An Encounter With Some Preachers

[Belacqua]

Well, I did learn from them. They introduced me to an apologetic that I'd never before encountered and they forced me to re-examine and strengthen my point of view. Engaging with people you disagree with is good for you. Also, I think that conversations of this nature need to take place between religious people and atheists much more often. That's how we create a less religious world.

Fair enough! 

If you genuinely feel this does good for either party, then go for it.

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]

Also, I think that conversations of this nature need to take place between religious people and atheists much more often. That's how we create a less religious world.

Critical examination of an issue can lead to a greater understanding for both parties involved.

But I have one question: why would you want to make the world less religious? From my point of view, we need to make the world more secular... not less religious. Let people have their beliefs. Most of the time it doesn't create any bother for us. But when it does... a more secular world addresses these issues.

You should communicate to argue the issues... not make people "less religious"...

You need to be careful trying to change people's minds like that. You know how Christians often don't care if they are full of shit liars who misrepresent themselves? You don't want to be an atheist version of that, do you?

Therefore you should strive for honesty in your communications. It's not your job to change the way people think. Do your best to tell them the truth, and let them change their own minds.

Could you elaborate on the difference between "less religious" and "more secular"?

[Little lunch]

I've thought about this, deeply, for about ten minutes and I don't get the difference either.

[vulcanlogician]

Could you elaborate on the difference between "less religious" and "more secular"?

I've thought about this, deeply, for about ten minutes and I don't get the difference either.

It might help to clarify if I put things in terms of secular/religious societies.

So, to me anyway, a secular society is not a society where no religion is to be found. It is a society that doesn't concern itself with religion. To a secularist it doesn't matter if people are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. It matters that they are people. A secular society doesn't aim to stifle religion. A secular society embraces humanistic values, but not anti-religious ones.

A religious society promotes the values of a particular religion. For example: Women are second class citizens in Saudi Arabia. Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia. That's because Saudi Arabia is a religious society. If I wanted to "improve" the situation in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't try to stamp out Islam. I would rather implement women's rights, gay rights etc. and make the country hospitable to anyone with any sort of belief.

In short, secularism creates societies that people of all creeds (or no creed at all) can live within and thrive. Religious societies favor the value system of a particular religion. Hence, my view is that we should be "more secular" rather than fighting to make society "less religious"... make sense?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you think that the verse in question is credible as a scientific miracle, then "god" must be the sun, because that's what "draws the water up"...and we've been watching that happen since we had eyes to see.

It's almost as if human beings were hilariously obsessed with the sun and it's relationship to divinity by reference to life enabling natural interactions...or something.

In any case, by the time that job was written for magic book , the idea of the hydrological cycle was a well known and accepted.

Isn't it strange how magic books know what we know..even when we're wrong, but not what we don't?

[Rahn127]

When presented with such things, just ask questions.

Who wrote that passage ?
When was it written ?
Who decided that this passage should be included in the Bible ?
How did they determine the passage was inspired by a god ?
What methods did they use to determine what stories went in the Bible ?
Since god never instructed anyone to make a Bible, then it would seem to be purely a product created by people.

People decided what stories would go in it.
People decided when it would changed or altered.
People decided to create it.

God had nothing to do with it because gods don't exist and if they did, they wouldn't"inspire" people to write a book that can be altered over time

[Fake Messiah]

, and then I explained that Muslims point to scientific explanations in the Quran, and told them that perhaps they should consider Islam. One of the preachers pressed me and asked me to give a specific example of scientific revelation in the Quran. I'm not familiar with that Holy book, and I don't know what kinds of "scientific proof" Muslims point to, but I do know that it is a phenomenon that does occur, and to object to it on grounds that I can't point to a specific example is honestly kind of silly.

Indeed, talking about water science, Quran claims that life has an aquatic origin: “And I created every living thing out of water” Quran, 21:30

Bible is not scientific since it describes world that is governed by magic and fantastical beings like talking donkeys, talking snakes, giants, dragons, virgin births...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

God had nothing to do with it because gods don't exist and if they did, they wouldn't"inspire" people to write a book that can be altered over time

Yep. When the fat friars can't control society they follow it until they can gain control.

"11. Thou shalt not make me work."