Why would athiests of any sort plan "anti-secular things" ?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular
DAwkins interviews creationist automaton
- Thread starter Ramirez
- Start date
Omar B
Senior Master
You know, if god was proven to exist that doesn't make me any more inclined to be a worshiper. Sure he would be there, and real, but I would throw my money in with the other guy ... yeah, Satan's pretty damn cool.
Well, he's got that sports car and the red tail and all.
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/tonia/maxwell/series.php
Frankly, I spent a lot of time in my younger days considering the teachings of people like Aleister Crowley. I've also spent time investigating the various mystery cults, from Thuggee to Hasan-i-Sabah. I read Robert Anton Wilson and everything I could get my hands on from Antero Alli and such writers, on topics from nootropics to energized meditation to vision quests. It's a lot of fun.
I still call myself a Catholic. No real reason for it.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
You know Bill, I'm going to disagree again. A bit.
I am not saying, and I don't think it is correct, that mutations and evolution are conscious decisions the same way that surgeries are (to alter appearance or function, remove dangerous aspects, implant beneficial ones). That would be choice, from a conscious point of view. But to say that it is completely random is a bit out as well. From that perspective, you could argue that the wolf-like ancestors of modern whales centuries and millenia after entering the oceans randomly evolved flippers instead of legs and feet/hands. Mutation is random, and typically leads nowhere. But evolution is not quite so random. It is the effects of the random interchange of differing genetic groupings, which may or may not lead to repeated traits being found in subsequent generations, often but not always related to the survivability of the species or individuals in question
But it is geared to specific circumstances. Those may include environment (the isolation of the Galapogos Islands, as well as Madagascar and other places), available food sources (more food often equals bigger animals, as well as resulting in specialised feeding methods), spread of available mates (big, showy displays when competition is fierce, loud calls when distance needs to be overcome), and more. Often, evolution can be a way to take a niche position in an ecosystem.
But sometimes evolution is just odd. White tigers have on survival advantage, but they are around (admittedly rare, surviving very rarely in the wild, it seems sometimes bred almost exclusively for Las Vegas magicians...), the Sabre-Tooths had a huge survival advantage, and while individual species may have had their time, the niche they occupied has not been filled (for the record, sabre-tooths as a trait have a very odd evolution cycle. They seem to evolve independantly, be present for a number of species over 10's of thousands of years, then disappear. Then, usually after a gap of another 10,000 years or so, they develop independantly again in another species! Oh, and the last known sabre-tooths were around about 10,000 years ago... just sayin'...), and then we have the Giant Panda.
The Giant Panda just doesn't want to survive from a Darwinian point of view. It is a carniverous animal that lives a solitary life, has adapted to eating only a few species of bamboo (which it's digestive system is not designed to process) which only grows outside of the Panda's habitat (they live high on the mountain, the bamboo grows low), and to top it off, they only learn behaviour by witnessing it. In other words, even if you get two Panda's together, and they happen to be male and female, unless they have already witnessed two Panda's mating, they will be unsure of what to do (and that is not easy when they live such solitary lives!). I;m all for saving the Panda's, but really, they have to make some effort, yeah? But these are all cases of evolution not following the survival of the fittest/strongest that most simplify it down to.
I would be very hesitant to say that "evolution does not have an intent", then follow that by stating that it favours the survival of the species. That could be taken as being contradictory. But I see evolution as a process, so assigning it intent, I agree, is wrong. However, to state that it is simply random chance is denying the purpose evolution plays. While not necessarily a directed action (a creature doesn't just wake up in the morning, and think "you know what, I think I'd like to have thumbs!"), it is a guided process, by the methods and influences listed above.
Oh, and while not consciously being aware of it, on a species level, I think the staph bacteria were aware they were being targeted, and the mutation is part of their survival strategy. It's the same as animals in cold environments developing (evolving) thick coats.
* * * (while I was answering you posted again, so I may as well address that one here as well, if you don't mind) * * *
You start by saying "We say that Christians have faith in the Christian concept of God, right?" , well that "concept" is your understanding. That is what I was refering to.
I'm going to copy and paste your posted statements from my e-mail notification, as it hasn't come up on this page for me yet. For the record, all bold statements are originally posted by Bill Mattocks.
However, let's say that today, the Christian God appears and makes it clear to all and sundry that He exists and is real. Consider for the sake of argument that God has been proven to exist.
Good hypothetical. I accept. But He needs to prove also that He is God. I will accept for now that He has doent hat as well.
Now, one can say that people who continue to believe in God are no longer engaging in faith, but are instead choosing to believe in something that can be proven.
Yes, that is in fact exactly what I would say. They would be operating on a value and belief system based on established facts, not faith.
However, what was it when God had not proven Himself? Was it faith then? After all, God existed then too, He just had not proven Himself to exist.
Yes, without proof faith is all you can have. The existance can be debated, but without the proof all you have is faith. That is the core of the definition.
Faith, then, is not belief without the requirement of proof. There was proof that God existed the day before He showed Himself, we just didn't know it. Faith yesterday was belief without understanding.
Yes, faith is belief without proof. By your very example above, which is a very cogent example of how faith operates. The difference here seems to be in the word "understanding". As I am using it, understanding is not scientific proof. That is another concept entirely. Understanding is, rather, the ability to differentiate between one concept and another. If you have a concept of God (that is personal to you), and you can differentiate it from the God of Islam, or the Gods (and Goddesses) of Hindu, or the Roman, Greek, and Ancient Egyptian Deities, or the Native American Great Spirit, or the Japanese shamaistic Shinto animal and nature reverance, then you have an understanding. If you did not have this, you could not truly have faith.
The facts didn't change in my hypothetical situation. God existed yesterday, but without proof. God exists today, but now with proof. Believers have not changed, the facts have not changed, only their understanding has changed.
No, I would say that knowledge would have changed, possibly understanding as well. But understanding would not have suddenly appeared where it previously was not. It would simply have evolved to adapt to the new environment (to survive...). Yesterday people believed in God with a personal understanding of what they were doing, and who they were having faith in, today we have concrete evidence and knowledge of who and or what God is, and as a result have adapted our knowledge of the universe accordingly. Faith is out, but knowledge and belief remain.
That said, believers may still have faith that God is looking out for them specifically, even if He has no intention of doing so, wouldn't know who they are, or even care. That would be faith, belief without requiring proof. Unless of course, they walked up to God and demanded a showing of his protection of them, but I wouldn't advise that... and that sort of thing denies faith in itself. If I remember my Biblical studies, Deuteronomy states "Do not put your Lord God to the test as you did at Massah", which is referenced again in Luke's telling of Jesus' temptation in the desert ("It is written in the Scriptures, do not test the Lord your God"). I think that's right, might have to google it. My Bible is around here somewhere...
Understanding is a continuum. I know that 2+2=4 and can prove it. My understanding is based upon reality and is not a hypothesis and therefore it is not faith. However, I also know that God exists. I cannot prove it. My understanding may or may not be based on reality, and therefore it is faith.
Yeah, I really feel we are confusing my use of understanding with knowledge and facts. The 2+2=4 is simply knowledge and application of principles, not understanding. There is however an understanding of the concept of mathematics and numerical values.
My argument is that although evolution is real, many people who espouse belief in it cannot describe it correctly. They do not understand it, even though it can be understood. Their understanding is correct - it is true - but it is still faith, because of their tenuous grasp of it.
Hey, I can't fully explain why this particular chord structure sounds great on my guitar, but it's not a matter of faith as to whether or not it does. And again you are confusing understanding (I understand that through a biological process we call evolution species change and adapt over time) with particular knowledge (I know the genome structure of a species of South American tree-frog, and can chart the anatomical changes that have occured as a result of it's habitat being altered and it's food source being changed). This is not a case of faith. Faith would be belief without requiring proof (I believe that the reason the tree-frog is shaped the way it is is because it was made in a factory on Pluto by Mickey Mouses dog, and he really liked big hands on little green things).
I can have faith that it will rain tomorrow, and it may. I can have faith it will not rain, but it might rain anyway. I am not a meteorologist, shaman, or precognitor, so my understanding is based on faith, whether it turns out I am right or not.
Hmm, not sure if this is a good example for you to give, there are far too many ways for it to be countered. You can have faith that it will not rain despite the weather report saying there will be a storm, but that would be about it. But I think I get what you're getting at. To take it in a martial sense, you are saying that you have faith that you won't be attacked walking to your car after work. You may be attacked, you may not (hopefully not!), but there is no empirical way for you to know at this point in time (I'm leaving the concept of intuition out of this).
In this regard, that could be construed as faith, as you do not require proof as to whether or not you will be attacked before walking to your car. And if you do, that would be bordering on agoraphobia... But your belief is based without requiring the proof. You may require the hope, or the wish that you will not be attacked, but you do not require the proof.
You can also have faith in them winning just because you want that outcome very much, despite any odds against it. Faith does not care about odds. Faith is blind.
Ha, yes, you certainly can have faith based on hope, but again it is an understood situation. And blind faith is not a recommendation, and is usually used as a derogatory term to denigrade followers who cannot/do not think for themselves, but blindly only believe what they are told. As I believe I have said, that is far more in the realm of gullibility than true faith. True faith is tested often, and needs to stand up to the scrutiny of such observation and questioning, that is where personal strength of conviction comes in, and this is one of the great benefits of faith, aiding in honing such inner character. Blind faith does nothing of the sort.
I have no real understanding of how spending more money makes more money. Oh, I've read the theories, but I've read just as many competing theories, and I am no expert. I might just as well be throwing darts blindfolded and taking whatever financial advice is under whatever I happen to hit. Remember, while there are people urging me to have faith in the economy, there are also people telling me that the economy has not yet finished falling off the cliff yet.
But you do have an understandin gof the concept of money, right? As said, you are getting understanding confused with being expert (knowledge). You simply need to have an understanding of the concepts, whether the same as others, or personally derrived.
That's an interesting argument, I'll give you that. So you're saying that belief in evolution is NOT faith, because even if a person has no personal understanding of evolution, they have a bulwark to lean against, the people who do understand evolution. I get it! Well done!
Not quite. I am saying that they have a belief, not faith, not because there is the evidence, scientific knowledge for them to look up, but because they have an understanding of the concepts, and have an awareness that the evidence exists for it's provability.
However...
If one uses another's more in-depth understanding of a subject to stand proxy for their own lack of understanding, they are by necessity having faith in that person's knowledge without personally understanding it themselves. Back to dot.
Well, that depends on the subject. In some cases, it does become faith. In martial arts, for instance, not everyone goes out and gets in bar brawls each night, so som faith in the knowledge being pasat on by an instructor is certainly not out of place. But in regard to evolution, there is evidence to back it up, therefore not faith. With religion, there is no evidence, therefore faith. But understanding of the concept(s) is required in both.
In The Who's rock opera, Tommy, we have young lad who is struck deaf, dumb, and blind after witnessing a particularly violent act involving his parents. In one song (Christmas), there is debate over Tommy's spiritual future and development. From the lyrics:
And Tommy doesn't know what day it is,
Doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is,
How can he be saved?
From an eternal grave?
What is being said here is that he cannot possibly have the requisite faith to be "saved" without the required understanding to accompany it. And that is what I am getting at.
I am not saying, and I don't think it is correct, that mutations and evolution are conscious decisions the same way that surgeries are (to alter appearance or function, remove dangerous aspects, implant beneficial ones). That would be choice, from a conscious point of view. But to say that it is completely random is a bit out as well. From that perspective, you could argue that the wolf-like ancestors of modern whales centuries and millenia after entering the oceans randomly evolved flippers instead of legs and feet/hands. Mutation is random, and typically leads nowhere. But evolution is not quite so random. It is the effects of the random interchange of differing genetic groupings, which may or may not lead to repeated traits being found in subsequent generations, often but not always related to the survivability of the species or individuals in question
But it is geared to specific circumstances. Those may include environment (the isolation of the Galapogos Islands, as well as Madagascar and other places), available food sources (more food often equals bigger animals, as well as resulting in specialised feeding methods), spread of available mates (big, showy displays when competition is fierce, loud calls when distance needs to be overcome), and more. Often, evolution can be a way to take a niche position in an ecosystem.
But sometimes evolution is just odd. White tigers have on survival advantage, but they are around (admittedly rare, surviving very rarely in the wild, it seems sometimes bred almost exclusively for Las Vegas magicians...), the Sabre-Tooths had a huge survival advantage, and while individual species may have had their time, the niche they occupied has not been filled (for the record, sabre-tooths as a trait have a very odd evolution cycle. They seem to evolve independantly, be present for a number of species over 10's of thousands of years, then disappear. Then, usually after a gap of another 10,000 years or so, they develop independantly again in another species! Oh, and the last known sabre-tooths were around about 10,000 years ago... just sayin'...), and then we have the Giant Panda.
The Giant Panda just doesn't want to survive from a Darwinian point of view. It is a carniverous animal that lives a solitary life, has adapted to eating only a few species of bamboo (which it's digestive system is not designed to process) which only grows outside of the Panda's habitat (they live high on the mountain, the bamboo grows low), and to top it off, they only learn behaviour by witnessing it. In other words, even if you get two Panda's together, and they happen to be male and female, unless they have already witnessed two Panda's mating, they will be unsure of what to do (and that is not easy when they live such solitary lives!). I;m all for saving the Panda's, but really, they have to make some effort, yeah? But these are all cases of evolution not following the survival of the fittest/strongest that most simplify it down to.
I would be very hesitant to say that "evolution does not have an intent", then follow that by stating that it favours the survival of the species. That could be taken as being contradictory. But I see evolution as a process, so assigning it intent, I agree, is wrong. However, to state that it is simply random chance is denying the purpose evolution plays. While not necessarily a directed action (a creature doesn't just wake up in the morning, and think "you know what, I think I'd like to have thumbs!"), it is a guided process, by the methods and influences listed above.
Oh, and while not consciously being aware of it, on a species level, I think the staph bacteria were aware they were being targeted, and the mutation is part of their survival strategy. It's the same as animals in cold environments developing (evolving) thick coats.
* * * (while I was answering you posted again, so I may as well address that one here as well, if you don't mind) * * *
You start by saying "We say that Christians have faith in the Christian concept of God, right?" , well that "concept" is your understanding. That is what I was refering to.
I'm going to copy and paste your posted statements from my e-mail notification, as it hasn't come up on this page for me yet. For the record, all bold statements are originally posted by Bill Mattocks.
However, let's say that today, the Christian God appears and makes it clear to all and sundry that He exists and is real. Consider for the sake of argument that God has been proven to exist.
Good hypothetical. I accept. But He needs to prove also that He is God. I will accept for now that He has doent hat as well.
Now, one can say that people who continue to believe in God are no longer engaging in faith, but are instead choosing to believe in something that can be proven.
Yes, that is in fact exactly what I would say. They would be operating on a value and belief system based on established facts, not faith.
However, what was it when God had not proven Himself? Was it faith then? After all, God existed then too, He just had not proven Himself to exist.
Yes, without proof faith is all you can have. The existance can be debated, but without the proof all you have is faith. That is the core of the definition.
Faith, then, is not belief without the requirement of proof. There was proof that God existed the day before He showed Himself, we just didn't know it. Faith yesterday was belief without understanding.
Yes, faith is belief without proof. By your very example above, which is a very cogent example of how faith operates. The difference here seems to be in the word "understanding". As I am using it, understanding is not scientific proof. That is another concept entirely. Understanding is, rather, the ability to differentiate between one concept and another. If you have a concept of God (that is personal to you), and you can differentiate it from the God of Islam, or the Gods (and Goddesses) of Hindu, or the Roman, Greek, and Ancient Egyptian Deities, or the Native American Great Spirit, or the Japanese shamaistic Shinto animal and nature reverance, then you have an understanding. If you did not have this, you could not truly have faith.
The facts didn't change in my hypothetical situation. God existed yesterday, but without proof. God exists today, but now with proof. Believers have not changed, the facts have not changed, only their understanding has changed.
No, I would say that knowledge would have changed, possibly understanding as well. But understanding would not have suddenly appeared where it previously was not. It would simply have evolved to adapt to the new environment (to survive...). Yesterday people believed in God with a personal understanding of what they were doing, and who they were having faith in, today we have concrete evidence and knowledge of who and or what God is, and as a result have adapted our knowledge of the universe accordingly. Faith is out, but knowledge and belief remain.
That said, believers may still have faith that God is looking out for them specifically, even if He has no intention of doing so, wouldn't know who they are, or even care. That would be faith, belief without requiring proof. Unless of course, they walked up to God and demanded a showing of his protection of them, but I wouldn't advise that... and that sort of thing denies faith in itself. If I remember my Biblical studies, Deuteronomy states "Do not put your Lord God to the test as you did at Massah", which is referenced again in Luke's telling of Jesus' temptation in the desert ("It is written in the Scriptures, do not test the Lord your God"). I think that's right, might have to google it. My Bible is around here somewhere...
Understanding is a continuum. I know that 2+2=4 and can prove it. My understanding is based upon reality and is not a hypothesis and therefore it is not faith. However, I also know that God exists. I cannot prove it. My understanding may or may not be based on reality, and therefore it is faith.
Yeah, I really feel we are confusing my use of understanding with knowledge and facts. The 2+2=4 is simply knowledge and application of principles, not understanding. There is however an understanding of the concept of mathematics and numerical values.
My argument is that although evolution is real, many people who espouse belief in it cannot describe it correctly. They do not understand it, even though it can be understood. Their understanding is correct - it is true - but it is still faith, because of their tenuous grasp of it.
Hey, I can't fully explain why this particular chord structure sounds great on my guitar, but it's not a matter of faith as to whether or not it does. And again you are confusing understanding (I understand that through a biological process we call evolution species change and adapt over time) with particular knowledge (I know the genome structure of a species of South American tree-frog, and can chart the anatomical changes that have occured as a result of it's habitat being altered and it's food source being changed). This is not a case of faith. Faith would be belief without requiring proof (I believe that the reason the tree-frog is shaped the way it is is because it was made in a factory on Pluto by Mickey Mouses dog, and he really liked big hands on little green things).
I can have faith that it will rain tomorrow, and it may. I can have faith it will not rain, but it might rain anyway. I am not a meteorologist, shaman, or precognitor, so my understanding is based on faith, whether it turns out I am right or not.
Hmm, not sure if this is a good example for you to give, there are far too many ways for it to be countered. You can have faith that it will not rain despite the weather report saying there will be a storm, but that would be about it. But I think I get what you're getting at. To take it in a martial sense, you are saying that you have faith that you won't be attacked walking to your car after work. You may be attacked, you may not (hopefully not!), but there is no empirical way for you to know at this point in time (I'm leaving the concept of intuition out of this).
In this regard, that could be construed as faith, as you do not require proof as to whether or not you will be attacked before walking to your car. And if you do, that would be bordering on agoraphobia... But your belief is based without requiring the proof. You may require the hope, or the wish that you will not be attacked, but you do not require the proof.
You can also have faith in them winning just because you want that outcome very much, despite any odds against it. Faith does not care about odds. Faith is blind.
Ha, yes, you certainly can have faith based on hope, but again it is an understood situation. And blind faith is not a recommendation, and is usually used as a derogatory term to denigrade followers who cannot/do not think for themselves, but blindly only believe what they are told. As I believe I have said, that is far more in the realm of gullibility than true faith. True faith is tested often, and needs to stand up to the scrutiny of such observation and questioning, that is where personal strength of conviction comes in, and this is one of the great benefits of faith, aiding in honing such inner character. Blind faith does nothing of the sort.
I have no real understanding of how spending more money makes more money. Oh, I've read the theories, but I've read just as many competing theories, and I am no expert. I might just as well be throwing darts blindfolded and taking whatever financial advice is under whatever I happen to hit. Remember, while there are people urging me to have faith in the economy, there are also people telling me that the economy has not yet finished falling off the cliff yet.
But you do have an understandin gof the concept of money, right? As said, you are getting understanding confused with being expert (knowledge). You simply need to have an understanding of the concepts, whether the same as others, or personally derrived.
That's an interesting argument, I'll give you that. So you're saying that belief in evolution is NOT faith, because even if a person has no personal understanding of evolution, they have a bulwark to lean against, the people who do understand evolution. I get it! Well done!
Not quite. I am saying that they have a belief, not faith, not because there is the evidence, scientific knowledge for them to look up, but because they have an understanding of the concepts, and have an awareness that the evidence exists for it's provability.
However...
If one uses another's more in-depth understanding of a subject to stand proxy for their own lack of understanding, they are by necessity having faith in that person's knowledge without personally understanding it themselves. Back to dot.
Well, that depends on the subject. In some cases, it does become faith. In martial arts, for instance, not everyone goes out and gets in bar brawls each night, so som faith in the knowledge being pasat on by an instructor is certainly not out of place. But in regard to evolution, there is evidence to back it up, therefore not faith. With religion, there is no evidence, therefore faith. But understanding of the concept(s) is required in both.
In The Who's rock opera, Tommy, we have young lad who is struck deaf, dumb, and blind after witnessing a particularly violent act involving his parents. In one song (Christmas), there is debate over Tommy's spiritual future and development. From the lyrics:
And Tommy doesn't know what day it is,
Doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is,
How can he be saved?
From an eternal grave?
What is being said here is that he cannot possibly have the requisite faith to be "saved" without the required understanding to accompany it. And that is what I am getting at.
Archangel M
Senior Master
There are a LOT of things in human life that make it worth living. Love, hope, honor, faith. Some people prefer to think of them as mere chemical reactions in the brain. I prefer to believe otherwise.
Omar B
Senior Master
Great little chat on Darwin and Atheism by Daniel Dennett - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hio4ZtVVLhY&feature=related
Xinglu
Black Belt
Chris, you just put together one heck of an argument.
You are correct that faith is belief without proof "Now faith is the substance of things choped for, the evidence* of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 KVJ) and not belief without understanding.
Evidence** = • noun 1 information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
2 Law information used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
• verb be or show evidence of.
Proof**= • noun 1 evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
2 the proving of the truth of a statement.
3 a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.
3 archaic a test or trial.
4 Printing a trial impression of a page used for making corrections before final printing.
5 a trial photographic print.
6 a specially struck specimen coin.
7 the strength of distilled alcoholic liquor, relative to proof spirit taken as a standard of 100.
Understanding** = • noun 1 the ability to understand something.
2 the power of abstract thought; intellect.
3 an individual’s perception or judgement of a situation.
4 sympathetic awareness or tolerance.
5 an informal or unspoken agreement or arrangement.
• adjective sympathetically aware of other people’s feelings.
It is important that words mean what they mean otherwise there is a communication breakdown. When we say that faith is belief without understanding then we imply that the evidence is there, which is contrary even to the christian scriptures which say that faith IS the evidence for things not seen. In other words, belief without anything empirical.
Thanks Chris for taking the time to bring that up
*It should also be noted that evidence and proof are synonyms, whereas evidence and understanding are not.
**From Oxford English Dictionary, bolded are the definition relevant to the discussion.
You are correct that faith is belief without proof "Now faith is the substance of things choped for, the evidence* of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 KVJ) and not belief without understanding.
Evidence** = • noun 1 information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
2 Law information used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
• verb be or show evidence of.
Proof**= • noun 1 evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
2 the proving of the truth of a statement.
3 a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.
3 archaic a test or trial.
4 Printing a trial impression of a page used for making corrections before final printing.
5 a trial photographic print.
6 a specially struck specimen coin.
7 the strength of distilled alcoholic liquor, relative to proof spirit taken as a standard of 100.
Understanding** = • noun 1 the ability to understand something.
2 the power of abstract thought; intellect.
3 an individual’s perception or judgement of a situation.
4 sympathetic awareness or tolerance.
5 an informal or unspoken agreement or arrangement.
• adjective sympathetically aware of other people’s feelings.
It is important that words mean what they mean otherwise there is a communication breakdown. When we say that faith is belief without understanding then we imply that the evidence is there, which is contrary even to the christian scriptures which say that faith IS the evidence for things not seen. In other words, belief without anything empirical.
Thanks Chris for taking the time to bring that up
*It should also be noted that evidence and proof are synonyms, whereas evidence and understanding are not.
**From Oxford English Dictionary, bolded are the definition relevant to the discussion.
yorkshirelad
Master Black Belt
Of course atheists have something in common, their lack of belief in God is probably the main one. Name me one atheist who wants creationism even mentioned in schools. There are even churches of atheism right now. More and more atheists are becoming involved in discussions such as this. It is becoming a movement. If you feel lonely, do a Google search and join an atheist group. Dawkins is getting a larger and larger following, he has become the 'high priest' of atheism. Fear not Arnisador, you are not alone.
The atheist movement is about 20% of the US population and growing. Higher in other western countries. ThatÂ’s a huge demographic, bigger than the Muslims and the Jews. IÂ’m surprised some politicians havenÂ’t made overtures towards them. Political suicide?
Its funny in a very sad way, the most distrusted minority in the US are atheists. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
Glad to know bigotry and prejudice are alive and well. So much for religious people being loving, tolerant and understanding.
Its funny in a very sad way, the most distrusted minority in the US are atheists. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
Glad to know bigotry and prejudice are alive and well. So much for religious people being loving, tolerant and understanding.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
True. But academics aren't the only ones guilty of being snarky, inflated, pompous, or flaming you-know-what's. That seems to be a human trait for some think that everybody else must be wrong because they don't share their obviously correct opinion. Regardless of topic...
Agreed. Though I don't believe in creationism (from any religeous source) I will fight for their right to believe whatever they wish. I will also fight to keep them from shoving it down other people's throats that do not share those beliefs.
This can not be allowed in schools simply because it is not based on fact or science and also because if you do allow the Christian version then you must also teach every religion's version of how the universe began. Just because one is Christian does not automatically make one right.
Unfortunately that quote is ad hominem, yet another fallacy (they seem to be popping up everywhere on this thread!). The reality is, it IS the logical position and has nothing to do with not offending anyone, safety, or venerability. I offend a lot of people by using logic. Sometimes I enjoy doing so, but I also believe in being honest and rational. And If I don't know something, the honest thing is to admit it. And in listening to the arguments on both sides, logic cannot conclude one way or the other so one is left with making an emotional decision based on faith or abstaining from an illogical conclusion. I abstain because I value my integrity and I cannot have any certainty in theism or atheism. That does not a coward makejust an honest person. As I said - People may speak to the probability of A God or Not A God but to speak to the certainty is illogical, irrational, self-deluded, and to a degree dishonest with themselves. They may want to be certain, they may even think they are, but when we get down to brass tacks they are basing their conclusions on emotions not facts.
I'm with you there. I admit that I am but a humble peon upon this floating rock and in no way am capable of wrapping my tiny brain around something as vast and complicated as a "supreme being" and what that entails.
I persnonally feel it is the height of human arrogance to assume one can "know" such a being and/or to assign human characteristics to such a being.
Those that adhere to any particular religion most often do so because they were raised to do so. A Christian in the US would most likely have been a Muslim if born and raised in Iran. The basis of their belief system is learned. That in itself begs the question of whether or not one would come to "god" on one's own without guidance. I personally doubt it. You would likely either not have a diety (because we are so inundated with science now and have little need for superstition to explain the world around us) or would worship the sun or some other thing that greatly impacted our lives.
Like George Carlin, I think I'll worship the sun but pray to Joe Pesci...because Joe Pesci seems like a guy that gets things done. LOL
I could easily argue that it's a more rational line of thought actually, because you can not produce evidence to the contrary.
It's a fact that you can not prove his existance any more than I can prove he does not. But I don't have to prove his existance; however, you do if you expect me to believe in him. I don't care if you believe or not until "you" try to impact my life with your belief... like lobbying to have creationism taught in school. Then, you do have to produce evidence and you can not. Anything I expected to be taught in schools (not Universities or Colleges) is easily backed up by proof.
Sarcasm doesn't convey well in the writeen word does it? LOL
Perhaps we're closing the gap now. I was under the impression you were endorsing the existance of the Christian God only because... well... you're a Christian! I did not realize you were speaking of a general supreme being...
My bad. I apologize.
Side one: Prove (either can or can't)
Side two: Disprove (either can or can't)
Two sides.
LOL...admittedly, I am jerking your chain a little here. It really doesn't matter to me.
Men with larger craniums than mine who's lives revovle around sciences like Physics have stated that there is too much order to the universe for there not to be some kind of supreme intelligence behind it. I'm not arguing that there's not...I was arguing that it's likely not what Christians, or any other religion for that matter, have claimed it to be.
Every religion is based on the philosophies and/or writings of men. Man is flawed in many ways and subject to the whims of his ego and desire for power and influence. That alone tells me it's more likely "you're" all wrong than it is likely any of "you" are right.
I guess I'm one of those meely mouthed agnostics (if I must be labeled). lol
What? You didn't get the memo?
Celtic, if I show you my degree will you become my lackey and do my evil bidding?
Of course! What is thy bidding my master? :jediduel:
I don't claim to have all the answers or to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I only ask that if you expect to sway my thinking that you should provide something other than just an opinion. Back it up! I'm not going to take what anyone says to heart based solely on a "gut feeling" or opinion.
ROFL. True and guilty as charged. :uhohh:
No doubt...just look at the US Congress. :lol:
Rock on brother! :headbangin: There's nothing wrong with that. Those are all positive things.
Chris, you just put together one heck of an argument.
You are correct that faith is belief without proof "Now faith is the substance of things choped for, the evidence* of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 KVJ) and not belief without understanding.
Thanks Chris for taking the time to bring that up
*It should also be noted that evidence and proof are synonyms, whereas evidence and understanding are not.
I could have swore I have been screaming that from the beginning. :idunno:
I'm glad Chris was able to convey it mo' betta'.
I think a few Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindu's, etc. probably would prefer you didn't teach creationism in schools as well.
An "atheist church" seems like an oxymoron to me...lol
Yup. I'd prefer not to stand on the side of the entity that tortures people for the thought crime of disagreeing with it.
There has to be something seriously wrong with an omnipotent being that demands worship from his minionsÂ….
Omar B
Senior Master
Low self esteem, mommy issues, uncle touched him down there? Who knows, but he seems to need more reassurance than a fat chick.
As for the whole "Atheist Church" thing, yes it is absurd. As I said before, atheist doesnt say a thign abotu a person, just their thought on 1 issue. I don't see anti-Santa churches popping up. But it does scare organized religion a bit, after all, us not in their churches is bad for business.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
One of my all-time favorite songs...
I've long held (and it's backed up by plenty of history and evidence) that religion is used as a tool to exerpt power over the masses; in other words as a political tool. One that uses fear, of all things, to keep folks in line.
But I do think it's important to differentiate between that and a persons spirituality. Two different animals.
Last edited by a moderator:
After years of debating evolution with people and after years of watching people just continue doing what they would normally do anyway...ie believe or doubt...I'm not sure how much of an effect little crusades like this will have. I think the population of atheists will naturally grow as more and more people come out of the closet, but then will get a certain point and level off. I never believed, even when I was kid. At religion, my parents always got calls because I was asking too many questions. Other kids weren't like this, or they were just more polite then I was.
The point is that people are just kind of set where they are based on how their brain works...but that is another discussion altogether.
What I see here is a budding inquisition. It only took a small minority of Christians to seize power and turn the Christian World into a living hell for heathens and heretics. When Dawkins starts blaming world problems on religion, I think it's a simplistic generalization and it expresses a lot of hatred in a way that IS analogous to ways that hatred was expressed by religious people. It's ironic, for sure.
I would be much more comfortable with a message of respecting other people's beliefs. Even when it comes to the people who don't believe in evolution. As long as they don't shove it down other people's throat, the only thing they do is wreck for themselves a career in biology...and maybe science in general.
If we (atheists) expressed a message of tolerance equivalent to the intent behind the US Constitution, I think we would be giving the world a gift that would be valuable beyond belief. Debating evolution is fine. Seeking out religious people to hector for believing in something "stupid" is the first step on a well traveled road.
The point is that people are just kind of set where they are based on how their brain works...but that is another discussion altogether.
What I see here is a budding inquisition. It only took a small minority of Christians to seize power and turn the Christian World into a living hell for heathens and heretics. When Dawkins starts blaming world problems on religion, I think it's a simplistic generalization and it expresses a lot of hatred in a way that IS analogous to ways that hatred was expressed by religious people. It's ironic, for sure.
I would be much more comfortable with a message of respecting other people's beliefs. Even when it comes to the people who don't believe in evolution. As long as they don't shove it down other people's throat, the only thing they do is wreck for themselves a career in biology...and maybe science in general.
If we (atheists) expressed a message of tolerance equivalent to the intent behind the US Constitution, I think we would be giving the world a gift that would be valuable beyond belief. Debating evolution is fine. Seeking out religious people to hector for believing in something "stupid" is the first step on a well traveled road.
Omar B
Senior Master
What gave it away? Divine right? Selling of indulgences? The church's role within many governments/kingdoms since like forever? Of course it's abotu control, every Sunday people file into cathedrals to be in the thrall of men who seem to know the word of god, they tell them what to do, who's war/cause is just, how to punish those who don't follow along with the program.
Hmm, I think I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem now. Funny image.
Hmm, I think I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem now. Funny image.
Your hostility and insulting behavior isn't very logical for an atheist who merely chooses not to believe in a Creator. It sounds rather like someone who feels hurt by religion and who wants to attack religion in return.
Omar B
Senior Master
You would say that wouldn't you. Seems like every christian no matter what an atheist says will interpret it as being hostile towards religion, the truth is not hostile. Well, doesn't change the fact that those things happened and I find the belief system absurd.
And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.
And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
After so much drift I had to go back and view the segment again. LOL
The nice, polite lady asserts that there is evidence against evolution.
Would anyone happen to know what evidence she may be referring to? Not what she was talking about in regards to the "pigs tooth", but actual evidence.
I respect her right to believe in...whatever... but she really does come across as ignorant. She continues to say "the evidence" but really does't have any...or did I miss it? BTW, for clarification I don't consider opinion as evidence.
From my POV, she's basing her thought processes on emotion and not logic or rational thought. She goes back to talking about treating people with dignity and respect several times... So it occurs to me that she thinks that by accepting evolution it would somehow prevent that? That by accepting evolution we would somehow spiral downward into rude, crude animals? I don't get it... Should we lie about facts if we feel that by revealing them it will somehow make our world a worse place?
The nice, polite lady asserts that there is evidence against evolution.
Would anyone happen to know what evidence she may be referring to? Not what she was talking about in regards to the "pigs tooth", but actual evidence.
I respect her right to believe in...whatever... but she really does come across as ignorant. She continues to say "the evidence" but really does't have any...or did I miss it? BTW, for clarification I don't consider opinion as evidence.
From my POV, she's basing her thought processes on emotion and not logic or rational thought. She goes back to talking about treating people with dignity and respect several times... So it occurs to me that she thinks that by accepting evolution it would somehow prevent that? That by accepting evolution we would somehow spiral downward into rude, crude animals? I don't get it... Should we lie about facts if we feel that by revealing them it will somehow make our world a worse place?
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Ugh...about half way through part 2 I had to shut it down..she was grating on my last nerve.
I've come to the conclusion that this woman is incapable of rational thought and absolutely has no ability to understand the concept of time.
She obviously expects evolution to manifest overnight and that there would be single points in time where all of a sudden a monkey stopped existing because it magically transformed into a man. She can not grasp the fluidity of the process.
She was also obviously incapable of debating the issue on Dawkin's level. If you're going to put somebody up to refute his points it should be someone that at least can grasp the concepts of evolution and the evidence supporting it. She obviously went into this "unarmed."
I've come to the conclusion that this woman is incapable of rational thought and absolutely has no ability to understand the concept of time.
She obviously expects evolution to manifest overnight and that there would be single points in time where all of a sudden a monkey stopped existing because it magically transformed into a man. She can not grasp the fluidity of the process.
She was also obviously incapable of debating the issue on Dawkin's level. If you're going to put somebody up to refute his points it should be someone that at least can grasp the concepts of evolution and the evidence supporting it. She obviously went into this "unarmed."
