
The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular.
All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that).
But yeah, think about it.
As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "God" is written on my money. I can still buy things with it.
I grew up saying "Under God" everyday at school for my entire public school life. I still grew up and came to my own conclusions about religion.
I do however care when someone else's religious beliefs start to hinder my personal freedoms.
And let's be frank. Christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past.
Prison reform, mental hospital reform, abolitionism of slavery, women's right to vote, minority's equality, and caring for all kinds of sick (especially those dying of very infectious diseases like the plague and tuberculosis), orphaned, and the impoverished, to name a few things?
Don't forget the thousands of years of oppression and tortue, the support of slavery (god himself allows slavery, also they told slaves they'd go to heaven to make them feel better as slaves), hindering womens rights (men are better then women in the bible).
Oh, and the right to sacrifice people, the right to kill others for not believing what you believe, the right to rape, the right to kill your own children if they don't act well, the right to stone women. I can go on and on, but the poster before you was right, christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past. Religions definitely hindered our society more than it's helped.
On January 19 2011 02:23 Romantic wrote: 1. List included anyone with a PH.D, not just biology related degrees 2. Using the terms "Darwinism\Neo-Darwinism" as if they mean anything 3. Quotes people talking about abiogenesis, not evolution (learn the difference)
Pretty good clues you\the website have no idea what you are talking about.
I've already noted point 1 in the post you've quoted, but there are many biologists on that list as well. And it wasn't anyone with a PhD either (Doctors in Theology don't count). Reread my post maybe, and this time process the content or something.
Neo-Darwinism refers to evolution occurring through the process of random mutation and natural selection. Why doesn't it mean anything?
And finally, if you see the page containing the statement it signed, it says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life". Just in case you don't comprehend, that statement actually means the signatories are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism.
Shit, all I'm saying (reiterating for the umpteenth time) is that a number of scientists with good credentials are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism, and I offered proof. I really don't see what else there is to discuss. Is the possibility that the case for evolution isn't watertight so offensive?
On January 19 2011 02:23 Romantic wrote: 1. List included anyone with a PH.D, not just biology related degrees 2. Using the terms "Darwinism\Neo-Darwinism" as if they mean anything 3. Quotes people talking about abiogenesis, not evolution (learn the difference)
Pretty good clues you\the website have no idea what you are talking about.
I've already noted point 1 in the post you've quoted, but there are many biologists on that list as well. And it wasn't anyone with a PhD either (Doctors in Theology don't count). Reread my post maybe, and this time process the content or something.
Neo-Darwinism refers to evolution occurring through the process of random mutation and natural selection. Why doesn't it mean anything?
And finally, if you see the page containing the statement it signed, it says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life". Just in case you don't comprehend, that statement actually means the signatories are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism.
Shit, all I'm saying (reiterating for the umpteenth time) is that a number of scientists with good credentials are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism, and I offered proof. I really don't see what else there is to discuss. Is the possibility that the case for evolution isn't watertight so offensive?
700 vs thousands upon thousands.
You can find a group with more than 700 members that deny the suns existence.
You're right though, I don't know why they're arguing with you, your only point was that there are people that exist that disagree with credentials (albeit poor), but, for most, you didn't need to point that out.
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote: yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion.
Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time.
Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves)
Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control.
God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape.
Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe.
If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them.
Women are less than men.
And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death.
Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
Uh I would add that, "Christianity" doesn't do anything. People do things. Saying Christianity did this or that is sort of silly, the vague idea of Christianity doesn't do anything. That conversation will go nowhere.
On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote: yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion.
Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time.
Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves)
Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control.
God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape.
Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe.
If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them.
Women are less than men.
And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death.
Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics?
The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well).
Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them.
As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it.
Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?
Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally.
Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?
Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol
On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote: yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion.
Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time.
Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves)
Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control.
God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape.
Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe.
If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them.
Women are less than men.
And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death.
Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics?
The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well).
Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them.
As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it.
Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?
Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally.
Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?
Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol
"The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well)."
Oh cool, the new testament, well heres a quote from the bible that says you're wrong.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
And another
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
Yeah, sounds like a regular fucking bond servant picnic doesn't it?
"As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it."
"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
You're right, but the passage implies god was there with him, and didn't do a damn thing to stop it, instead, it implies he helped jephthah in the battle. Why is it that God can torture an innocent man to prove a point to the devil (job, had sin, but.... everyones born with it, and he sacrificed animals to make amends, wasn't enough apparently), and wont stop the sacrifice of this innocent girl? Sounds evil to me.
"Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?"
I assume you're trying to be amusing but....
There's an expression for this.
Cherry-Picking
Sure, devote your life to the bible and pick and choose what sounds right to you, it's not like it says to follow everything no matter what, I'm sure Jesus will be ok with that.
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)"
Oh.
" -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?"
No, I'm not going to argue your point that some Christians were good people, because thats beyond fucking obvious.
I'm arguing the point that it (christianity as a whole) hasn't been socially progressive. Those were peoples actions and words, not gods actions.
"Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside"
Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression.
On January 18 2011 13:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound?
I wonder if people could accept this? That none of us know. You can't say there is a God, you can't say there is not a God. You cannot prove the existence of a God, you cannot disprove it. If you claim to have absolute knowledge of God's existence, or lack thereof, I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, to see how you know this thing.
I was reading Plato's Apology today, and it made me start to think, that was the result as far as this thread is concerned.
The way I see it it's really simple: you are an atheist because you do not believe in any deity(s) or whatever random fantasies you will find in old texts written by bitter old men or whoever writes them.
If you don't actively believe in a god or religion you are an atheist since you are not a theist, there's really nothing else to it that matters in my opinion.
That would make me an implicit atheist, yes. Though I don't really consider myself that, as the term is rather too inclusive. When I say or hear "atheist" I think of explicit atheists, those who have made a conscious rejection of the idea of God, Religion, and Spirituality. I have not made the assertion: "There are no God's, nor spiritual beings, I know this beyond a doubt."
On January 18 2011 13:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound?
But you ought to acknowledge that there is no evidence in favor of any supernatural cosmogony or especially interfering gods. Particularly there is no evidence for any such claim made by your fellow man (who have the same mammalian brain you have).
Edit: A good point is that while there are disputes within evolution by natural selection (as you would expect in science), there isn't serious dissent from evolution.
I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a God as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering god exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a God as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering god exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
Let's try something here. Let's replace "God" with "magic teapot floating in space".
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a magic teapot floating in space as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering magic teapot floating in space exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a magic teapot floating in space, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a magic teapot floating in space. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
Do you see how wierd the argument sounds, even though both things have absolutely no solid proof that they do exist?
Because that's exactly how any atheist feels about any argument which makes the assumption that God already exists.....
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a God as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering god exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
Let's try something here. Let's replace "God" with "magic teapot floating in space".
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a magic teapot floating in space as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering magic teapot floating in space exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a magic teapot floating in space, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a magic teapot floating in space. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
Do you see how wierd the argument sounds, even though both things have absolutely no solid proof that they do exist?
Because that's exactly how any atheist feels about any argument which makes the assumption that God already exists.....
I did not argue that God exists? I personally do not believe that there is an interfering God who meddles in human affairs, but I do not assert to know that this is the case. I do not have the absolute knowledge that there is no god of any kind. Do you? I'd like to know how you came into possession of this knowledge. This same argument can be applied to many things. Do you know that human beings are equal? Do you know that you have free will? Do you know that you exist, and can you prove this to me? Many things that people take for granted and don't think closely about fail when put up to scrutiny. Many of the things we know aren't really absolute knowledge, they are assumptions and observations. The things we do know are comparatively small in number compared to what we do not know. I would just like it if everyone could acknowledge that they do not know everything they assert they do. I have yet to see anyone give a reason for or against any gods or spirituality that doesn't rest on: "But it is, I know it".
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing.
Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.
I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something.
And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers:
I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it?
Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated.
The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally:
wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha
Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind.
Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come.
The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness.
oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p
Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted.
Your female friend sounds like an idiot who is unable to debate logically and tries to laugh things off rather than engage as she is clearly out of her league. You should be straight up with her and call her out on her ignorance.
Just like you, I acknowledge that I do not know the answer.
But as soon as someone makes a claim for something, with no tangible evidence to support it, and preaches it as if it's the truth, and tries to make changes in politics, education, science, ethics, etc, using religion/spirituality/God as the basis of/for the need for the changes, I have a problem.
And that happens so fucking frequently.
And to say that things are "assumptions" and "observations", and they base our collective knowledge and they aren't absolute knowledge, while correct, is a massive misrepresentation of how accurate the knowledge we have actually is. Especially when you compare it to the alternatives.
EDIT - The fact is - Science cured Smallpox, not prayer. And by curing that one single disease, science has probably cured more people than the number of recorded "miracle" cures have. I'll take our "assumptions" and "observations" over the alternatives, any day.
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote: I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
But to address the OP, I do feel that the facebook post is over the top because it implies that they are deliberately making the facebook post because they "don't care about offending people". A deeper implication is also perhaps that anyone who is offended is possibly unpatriotic? This is where I believe it crosses the line.
Instead, if the facebook poster posted the pledge of allegiance and said I'm a proud American (without the offend part), then it's probably ok. Religious people need to be aware that some of their actions may be construed as obnoxious.
Can you PM me your e-mail address? I would like to e-mail you a copy of Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth.
On January 19 2011 11:27 Impervious wrote: Just like you, I acknowledge that I do not know the answer.
But as soon as someone makes a claim for something, with no tangible evidence to support it, and preaches it as if it's the truth, and tries to make changes in politics, education, science, ethics, etc, using religion/spirituality/God as the basis of/for the need for the changes, I have a problem.
And that happens so fucking frequently.
And to say that things are "assumptions" and "observations", and they base our collective knowledge and they aren't absolute knowledge, while correct, is a massive misrepresentation of how accurate the knowledge we have actually is. Especially when you compare it to the alternatives.
So it looks like we agree partially. That was in part what I meant when I said I disagree with those forcing their beliefs on others. I don't agree with any decision that has the potential to affect others who are not of the same way of thinking to be based upon religion. As soon as you say "I know there is a God, and he wills me to do this", or "He makes this right and I know!", we are going to have a problem. That is why I agree that religion should have no part in those kinds of changes and decisions, because most religion has turned away from being a belief to being an assertion. I have no problem with anyone's personal beliefs, if they want to believe in something, if they don't want to, whatever. I just think they should stay personal, and not enter into a sphere where you push them on other people, one way or another. As far as the United State go, I don't think they should be pushing Christianity into the schools. However, I'd have the same problem if they were pushing for children to be told there wasn't any gods in school, which obviously they aren't doing. It all falls under the same category, it does not matter what the beliefs are.
Also, I agree that what I said is more something abstract than anything most people would live their day to day lives by, or that applies in everyday context. I think most people would agree to eat a sandwich if they were starving than argue about its existence and meaning first. :p
The whole concept of "intelligent design" is just a ridiculous and outlandish attempt at validating creationism and the defense of its case, nothing more.
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
So you're an agnostic? To be honest, I consider myself an atheist, but by no means do I believe that I actually know anything about whether god(s) does or does not exist. Its just that if you would ask me to place a bet on whether or not there is a god(s), I would probably guess no.
The reason for this is based on the way I view religion. To me, religion is concerned with explaining the origin of the universe and human experience. I haven't really found a religion that provides a simpler explanation than god does not exist.
Let's take christianity for example. A lot of people who bash atheism complain that it doesn't explain anything. They point out that according to an atheist the world came from nothing and we're going nowhere and nothing really matters (roughly paraphrased). In other words atheism takes the lazy way out of not explaining anything. The funny thing is that attributing the creation of the universe to a deity really doesn't solve the problem of causality, and in fact it makes it really confusing.
By saying the world was created by a deity, there is still no causation for said deity. Of course you could argue that the deity was always there, but how is that really different from saying the world was always there?
If you want to see all the confusion that anthropomorphizing causation can bring, just look at the long history of christian theological disputes. Things like the trinity, communion, and miracles just make it so damn complex and confusing. Obviously there are religions which are simpler than many christian sects, but I haven't seen any that offer a simpler, more elegant explanation than there is not god.
I understand that for a lot of people explaining causality is not one of the reasons they appreciate religion. I believe that there are many religions which provide great moral lessons, but to me religion is something that unnecessarily complicates life without solving any of the problems it sets out to solve.
On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote: yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion.
Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time.
Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves)
Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control.
God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape.
Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe.
If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them.
Women are less than men.
And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death.
Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics?
The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well).
Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them.
As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it.
Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?
Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally.
Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?
Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol
"The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well)."
Oh cool, the new testament, well heres a quote from the bible that says you're wrong.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
And another
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
Yeah, sounds like a regular fucking bond servant picnic doesn't it?
"As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it."
"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
You're right, but the passage implies god was there with him, and didn't do a damn thing to stop it, instead, it implies he helped jephthah in the battle. Why is it that God can torture an innocent man to prove a point to the devil (job, had sin, but.... everyones born with it, and he sacrificed animals to make amends, wasn't enough apparently), and wont stop the sacrifice of this innocent girl? Sounds evil to me.
"Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?"
I assume you're trying to be amusing but....
There's an expression for this.
Cherry-Picking
Sure, devote your life to the bible and pick and choose what sounds right to you, it's not like it says to follow everything no matter what, I'm sure Jesus will be ok with that.
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)"
Oh.
" -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?"
No, I'm not going to argue your point that some Christians were good people, because thats beyond fucking obvious.
I'm arguing the point that it (christianity as a whole) hasn't been socially progressive. Those were peoples actions and words, not gods actions.
"Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside"
Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression.
Regarding the Mosaic law on slavery, you have to understand the times and what exactly was going on back then -- the Israelites and all the other tribes in the surrounding area were bitter enemies. The Israelites came and moved in, a dozen or so tribes didn't like that and they went to war with each other. As bad as you think the Israelites treated them, they treated the Israelites far, far worse. For example, they ran sledges (think spiked heavy sleds) over prisoners of war and used their living bodies for sacrifice, and that was after they sodomized them, brutalized and tortured them, blinded them, cut off their limbs, etc. etc. There are instances in the Old Testament where the Israelites would commit suicide rather than being captured by the enemy, and suicide was considered an extreme sin, that's how bad it was.
So yes, the Israelites did have slaves -- BUT, there was a justice system in place to protect them. Killing a slave was punishable. Crippled slaves were to be set free. Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were also considered free. Slaves also were to enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. And the law expressly prohibited rape, prostitution. Consider this compared to how Israelites' enemies treated them when they were captured. And it's not like the Israelites invented slavery -- the first account of slavery in the Bible in fact relates the Israelites as the slaves, not the slavers.
I don't want to pretend like slavery is an okay and good thing -- but Israel certainly did not invent it, and was probably one of the more compassionate practitioners of it (relatively). But what I"m wondering is how you go from Israelites being enslaved, to having a justice system for slaves, to Christians support slavery, to Christians oppress people, to Christians are the opposite of socially progressive?
Regarding your argument on why God is evil because He allows evil to occur ... first of all, it's a bit problematic when there's a little bit of evil in all of us? So does He forcibly make us all good with no free-will of our own? Keep in mind the Christian definition of good is to love God with all of our hearts mind soul and strength -- so in essence, if God were to take action in rectifying all evil, that would include forcing all humankind to love Him. That's pretty horrifying, and not something a loving God would do at all.
Second of all, God allowed Satan to inflict hardship upon Job -- who is responsible for that, Satan or God? To which I ask, to what extent do beings have free-will? And the other example, why would God allow that man to slay his daughter? (Or allow evil to happen at all)? I believe these are similar questions to the one in the prior paragraph -- to what extent can you stop someone from committing evil? If you had a son who was a heroin addict -- it's in his nature to seek heroin, he can't help himself (definition of addiction) -- what can you do to stop him from going back to heroin time and time again? Every solution you can think of takes away his freedom, his free-will, his ability to act.
Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful.
The problem is that there is sin in all of us. All of us have lied at least once, perhaps stolen, disobeyed our parents, mistreated our neighbor -- think about all the hours you've wasted at work, being a dishonest employee and not working honestly for your pay (lol, as I sit here typing from my office computer). If we were to go to a court where the judge was omniscent and knew exactly how much we owed every single person in the world for every misdeed we did to them -- who knows how much each of us would owe in total. If you could put it in numerical terms, the debt would be staggering. (And being an unruly child counts as a misdeed)
And it's worse than just a debt to be repaid -- sin, performing any misdeed or evil, corrupts the soul. Doing bad things corrupts your soul, it is a sad fact of life. It is for this reason that when you enter a holy place, when you get down on your knees to pray, there is a feeling of unworthiness, of shame and guilt. It is not religion brainwashing you into guilt-tripping you to be a better person -- it is your conscience remembering all your misdeeds, bringing you the knowledge that before a most holy God, you are unworthy to stand before Him, you are unable to look Him in the eyes for you know you have sinned...
But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. It is by this fundamental doctrine of forgiveness of sins that Christians do not kill their unruly children, nor do we exact justice for every single law and commandment in the Bible -- for our misdeeds have been forgiven.
TL;DR -- grace > sin. Apologies for length, and if I used any Christian lingo that's not clear to the rest of you =T
The problem is that we are all so concerned about what everyone else is doing that we forget that the only thing we should concentrate on is what we believe and stop inflicting our will on others. I dont mean forget about everyone else, rather forget about vague belief systems that others hold.
No one is going to change their fucking mind so stop trying to "convince them" with logic or argument. This world is going to shit anyway try to enjoy our time here in peace.
But if you think you're good at SC ill have something to say about it
P.S. for thread value I'll tell you that I never said the pledge because it's kind of stupid to recite a statement over and over when we are clearly a terrible terrible country that rapes the entire world.
I'm fairly apathetic about the pledge of allegiance, but the OP made some good points and if I had to choose a side, I'd say restore it to it's original form as intended by the forefathers.
I'm not offended at all by the "under God" though and I'm an ignostic/agnostic who isn't religious at all
On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote: yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion.
Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time.
Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves)
Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control.
God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape.
Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe.
If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them.
Women are less than men.
And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death.
Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics?
The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well).
Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them.
As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it.
Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?
Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally.
Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?
Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol
"The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well)."
Oh cool, the new testament, well heres a quote from the bible that says you're wrong.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
And another
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
Yeah, sounds like a regular fucking bond servant picnic doesn't it?
"As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it."
"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
You're right, but the passage implies god was there with him, and didn't do a damn thing to stop it, instead, it implies he helped jephthah in the battle. Why is it that God can torture an innocent man to prove a point to the devil (job, had sin, but.... everyones born with it, and he sacrificed animals to make amends, wasn't enough apparently), and wont stop the sacrifice of this innocent girl? Sounds evil to me.
"Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?"
I assume you're trying to be amusing but....
There's an expression for this.
Cherry-Picking
Sure, devote your life to the bible and pick and choose what sounds right to you, it's not like it says to follow everything no matter what, I'm sure Jesus will be ok with that.
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)"
Oh.
" -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?"
No, I'm not going to argue your point that some Christians were good people, because thats beyond fucking obvious.
I'm arguing the point that it (christianity as a whole) hasn't been socially progressive. Those were peoples actions and words, not gods actions.
"Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside"
Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression.
Regarding the Mosaic law on slavery, you have to understand the times and what exactly was going on back then -- the Israelites and all the other tribes in the surrounding area were bitter enemies. The Israelites came and moved in, a dozen or so tribes didn't like that and they went to war with each other. As bad as you think the Israelites treated them, they treated the Israelites far, far worse. For example, they ran sledges (think spiked heavy sleds) over prisoners of war and used their living bodies for sacrifice, and that was after they sodomized them, brutalized and tortured them, blinded them, cut off their limbs, etc. etc. There are instances in the Old Testament where the Israelites would commit suicide rather than being captured by the enemy, and suicide was considered an extreme sin, that's how bad it was.
So yes, the Israelites did have slaves -- BUT, there was a justice system in place to protect them. Killing a slave was punishable. Crippled slaves were to be set free. Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were also considered free. Slaves also were to enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. And the law expressly prohibited rape, prostitution. Consider this compared to how Israelites' enemies treated them when they were captured. And it's not like the Israelites invented slavery -- the first account of slavery in the Bible in fact relates the Israelites as the slaves, not the slavers.
I don't want to pretend like slavery is an okay and good thing -- but Israel certainly did not invent it, and was probably one of the more compassionate practitioners of it (relatively). But what I"m wondering is how you go from Israelites being enslaved, to having a justice system for slaves, to Christians support slavery, to Christians oppress people, to Christians are the opposite of socially progressive?
Regarding your argument on why God is evil because He allows evil to occur ... first of all, it's a bit problematic when there's a little bit of evil in all of us? So does He forcibly make us all good with no free-will of our own? Keep in mind the Christian definition of good is to love God with all of our hearts mind soul and strength -- so in essence, if God were to take action in rectifying all evil, that would include forcing all humankind to love Him. That's pretty horrifying, and not something a loving God would do at all.
Second of all, God allowed Satan to inflict hardship upon Job -- who is responsible for that, Satan or God? To which I ask, to what extent do beings have free-will? And the other example, why would God allow that man to slay his daughter? (Or allow evil to happen at all)? I believe these are similar questions to the one in the prior paragraph -- to what extent can you stop someone from committing evil? If you had a son who was a heroin addict -- it's in his nature to seek heroin, he can't help himself (definition of addiction) -- what can you do to stop him from going back to heroin time and time again? Every solution you can think of takes away his freedom, his free-will, his ability to act.
Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful.
The problem is that there is sin in all of us. All of us have lied at least once, perhaps stolen, disobeyed our parents, mistreated our neighbor -- think about all the hours you've wasted at work, being a dishonest employee and not working honestly for your pay (lol, as I sit here typing from my office computer). If we were to go to a court where the judge was omniscent and knew exactly how much we owed every single person in the world for every misdeed we did to them -- who knows how much each of us would owe in total. If you could put it in numerical terms, the debt would be staggering. (And being an unruly child counts as a misdeed)
And it's worse than just a debt to be repaid -- sin, performing any misdeed or evil, corrupts the soul. Doing bad things corrupts your soul, it is a sad fact of life. It is for this reason that when you enter a holy place, when you get down on your knees to pray, there is a feeling of unworthiness, of shame and guilt. It is not religion brainwashing you into guilt-tripping you to be a better person -- it is your conscience remembering all your misdeeds, bringing you the knowledge that before a most holy God, you are unworthy to stand before Him, you are unable to look Him in the eyes for you know you have sinned...
But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. It is by this fundamental doctrine of forgiveness of sins that Christians do not kill their unruly children, nor do we exact justice for every single law and commandment in the Bible -- for our misdeeds have been forgiven.
TL;DR -- grace > sin. Apologies for length, and if I used any Christian lingo that's not clear to the rest of you =T
Regarding the Mosaic law on slavery, you have to understand the times and what exactly was going on back then -- the Israelites and all the other tribes in the surrounding area were bitter enemies. The Israelites came and moved in, a dozen or so tribes didn't like that and they went to war with each other. As bad as you think the Israelites treated them, they treated the Israelites far, far worse. For example, they ran sledges (think spiked heavy sleds) over prisoners of war and used their living bodies for sacrifice, and that was after they sodomized them, brutalized and tortured them, blinded them, cut off their limbs, etc. etc. There are instances in the Old Testament where the Israelites would commit suicide rather than being captured by the enemy, and suicide was considered an extreme sin, that's how bad it was.
So yes, the Israelites did have slaves -- BUT, there was a justice system in place to protect them. Killing a slave was punishable. Crippled slaves were to be set free. Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were also considered free. Slaves also were to enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. And the law expressly prohibited rape, prostitution. Consider this compared to how Israelites' enemies treated them when they were captured. And it's not like the Israelites invented slavery -- the first account of slavery in the Bible in fact relates the Israelites as the slaves, not the slavers.
So two wrongs make a right according to gods law. Really neat. Yeah! They treated us horribly! Let's use them as slaves and beat them to near death! Also, no, killing a slave was not punishable, you didn't read my post which makes me not want to read yours. I quoted directly from the bible where it says if you beat them into a crippled state, they don't get punished, but if they die outright, they do.
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
That doesn't sound right to me, yet god thought it was fine then, why isn't it fine now? Oh, because you're cherry picking.
I don't want to pretend like slavery is an okay and good thing -- but Israel certainly did not invent it, and was probably one of the more compassionate practitioners of it (relatively). But what I"m wondering is how you go from Israelites being enslaved, to having a justice system for slaves, to Christians support slavery, to Christians oppress people, to Christians are the opposite of socially progressive?
Yeah, they're really compassionate. Luckily that justice system was in place so they could remain property, and have no rights so they can be beaten whenever. Sure sounds sweet.
Also, the Bible 100% supports slavery, if you can't make the connection from that to not being socially progressive, I don't know how I can help you. I also already said this, which you seemed to just ignore.
"Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression"
Meaning, the bible. You're assuming I'm meaning all christians ever, and as a whole, but I thought I clarified that in the quote above that I was talking about the morals of the bible, and how they are not progressive, at all.
Regarding your argument on why God is evil because He allows evil to occur ... first of all, it's a bit problematic when there's a little bit of evil in all of us? So does He forcibly make us all good with no free-will of our own? Keep in mind the Christian definition of good is to love God with all of our hearts mind soul and strength -- so in essence, if God were to take action in rectifying all evil, that would include forcing all humankind to love Him. That's pretty horrifying, and not something a loving God would do at all.
No god damnit, please fucking read my posts. I did state god is evil because he allows it to occur, true, but I also stated hes evil because he fucking IS evil. Read the pages that I linked and tell me hes a morally sound god. I have more morals than god or jesus would ever have, know why? Because I don't kill people for bets, I'm not a sick twisted individual and selfish to the point I have to force people to believe what I want, or I send them to eternal hellfire.
And before you say they're different, they're one in the same, and both have committed disgusting acts that would be punishable by prison or death in todays society.
Did you know in the cut books of the bible (yes, its HEAVILY edited), they said Jesus went around and made people old and die instantly when he was a kid? Pretty fucking cool, but still a dick.
Second of all, God allowed Satan to inflict hardship upon Job -- who is responsible for that, Satan or God? To which I ask, to what extent do beings have free-will? And the other example, why would God allow that man to slay his daughter? (Or allow evil to happen at all)? I believe these are similar questions to the one in the prior paragraph -- to what extent can you stop someone from committing evil? If you had a son who was a heroin addict -- it's in his nature to seek heroin, he can't help himself (definition of addiction) -- what can you do to stop him from going back to heroin time and time again? Every solution you can think of takes away his freedom, his free-will, his ability to act.
Lol, freewill + religion, you had me going there for a second. Ok.
God has the power to create the entire fucking earth, god claims hes omnipotent, god claims he's good, god claims hes all powerful, god intervenes with human lives in the past, god allows the devil to exist, god KILLS 2,476,633 people yet he can't intervene for worry of harming our free-will?
You wanna know the best thing that god could have done to prove he was real to all the people on Earth? Is if he told everyone about germs. Why didn't he do that? Simple yeah? They're his creations yeah? Why would he not want to prove himself? Instead, the bible is filled with stories that was written hundreds of years after everything happened. And he expects everyone to believe it. Genius plan.
You claim him helping hurts free-will, well him doing jack-shit doesn't exactly win me over either.
Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful.
Man, darn that sin! Always messing everything up!
No man, I'm not the one cherry-picking. You choose to follow everything else in the bible, except the parts you don't like, even though Jesus said you should follow his law until everything is done (including the old testament), thats the definition of cherry-picking.
Because I point out the evilness in the bible (which there is a shit-ton of) doesn't mean I'm "cherry-picking", thats stupid, I'm simply pointing out things in the bible that are morally horrendous. I know there are decent laws in the bible, I acknowledge this. The reason YOU are cherry-picking, is because you choose to follow certain things in the bible, but not the rest.
Do you understand the difference?
Me, point things out. Majority of christians (I'd say all actually, It's probably impossible to follow the bible top to bottom, as you'd be dead quickly), follow the bible half-assed.
But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. It is by this fundamental doctrine of forgiveness of sins that Christians do not kill their unruly children, nor do we exact justice for every single law and commandment in the Bible -- for our misdeeds have been forgiven.
No no no no no no no no no.
I'm going to assume you're talking about Jesus. You're saying the "perfect life that he had lived". Jesus killed people, he was not perfect, he'd be considered a mass-murderer by todays standards. Jesus is the god of the old testament yes? If so (I know I already basically said this), I have better morals than god or jesus will ever have. I don't torture people for disagreeing with me, I don't let millions of people not hear my word, then punish them in eternal hellfire, I don't "act in mysterious ways" and kill some here, save some here, because I'm a morally sound human being, and I get my morals from a far better place than the bible, myself.
Bravo happyft! I have to say it is refreshing to read responses from someone who sincerely studies God's Word. You obviously love Him and want to know more about Him. The Bible is hard to understand, but as you are demonstrating, it can be understood. God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. The old covenant is hard to comprehend because we live under a new covenant with Jesus. The old cerimonial law was good, but it's time is now past. No one puts new wine in an old wineskin right? Don't misunderstand though, the moral law will never pass away. Love one another as you love yourself and love the Lord your God above all things.
I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
During the supreme court case, evidence was presented that those trying to introduce intelligent design into the public school system had printed text books where there were several instances of "intelligent design" embedded within the word "creationism", e.g. creaintelligent designtionism. This was pretty much the lynch pin that demonstrated intelligent design was simply a cover and way to introduce a renamed creation theory into the public curriculum, as all these instances (among others) demonstrated intelligent design was simply a re-branding of creation theory.
Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful.
What's wrong with cherry-picking a few verses from a book which asserts the claim that it is in whole infallible?
On January 20 2011 01:36 happyft wrote: But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived.
On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes.
Hi, these are arbitrary beliefs that you two have obviously heard from Church. If you were to read the Bible from scratch without having any prior Christian or Church upbringing these would not be the conclusions you would come to regarding what the Bible itself actually says.
A blog post which I find to be quite insightful:
When I first began theological studies from a conservative Protestant background, I quickly found a universally accepted truth was that salvation was "by faith alone", it was "by grace" and that it was our duty to "rest" on "Christ's finished work". It was considered important to realize that we could "add nothing" to "Christ's atoning work". It was important that we didn't try to "save ourselves" by "human effort". It was extremely important not to add the least bit of "works" to salvation, otherwise you'd be like those (heretical) Roman Catholics and teach (evil) "Works Based Salvation".
Paul's writings about "by grace through faith not works" were considered "irrefutable proof" of this view. Anyone who said anything different was being "unbiblical" and "straying" from the Bible's teachings. Salvation by "human effort" was how "human religions" worked, and all humans who are "in the flesh" inherently by their psychology wanted to try to save themselves, whereas the fact that Christianity relied on God alone for salvation separated it from other religions and caused it to be "nonsense" and "foolishness" to the "natural man". I found that in some quarters there was even worry that our very belief in and acceptance of Christ's finished work for us might be considered something we do, as a work based on human effort that saves us. Thus, some thought that we ought to think of even our faith in Christ's finished atoning work as something given graciously to us by God.
However, now that I've learned a bit more than I once knew about both Pauline theology and the Church Fathers, it is with amusement that I look back on such ideas and claims.
Advances in biblical scholarship in the last thirty years have well and truly refuted the "irrefutable evidence" of Paul's grace, faith and works language... ironically it turned out that grace didn't mean grace, faith didn't mean faith, and works didn't mean works. The New Perspective on Paul has thus cast Paul's writings in quite a different light to the ideas above. Far from being the apostle who rejects the value of human effort, it in fact turns out that not once in any of his writings does Paul reject or deny the value or saving value of human effort to avail before God, and in fact he regularly affirms it.
Studying the early Church Fathers has been no less interesting. I find it reasonable to assume (contrary to some Protestants) that Christianity didn't suddenly disappear out of the world the moment that the New Testament was completed, and that post-NT Christian writings accurately depict the major doctrines of early Christianity. There's a quote by Clement of Alexandria (~200AD) that succinctly summarizes what appears to have been universal early Christian doctrine: "God desires us to be saved by our own efforts." (Stromata 6.12.96) As is attested in the numerous writings we have from the second century church, Christianity worldwide was a religion of "works based salvation".
It was with great amusement then, and also a little frustration and sadness that I recently read this article which made all the claims I had originally been taught as a conservative protestant about how the true gospel is about us trying to cease from human effort and rely on God's salvation. In the article he writes "We do not need a better set of how to's, or a better teacher, or a better therapist." which brought to my mind all the early Christian writings which boasted about Christianity providing precisely these three things. It is really quite amazing, when I reflect on it, that Christianity has come in such a full circle that this writer, in the belief that he is proclaiming the true Christian gospel can be attacking the very essence of original Christianity.
"Advances in biblical scholarship in the last thirty years have well and truly refuted the "irrefutable evidence" of Paul's grace, faith and works language... ironically it turned out that grace didn't mean grace, faith didn't mean faith, and works didn't mean works. The New Perspective on Paul has thus cast Paul's writings in quite a different light to the ideas above. Far from being the apostle who rejects the value of human effort, it in fact turns out that not once in any of his writings does Paul reject or deny the value or saving value of human effort to avail before God, and in fact he regularly affirms it."
This is claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?
"Studying the early Church Fathers has been no less interesting. I find it reasonable to assume (contrary to some Protestants) that Christianity didn't suddenly disappear out of the world the moment that the New Testament was completed, and that post-NT Christian writings accurately depict the major doctrines of early Christianity. There's a quote by Clement of Alexandria (~200AD) that succinctly summarizes what appears to have been universal early Christian doctrine: "God desires us to be saved by our own efforts." (Stromata 6.12.96) As is attested in the numerous writings we have from the second century church, Christianity worldwide was a religion of "works based salvation"."
1st: Clement wasn't comissioned by Jesus as an Apostle, Paul was. Peter (who Paul sometimes fought with) even told us that Pauls letters were inspired by God. Are you going to believe just anybody who tells you what God's will is?
2nd: And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. -First epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
This is why we shouldn't cherry-pick. Clement concludes the same way as Paul, but then exhorts us to behave morally.
On January 20 2011 06:58 gimpy wrote: This is claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?
Hurr durr... As he said... It is sourced in Biblical scholarship surrounding the New Perspective on Paul. It is an area too large to fit into a single post (your statement is equivalent to someone responding by saying: "Evolution is a claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?") - but feel free to read his links and the books he refers to on his blog: theogeek.blogspot.com.
On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: Bravo happyft! I have to say it is refreshing to read responses from someone who sincerely studies God's Word. You obviously love Him and want to know more about Him. The Bible is hard to understand, but as you are demonstrating, it can be understood. God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. The old covenant is hard to comprehend because we live under a new covenant with Jesus. The old cerimonial law was good, but it's time is now past. No one puts new wine in an old wineskin right? Don't misunderstand though, the moral law will never pass away. Love one another as you love yourself and love the Lord your God above all things.
I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
It makes me sad that Idra thinks our faith is abusurd. I've really been pulling for him!
You will never be employed as a scientist with that attitude (even less without a phd). I find your lack of curiosity disturbing. To me, your obsession is just a product of culture.
On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: Bravo happyft! I have to say it is refreshing to read responses from someone who sincerely studies God's Word. You obviously love Him and want to know more about Him. The Bible is hard to understand, but as you are demonstrating, it can be understood. God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. The old covenant is hard to comprehend because we live under a new covenant with Jesus. The old cerimonial law was good, but it's time is now past. No one puts new wine in an old wineskin right? Don't misunderstand though, the moral law will never pass away. Love one another as you love yourself and love the Lord your God above all things.
I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: Bravo happyft! I have to say it is refreshing to read responses from someone who sincerely studies God's Word. You obviously love Him and want to know more about Him. The Bible is hard to understand, but as you are demonstrating, it can be understood. God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. The old covenant is hard to comprehend because we live under a new covenant with Jesus. The old cerimonial law was good, but it's time is now past. No one puts new wine in an old wineskin right? Don't misunderstand though, the moral law will never pass away. Love one another as you love yourself and love the Lord your God above all things.
I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
On January 18 2011 11:08 Jacobine wrote: For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need.
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it.
See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it.
The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular.
All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that).
But yeah, think about it.
As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "God" is written on my money. I can still buy things with it.
I grew up saying "Under God" everyday at school for my entire public school life. I still grew up and came to my own conclusions about religion.
I do however care when someone else's religious beliefs start to hinder my personal freedoms.
And let's be frank. Christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past.
Prison reform, mental hospital reform, abolitionism of slavery, women's right to vote, minority's equality, and caring for all kinds of sick (especially those dying of very infectious diseases like the plague and tuberculosis), orphaned, and the impoverished, to name a few things?
Can you find scriptural basis that would religiously lead people to reforming prison? To reforming mental hospitals (mental hospitals or an equivalent didn't exist in the biblical age)? To the abolition of slavery (the bible is quite the proponent of slavery)? To giving women the right to vote (this one is hilarious, so many times in the bible it says in many different ways that women are hardly people, that they are the property of men, and should have no power in society at all and own no land)? To giving equality to minorities (this one is hilarious since the bible many times has the Jews kill people who are of different beliefs and different races, just for that reason, and they do it because god told them to)? And caring for all kinds of the sick, are you kidding me? Where in the bible does the germ theory of disease get explained? Nowhere in the bible does it say to wash your hands before you eat, and people didn't back then.
On January 20 2011 06:58 gimpy wrote: This is claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?
Hurr durr... As he said... It is sourced in Biblical scholarship surrounding the New Perspective on Paul. It is an area too large to fit into a single post (your statement is equivalent to someone responding by saying: "Evolution is a claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?") - but feel free to read his links and the books he refers to on his blog: theogeek.blogspot.com.
Oh god....all the New Perspective on Paul, New perspective on Jesus, blah, blah. That is completely not "scholarship" by any means. All that crap is, is trying to rearrange the Bible to fit what you believe, not vice-versa. If you believe the Bible, fine, believe it, go by it, live morally. It's really a great moral code if followed correctly. But I will never ever figure out why people basically invent something to believe in, then try and warp established doctrines and documents to fit their beliefs.
the "Republican" "God" of the USA is a god that condones war and racism. That promotes hate and closed mindedness instead of understanding and tolerance that is why its offensive. That god is more full of hate than the "Real" god in the bible well in some parts of the bible. If they really read the bible they would find out that God kills more people and infidels in The Bible than the Devil. The Bible has a lot of inconsistency and it has been interpreted in Millions yeah Millions of different ways and every Church sees the bible in a different way. The republican god is not the same as "my" god. I had prayer and religion classes in my school and most of my classmates are atheists or non practicing Catholics. I go to a Catholic University and had theology but no one really believes in GOD let alone that god that protects and serves America or any country. The real god in the united states is green and its called the Almighty dollar that is what really drives the capitalist free market America. Anyone that doesn't believe in it is ANTI AMERICAN yeah ANTI AMERICAN thats what these republicans believe in. As Frank Zappa said "well I dont think the world will improve, God gave up on everything when he created Republicans".
re the OP and the 'under God' phrase. It's a bit of a non-issue for me. Keep it or leave it, doesn't really matter. Actually, it might be better if it was gone. When American exceptionalism gets tied to Christianity and then the US steps into the international arena as a powerhouse. neo-imperialist, it gets messy. Many people will disagree, but I happen to think biblical principles are beneficial to both person and state. However, a little phrase in the constitution or whatever isn't going to change anything.
If America as a whole does not see Christianity as relevant or else sees the phrase as offensive- fighting a battle over the phrase is the wrong fight to fight.
Looking across the border, I tend to think politics and Christianity has gotten tied too closely together. I don't like how the Republicans seem to have the Evangelicals in their corner when many of their policies are just as counter-Christian as the Democrats- they just happen to talk Christianese come election time.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FbUyV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa372/nyrves/1278835850337.jpg)
