Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:01 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Daystar
#11
RE: Daystar
(November 17, 2008 at 11:09 am)Daystar Wrote: I consider myself a skeptic still. In the sense that I don't want to believe if there is no scriptural support. I sometimes wonder at all of the militant atheists who wear scientific evidence as a sort of badge like Xians do morality. Here is the way that I look at science, and keep in mind I have nothing against science in general. The majority (about 98%) of it is not a conflict with the Bible, but rather religion. Science doesn't know everything or there would be no need of science, the Bible says that all religion and all governments will be destroyed because they are the threat to mankind and God's creation, not science, and science doesn't even attempt to investigate God so why do people of science feel compelled to discuss God? It is a political motivation, it vehicle for atheism.

If you sit around and listen to science minded people - and there is a difference between people who are scientists off doing science things and science minded people posting on message boards - they talk about a utopian future where everyone believes in 'science' and hardly no one believes in religion.

If you pay attention to them they are so much like religious people talking about heaven. Science is the hope for the future, some day we will fix all the worlds problems and live forever! Science explains to us how everything exists, the purpose of life. We must spread our knowledge of science and we must get rid of religion.

They don't see this as religious in nature, which scares the hell out of me because if you think about it science today is a far greater potential danger than religion ever was. Blind to its destructive potential and hungry for its day in the sun. Which, I believe it will and should have, but warn against its blind obedience.

(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: Back to you, though, I'm still wondering exactly what you do believe- your beliefs are bible based; do you believe in the story of Genesis? In Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? Did Jesus exist, did really perform miracles, and was he the reincarnation of God on Earth? Basically, is the bible an actual account of historical events, or is it a metaphorical collection of stories. I'd like to know what you think.

It isn't a collection of metaphorical stories, though it does sometimes use parables to teach. Genesis, especially the creation account, is misrepresented and misunderstood by most. Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah's day and Jesus and his miracles were real, Jesus wasn't the reincarnation of God on earth, he was Michael, God's son. The name Michael means 'Who is like God?'

I don't know exactly what you mean about science being in a conflict with the bible, or religion. I assume you're meaning that some aspects of science disagree with some aspects in the Bible- but science itself as far as I know is not really able to conflict with religion. I don't feel that they cover the same areas. However, I definitely feel that there are some "science minded people" as you put it, who have a problem with religion. However, I myself do go against religion when it comes to creationism in school. If someone wants to believe whatever they want about how we came to be in their private lives, then go for it. However, this conflict comes out when creation stories are taught. So perhaps this is one area when it would be ok for "science minded people" to discuss God (although I think people doing scientific work never should). However, it is important to realize that it becomes a more philosophical discussion than a scientific one. I myself have not really noticed anyone discussing a Utopian science future, but I've not been around much.

Could you explain exactly how you think science in and of itself is a far greater danger than religion ever was? You speak of science here as an entity, whereas in reality the only danger from science I can think of is the misapplication of technology garnered from it. But who is going to kill in the name of science? I cannot think of a probably answer. However, many many people have killed in the name of religion. And it still happens! So I don't think your statement is correct.

(November 17, 2008 at 11:09 am)Daystar Wrote:
(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: Back to you, though, I'm still wondering exactly what you do believe- your beliefs are bible based; do you believe in the story of Genesis? In Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? Did Jesus exist, did really perform miracles, and was he the reincarnation of God on Earth? Basically, is the bible an actual account of historical events, or is it a metaphorical collection of stories. I'd like to know what you think.

It isn't a collection of metaphorical stories, though it does sometimes use parables to teach. Genesis, especially the creation account, is misrepresented and misunderstood by most. Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah's day and Jesus and his miracles were real, Jesus wasn't the reincarnation of God on earth, he was Michael, God's son. The name Michael means 'Who is like God?'

Alright, so you believe a literal interpretation of the Bible. Now, that is of course your right. But if you were trying to convince me, for example, a book of scripture written by multiple authors (though inspired by the Holy Spirit) would not be enough to convince me. You would need actual evidence. So- one question about genesis- were the Days 24 hour days or eons? Why do you think Adam and Eve existed, other than quotes from the Bible? Next, why is there no geological evidence for the global flood?

I know this is a lot of questions. But if you could refrain from quoting the bible to answer them, I'd appreciate it.
Reply
#12
RE: Daystar
(November 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm)Daystar Wrote:
Quote:Daystar - They don't see this as religious in nature, which scares the hell out of me because if you think about it science today is a far greater potential danger than religion ever was. Blind to its destructive potential and hungry for its day in the sun. Which, I believe it will and should have, but warn against its blind obedience.

leo-rcc - Obeying who or what? Science? Science doesn't dictate.

Obeying that blind human attachment. Religious thought.
Huh? Science isn't religious thought! Religious thought is more about faith and science is more about evidence. They're probably pretty much two opposites.
Reply
#13
RE: Daystar
(November 17, 2008 at 11:09 am)Daystar Wrote:
(November 17, 2008 at 10:14 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You say you were an atheist ... at the risk of invoking the NTS fallacy, why were you one? What kind of atheist were you ... I mean me? I'm pretty much a militant atheist, very much a strong atheist using more conventional definitions.

What is the NTS fallacy? I was an atheist because that is the way I was raised. My folks didn't go to church and thought religion and God was a crock of shit. Religious people were nuts who wanted to control small minded people. A view that I think is somewhat shortsighted.

NTS as leo (I think) said is the No True Scotsman fallacy ... theists often use it when they try to claim certain people aren't whatever flavour of theism they are a classic example being Adolph Hitler who claimed he was a theists, his SS troops had "God Be With Us" (in German) on their belts, the Jewish holocaust was anti-Semitic and Jews are the Christ-killers, the RC church proclaimed Hitler "Europe's favourite son" and ... anyway I could go on but the point is that (understandably) Christians don't tend to want links made between Hitler and their religion yet the links are there. IT may well be that Hitler's base motivation was entirely non-theistic but there undoubtedly is some fairly significant evidence to suggest that his motivation was, like many previous religious anti-Semitic pogroms, religious.

The NTS risk for me is that I am using logic that flaws my own view that most theists who claim they were once atheist were not so much atheists but disillusioned believers.

In your case that is obviously not true.

Using the term militant atheist is important because there are atheist who are not militant. Everyone I know are non-militant atheists. I only know 1 theist other than myself. I don't really like to use the term theist. I was a non-militant atheist.

(November 17, 2008 at 11:09 am)Daystar Wrote:
(November 17, 2008 at 10:14 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I have to disagree that being an atheist, beyond an observation that we lack a sense of community that often centres around churches and so on, has any cultural connotations at all.

Why not? Or perhaps; do you see that ever changing in the future?

Why should it? "Atheism" (like "theism") is just a label and atheists, like JJ pointed out, can be any colour, any culture, come from all walks of life and typically have very, very little in common ... they also tend (my opinion) to be intelligent and willing buck trends. That doesn't make for a good cultural or community feel especially in a society that is largely theistic to some degree or other.

I don't think atheism will ever carry any philosophical or cultural implications.

Kyu
Reply
#14
RE: Daystar
(November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The NTS risk for me is that I am using logic that flaws my own view that most theists who claim they were once atheist were not so much atheists but disillusioned believers.

In your case that is obviously not true.

Why is that obviously not true?

(November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: "Atheism" (like "theism") is just a label and atheists, like JJ pointed out, can be any colour, any culture, come from all walks of life and typically have very, very little in common ... they also tend (my opinion) to be intelligent and willing buck trends. That doesn't make for a good cultural or community feel especially in a society that is largely theistic to some degree or other.

I don't think atheism will ever carry any philosophical or cultural implications.

I don't understand why in order to be organized you all have to have a great deal in common other than whatever goal you would aspire to. Most militant atheists have nearly everything in common. Colour, culture etc. are of no more real import than eye color or nationality. The JWs did it.

The majority of you militant Atheists are political. Unite and organize as a 'religion.'
Reply
#15
RE: Daystar
(November 18, 2008 at 11:12 am)Daystar Wrote: The majority of you militant Atheists are political. Unite and organize as a 'religion.'

Do you mean united and organized? Or are you giving instructions...

Either way, political affiliation or tendency does not equal religiousness. Could you give your definition of "religion"?
Reply
#16
RE: Daystar
Luke, I agree with your position on creation in the schools. It shouldn't be taught for three reasons. 1) It would be too difficult to present a fair and unbiased teaching on the subject and 2) No one really knows if we were created or not, and 3) I don't trust teachers to teach their way out of a paper bag.

Religion has, in the past, had a conflict with science because religion used to have the power to enforce its sort of myopic interpretation of scripture especially when it disagreed with the Bible. Today, those misrepresenting the Bible continue to do so.

Why is science potentially more dangerous than religion? Many people have killed in the name of God through religion, and for the most part that has been thinly veiled through political means granted to religion.

The same could easily apply to science but I think that the destruction science brings is through the technology and biological applications of political necessities. We are far more likely to be destroyed by means of science than religion.

The 'days' of the Bible were not literal 24 hour periods, they were unknown periods of time. The geological evidence of a flood could very well be there floods have been mistaken for glaciers etc. in the past. Science won't give any evidence they find of a global deluge to the Bible, they would say it was something else because they think that the Bible is myth.

What interests me is that you want me to answer your question without using scripture because you wouldn't consider that as 'evidence.' I would like you to tell me if primitive people around the earth who have had discoveries of paintings on cave walls hunted buffalo without using their paintings as evidence.
(November 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm)lukec Wrote:
(November 18, 2008 at 11:12 am)Daystar Wrote: The majority of you militant Atheists are political. Unite and organize as a 'religion.'

Do you mean united and organized? Or are you giving instructions...

Either way, political affiliation or tendency does not equal religiousness. Could you give your definition of "religion"?

I was giving instruction. I see political affiliation or tendency as pretty much the same. I have some pretty weird ideas about what religion is, apparently, and should have learned to keep them to myself. It tends to cause a great deal of distraction.

Religion to me is organized gatherings to one unified and common purpose. It doesn't have to have a deity.

Religious thought is different. It is simply a strict set of beliefs adhered to. Everyone is religious.
Reply
#17
RE: Daystar
Good post, Daystar- thanks for responding so clearly.

Ok, so everyone is religious, according to your definition. Ok, that is including literally everyone, from nihilists to animists. And ok, that's your own interpretation. But I think that in general, the connotation of "religious" implies a spirtual (and not necessarily deity-based, but usually) idea, and perhaps that is where the confusion arises. I would certainly have to include myself in your definition of religious, because I adhere to a set of beliefs- but my not believing in god is only a facet of my beliefs. For example

1. There is no god
2. Red is the best color for a car
3. Tomatos taste awful

These are three (simple) beliefs of mine, but they are only a small part of all the things I believe. I also don't believe in smoking, for example, but I know there are atheists who smoke. There must be other things I do NOT have in common with other atheists, so I take issue with your idea that "the majority of you militant Atheists are political."

Further, by defining religion as a strict set of beliefs, considering how few people share exactly the same beliefs, I wonder how many people are actually in the exact same religion? My point is your definition is too vague, I think, for this kind of discussion.

Next, I'm glad you don't think creation should be taught in schools, and I assume you mean science classrooms. I personally think creation should be taught in schools, in a religious studies class or a history class which look at diverse creation stories.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: Why is science potentially more dangerous than religion? Many people have killed in the name of God through religion, and for the most part that has been thinly veiled through political means granted to religion.

The same could easily apply to science but I think that the destruction science brings is through the technology and biological applications of political necessities. We are far more likely to be destroyed by means of science than religion.

I definitely agree that there have been times when religion has been used as a reason to start a conflict. However, it is also true that there have been wars solely fought because of religions. That is the difference I spoke of. Yes, perhaps the products of science are dangerous, but they are only so in the hands of those who’d do harm to others, with intent or not. But truly, when you speak of being destroyed by means of science, they used science in religious wars as well- crossbows, for example, is a technology used to kill. But the major issue is the reason for the killing. Religious persecution is a real problem, with the example of the Holocaust being the most obvious. But I cannot see a country going to war with another or a man stabbing his neighbour because they did not believe the same thing about thermodynamics.

The evidence for a global flood is not something that would be mistaken. We are talking about a very thick layer of silt/mud that would be laid down over all the landmasses at the exact same level. This has simply not been found. There is no evidence, right now, for a global flood that happened in the last 6-10 thousand years (estimate according to genealogies in the bible of elapsed time since Adam and Eve). There is just not a layer like this, and not because of mistaken evidence.

The reason I want evidence which is not scriptural is because the Bible is to me simply a very old book. So is the Illiad, the Kuran, etc. As for cave paintings, they are indeed evidence that ancient people hunted buffalo, but they are not proof- they support the evidence corroborated by other pieces- such as tools and weapons found near the site. Further, there are old drawings and paintings and stories of horrible monsters, and for creation stories which rival the biblical one. Older ones, from Babylonia and Sumer, have been found- are they proof to you of all the things they speak of?
Reply
#18
RE: Daystar
(November 18, 2008 at 11:12 am)Daystar Wrote:
(November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The NTS risk for me is that I am using logic that flaws my own view that most theists who claim they were once atheist were not so much atheists but disillusioned believers.

In your case that is obviously not true.

Why is that obviously not true?

Because you said you were brought up atheist by atheist parents ... is it not that obvious then?

(November 18, 2008 at 11:12 am)Daystar Wrote:
(November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: "Atheism" (like "theism") is just a label and atheists, like JJ pointed out, can be any colour, any culture, come from all walks of life and typically have very, very little in common ... they also tend (my opinion) to be intelligent and willing buck trends. That doesn't make for a good cultural or community feel especially in a society that is largely theistic to some degree or other.

I don't think atheism will ever carry any philosophical or cultural implications.

I don't understand why in order to be organized you all have to have a great deal in common other than whatever goal you would aspire to. Most militant atheists have nearly everything in common. Colour, culture etc. are of no more real import than eye color or nationality. The JWs did it.

The majority of you militant Atheists are political. Unite and organize as a 'religion.'

The point is that we have no common belief system, in essence nothing at all, no reason to organise ... I could argue, given that the prevailing view is that there is a god, that we're all rebels! It doesn't make for a good community feel and, trust me on this, I have tried both with my recent "Science, Just Science" campaign and with my older "Freedom of Intellectual & Scientific Thought" group.

Based purely on experience all you can ever get out of atheists is a loose group of people that come occasionally together to whinge about what's wrong with [a theistic] society. We dream of organising, we try very hard to do it but it never really works and because of that we can't form a culture or community.

Kyu
(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: Luke, I agree with your position on creation in the schools. It shouldn't be taught for three reasons. 1) It would be too difficult to present a fair and unbiased teaching on the subject and 2) No one really knows if we were created or not, and 3) I don't trust teachers to teach their way out of a paper bag.

Point 1 is almost irrelevant because no one claims (or should claim) there isn't bias in teaching science ... granted there isn't anything else but science education should most definitely be biased towards teaching science. Point 2 sure and if creationism were to be taught in science class equal time would have to be given to the creation myths of other religions too. You don't trust teachers? Yes there are poor teachers but a good teacher is truly awesome ... I'm tempted to suggest that if you have so little faith in education that might explain some aspects of your world view.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: Religion has, in the past, had a conflict with science because religion used to have the power to enforce its sort of myopic interpretation of scripture especially when it disagreed with the Bible. Today, those misrepresenting the Bible continue to do so.

Not entirely sure what your last sentence means but yes, broadly speaking I agree.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: Why is science potentially more dangerous than religion? Many people have killed in the name of God through religion, and for the most part that has been thinly veiled through political means granted to religion.

I'd agree with that although religion does act as a very convenient vector for conflict.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: The same could easily apply to science but I think that the destruction science brings is through the technology and biological applications of political necessities. We are far more likely to be destroyed by means of science than religion.

"If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so." Richard Dawkins

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: The 'days' of the Bible were not literal 24 hour periods, they were unknown periods of time. The geological evidence of a flood could very well be there floods have been mistaken for glaciers etc. in the past. Science won't give any evidence they find of a global deluge to the Bible, they would say it was something else because they think that the Bible is myth.

All of that, as discussed before, is a stretched interpretation ... the Genesis account says "days" (not weeks, months, years or any other period) and there is no rational reason outside of wishful thinking to assume that the writers of it meant anything else but days. If the bible really was a God's word you'd have thought it would have been a lot more careful about the way such important information was transmitted.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: What interests me is that you want me to answer your question without using scripture because you wouldn't consider that as 'evidence.' I would like you to tell me if primitive people around the earth who have had discoveries of paintings on cave walls hunted buffalo without using their paintings as evidence.

The bible is evidence, what it isn't is validatable evidence ... in other words it is correct to consider the bible a historic source, it is not correct to consider it a literal history. It has value, just not the true value some wingnuts think it has.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: I was giving instruction. I see political affiliation or tendency as pretty much the same. I have some pretty weird ideas about what religion is, apparently, and should have learned to keep them to myself. It tends to cause a great deal of distraction.

Political? Atheists can be fascist, communist, liberal, right-wing, left wing etc. etc. in addition to supporting all kinds of ideologies ... how on earth would you form such a group into a single political movement?

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: Religion to me is organized gatherings to one unified and common purpose. It doesn't have to have a deity.

You see there's this thing called language OK? It has words, phrases and so on and the general idea is that it facilitates this thing called "communication" ... are you with me so far? Now communication is a good thing but generally speaking only works if the language that communicators use is the same or can be understood so if you say something is blue and I say it's red then (if you assume other stuff like that) we're not going to get very far when we communicate are we? A religion is not a common interest group (though it can encapsulate common interests) it has a number of definable characteristics that atheism utterly lacks.

(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: Religious thought is different. It is simply a strict set of beliefs adhered to. Everyone is religious.

Atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's a label defining people who reject some specific theistic claims namely those of the existence of a god or gods.

Kyu
Reply
#19
RE: Daystar
(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Because you said you were brought up atheist by atheist parents ... is it not that obvious then?

From what I understand most of the atheists here were disillusioned believers who became atheists.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The point is that we have no common belief system, in essence nothing at all, no reason to organise ... I could argue, given that the prevailing view is that there is a god, that we're all rebels! It doesn't make for a good community feel and, trust me on this, I have tried both with my recent "Science, Just Science" campaign and with my older "Freedom of Intellectual & Scientific Thought" group.

Based purely on experience all you can ever get out of atheists is a loose group of people that come occasionally together to whinge about what's wrong with [a theistic] society. We dream of organizing, we try very hard to do it but it never really works and because of that we can't form a culture or community.

When at first you don't succeed ... L. Ron Hubbard would have said. As you know he was hardly insane, he was a science fiction writer who just thought it would be interesting to test his theory that you could form a religion with an obscure god for the sake of making money. I think that you have a great deal more in common than you think, you just have too many hang ups about religion. Organize yourselves to the common goal. Education, politics and association. You don't have to be intellectual clones but there is more there then that you don't believe in God. Even I could see that. I am somewhat good at organizing and the most important thing that I could advise is to forget about God. You people think more about God than most Xians I know. There is more to you than that. Set it aside, let it go. Your main goal would be to promote the atheistic society. Most people think there is a god only in a very vague sense. A simple enough thing to deal with.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Point 1 is almost irrelevant because no one claims (or should claim) there isn't bias in teaching science ... granted there isn't anything else but science education should most definitely be biased towards teaching science.

I am very much against teaching creation for that same reason for teaching evolution. Not science. I know everyone here believes evolution is science, the distinction is that evolution as well as creation can't say for sure how we got here or what happened between here and now. They both can only say this "might have happened this way." The only real issue is that both via for their own interpretation to be dictated. Both want nothing more than to promote their own world view. Xians want God representin' and Evolutionists want science representin'. God should be taught in the home and not in the school and science, in this case the possible applications that evolution might have in (as Luke or Adrian, I can't remember which, pointed out) medicine etc. can be taught without teaching evolution.

Personally I don't think this is a terribly important issue because most of what they teach in school here in America is bullshit anyway and the kids forget everything within hours after testing.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Point 2 sure and if creationism were to be taught in science class equal time would have to be given to the creation myths of other religions too. You don't trust teachers? Yes there are poor teachers but a good teacher is truly awesome ... I'm tempted to suggest that if you have so little faith in education that might explain some aspects of your world view.

Not entirely sure what your last sentence means but yes, broadly speaking I agree.

My world view ... I taught myself to read before I ever went to school, my world view was formulated by my atheistic family and friends who were full of shit. By the time I was 6 years old I realized that nearly everything they told me was bullshit. Most of it a political, traditional and cultural vortex - nonsense. My homosexuality, democracy, and social prejudice. I did great in school up to a point because it didn't take much to figure out what they wanted to hear. I was raped by a Catholic boy of good caricature who only had to confess and be forgiven by someone else. All the good sons were binge drinking and doing drugs when I wasn't and they were all told to stay away from be because their ignorant parents thought I was the one doing that shit. By the time I was in seventh grade I was bored with school. I do regret that I didn't learn math and grammar as well as I could have, but other than that I have no regrets. My sister graduated from college and has much more difficulty than I do with math and grammar. When I studied with the JWs it was school all over again. My personal studies dwarfed their theocratic ministry school and they bored me.

I think education can be a wonderful and very important thing, but I don't think it is done very well when sold or granted to the public without consideration for specific application. Someone who wants to work in a factory doesn't need to educate himself as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon.

In America, education is like a new car, a status symbol almost otherwise completely void of purpose for 90% of the people. Extra curricular amenities are for more important than learning something. You do your time, get your paper and you are free. I have seen people warned that they wont find work without a college education only to supervise those who did buy it four years later.

In my line of work (I am retired now) I came in contact with many educated and uneducated people and came to rightfully expect that the educated ones were intellectually inferior. To be frank, dumb as hell.

I have talked to secular professors on a casual basis and I can understand how my opinions could have formulated, and I have talked to "Bible scholars" whose abilities are dwarfed by young JW kids. It is all bullshit. If I had to sum up the abilities of man in a noble fashion I would recite King Solomon's Ecclesiastes. With a more simple and to the point approach I would simply say "Bullshit."

My last sentence meant that religion has always and still is used as a tool through the misapplication of the Bible but it is loosing its effect.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I'd agree with that although religion does act as a very convenient vector for conflict.

Well, yeah, but only through political and social power. All the more reason for Atheists to organize.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: "If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so." Richard Dawkins

I hate that smug little prick. The same could be said for religion. It is more about politics than either. They (science and religion) are tools for political means.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: All of that, as discussed before, is a stretched interpretation ... the Genesis account says "days" (not weeks, months, years or any other period) and there is no rational reason outside of wishful thinking to assume that the writers of it meant anything else but days. If the bible really was a God's word you'd have thought it would have been a lot more careful about the way such important information was transmitted.

You made two myopic statements there that are incorrect.

If I read you a quote from someone in the 1920's that calls someone else "gay" you have the sense to know that that word meant something different than it does today. To read that quote knowing that it is from a time when that word had a different meaning while interjecting the modern day usage is just stupid. To do it with a word that was translated from the ancient Hebrew into at the worst, old English and at the best uninformed modern English is even more stupid. It is, dare I say, "stupider." I know that the term "scholar" and "Bible" don't jive in Atheistic terminology but there is no reason why that should continue as such. If atheists didn't fuck it up so bad I wouldn't be here talking with you now. I could never understand why Atheists insist upon being nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin as Xianity when it comes to knowing the Bible. Learn it or shut up about it would be my advise to both.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The bible is evidence, what it isn't is validatable evidence ... in other words it is correct to consider the bible a historic source, it is not correct to consider it a literal history. It has value, just not the true value some wingnuts think it has.

It is the only literal history of that which you deny, and you are grossly ignorant of it. If that doesn't speak volumes to your 'religious' position I don't know what does. Your obvious downfall is a complete inability or unwillingness to reconcile that with your political position.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Political? Atheists can be fascist, communist, liberal, right-wing, left wing etc. etc. in addition to supporting all kinds of ideologies ... how on earth would you form such a group into a single political movement?

Set the ideologies aside, much like religion has. What would be your political agenda?

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You see there's this thing called language OK? It has words, phrases and so on and the general idea is that it facilitates this thing called "communication" ... are you with me so far? Now communication is a good thing but generally speaking only works if the language that communicators use is the same or can be understood so if you say something is blue and I say it's red then (if you assume other stuff like that) we're not going to get very far when we communicate are we? A religion is not a common interest group (though it can encapsulate common interests) it has a number of definable characteristics that atheism utterly lacks.

Religion has certain benefits and amenities and very little actual definition. The atheist pigeonholes religion by definition. Be a religion with political interests. Have you ever heard of the German Turnverein? The Massai of East Africa? Learn from them.

(November 19, 2008 at 4:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's a label defining people who reject some specific theistic claims namely those of the existence of a god or gods.

Which, in my opinion is just stupid, but that is beside the point. I think that the language barrier would be a simple thing to deal with. You people are not completely stupid when you remove god from your minds.
Reply
#20
RE: Daystar
Daystar, if by 'religious thought' you just mean 'thought' then fine. But religious thought often is used to refer to more overly faith-based and less evidence-based thinking. Evidence based thinking could be described as 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking'. Etc. Religious thought usually refers to more faith based thinking. My definition of faith is that it is basically blind belief/trust. Belief that isn't based on evidence.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)