Speechless

[madog]

Natural selection, good or bad is based on empirical evidence ... it may be superseded by a better understanding of the facts along with further empirical evidence, but it is a scientific process that may eventually lead to the truth rather than what some would prefer to be the truth.

A bit of a change of topic, but ok...I'll bite.   The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well.  I would also agree, that it may be superseded by a better understanding of the facts or additional evidence.   It is not a scientific process, but I don't believe that science is the only method of gaining knowledge (it is a tool to be used under the right circumstances).  

Religion, bad or worse is based on indoctrination from stone-age myths and reinterprets our better understanding of facts and new empirical evidence so some can maintain what they prefer to be the truth and tries to stop us reaching the truth.

See... here's the rub;   I think that a lot of what you said here is based on the indoctrination of atheism.  I don't think that you can support much of it, and I get the feeling that you lump all religions into one large group in orderly to easily dismiss them without doing any serious thinking.

You say there is empirical evidence for the "Gospels" (the teachings of Jesus and the apostles) .... OK all ears, please give me the empirical evidence that Jesus is the son of God? .....

I treat science with as much skepticism as anything  .... I was not indoctrinated as a child to believe in atheism it came about without science just logically reading the bible .... By the way I was an atheist decades (44 years) before I even knew there was a word for a non belief in a God or that there were others out there that had come to the same conclusion ....

[account_inactive]

@robvalue

Fair enough.

Good video though.

[KevinM1]

Oh really? I have no idea That sucks!

Anyone have any suggestions? Most people seem to have got them to work okay.

Yeah, it's really weird.  No audio in Chrome, Edge, or (ugh) IE.

[RoadRunner79]

My comments are in red.

Okay, you want some examples of people causing harm through religion:

1) Indoctrinating young minds before the age of reason, especially with such vile concepts as "hell".
    How do you distinguish between indoctrinating and teaching (although they can mean the same thing)?   Are you against teaching evolution before a certain age where they can understand all the nuances of the theory?

2) Bigotry and social exclusion due to dogma.
    Not related to evolution, but I assume, that you feel the same about those here who call others derogatory names, and for those who in a recent    thread said that they would not be friends with a  Christian.

3) General divisiveness, up to and including wars over religious differences.
   Same as above (as far as divisiveness and to which you seem to do quite often)  I think that you need to be more specific... As to war, I agree that there has been things which I am ashamed of done in the name of Christianity in the past, but I do not see these being a part of doctrine in scripture.  I also think that many where more political, than religious at their core; and I think the men who founded the U.S. where right to separate state from the Church

4) Favourable treatment for religious institutions.
   Unsure what you mean by this

5) Atheists being ostracised or even killed in some countries just for being atheists.
   And there is no ostracizing for those who dare question evolution?   I have no desire to kill atheists, and based on the tenets of Christianity I would be against it.   I wonder why if this is an integral part of religion, that it is not in all countries that have religion

6) Dogmatic mindsets and stories which cause barriers to learning.
    Again, I could say the same for evolution

7) Trying to get theology taught in science classes.
    Yes, we can't bring in scientific facts, that interfere with the indoctrination of evolution can we..... By the way, if you are referring to teaching Genesis as science, then I am with you.  I also don't think that just-so stories of evolution should be taught as science.  But I do think that we should give the scientific facts that lend themselves to both sides of the story, wouldn't you agree?
That's enough for now I think.

[FatAndFaithless]

But there are many non believers in prisons compared to boring religious people.

Uh...you might wanna check your statistics on that one, bud. If you think there are more atheists in prison than theists I got some bad news for you.

[RoadRunner79]

A bit of a change of topic, but ok...I'll bite.   The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well.  I would also agree, that it may be superseded by a better understanding of the facts or additional evidence.   It is not a scientific process, but I don't believe that science is the only method of gaining knowledge (it is a tool to be used under the right circumstances).  


See... here's the rub;   I think that a lot of what you said here is based on the indoctrination of atheism.  I don't think that you can support much of it, and I get the feeling that you lump all religions into one large group in orderly to easily dismiss them without doing any serious thinking.

You say there is empirical evidence for the "Gospels" (the teachings of Jesus and the apostles) .... OK all ears, please give me the empirical evidence that Jesus is the son of God? .....

I treat science with as much skepticism as anything  .... I was not indoctrinated as a child to believe in atheism it came about without science just logically reading the bible .... By the way I was an atheist decades (44 years) before I even knew there was a word for a non belief in a God or that there were others out there that had come to the same conclusion ....

I said for the Gospel... meaning the resurrection of Christ.  I don't know that there is empirical evidence for Jesus being the Son of God, unless you would count Mary's seeing of the angel, or the voice declaring him so at his baptism.  Even if these where granted, I wouldn't really refer to that in empirical evidence terms.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child in Christianity either.   For me, I came to believe in it rationally, first from learning about it from others, and then from reading the Bible.  Different point of view I suppose.

[madog]

You say there is empirical evidence for the "Gospels" (the teachings of Jesus and the apostles) .... OK all ears, please give me the empirical evidence that Jesus is the son of God? .....

I treat science with as much skepticism as anything  .... I was not indoctrinated as a child to believe in atheism it came about without science just logically reading the bible .... By the way I was an atheist decades (44 years) before I even knew there was a word for a non belief in a God or that there were others out there that had come to the same conclusion ....

I said for the Gospel... meaning the resurrection of Christ.  I don't know that there is empirical evidence for Jesus being the Son of God, unless you would count Mary's seeing of the angel, or the voice declaring him so at his baptism.  Even if these where granted, I wouldn't really refer to that in empirical evidence terms.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child in Christianity either.   For me, I came to believe in it rationally, first from learning about it from others, and then from reading the Bible.  Different point of view I suppose.

Are you saying that Jesus or his apostles didn't teach that Jesus was the son of God?

[RoadRunner79]

I said for the Gospel... meaning the resurrection of Christ.  I don't know that there is empirical evidence for Jesus being the Son of God, unless you would count Mary's seeing of the angel, or the voice declaring him so at his baptism.  Even if these where granted, I wouldn't really refer to that in empirical evidence terms.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child in Christianity either.   For me, I came to believe in it rationally, first from learning about it from others, and then from reading the Bible.  Different point of view I suppose.

Are you saying that Jesus or his apostles didn't teach that Jesus was the son of God?

No....

[madog]

Are you saying that Jesus or his apostles didn't teach that Jesus was the son of God?

No....

Now I'm confused? are you saying then that the Gospel isn't the teachings of Jesus and his apostles?

[RoadRunner79]

No....

Now I'm confused? are you saying then that the Gospel isn't the teachings of Jesus and his apostles?

Those books are called the Gospels, because they contain the Gospel story.  The Gospel or "Good News" is what Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 1-4.  The death and resurrection of Jesus and what that entails.