Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Driving is actually a good analogy to (true) Christianity.
What do you hear on the news everyday? Not that millions of people successfully drove their cars to, and from, work, errands and what not -- making their lives easier and better and allowing modern society to function at a high level. No, what you hear is a bad accident involving so and so killed 3 people, blah blah blah.
Thus, like driving, Christianity is really only in the news when there is a "wreck" to report. Otherwise its just boring business as usual for Christians, raising their families, giving back, helping others, being good citizens and community leaders. But these things arent news. Theyre boooorrriiinnggggg. Its only when a nutcase using Christianity as a cover commits some heinous crime that Christianity hits the front page.
Atheists dont like to acknowledge this, of course, because it destroys their preferred narrative.
Think about it. If we focused on how much death and injury car accidends cause on our roads everyday, would anyone really continue driving? The point is, there are goods and bad to everything. The question is do the goods outweigh the bads? It can be hard to accurately measure because the bads may be so bad and the goods fairly innocuous. But those who get it know the answer --- its obvious.
You left out the part about 'drunk'.
Most drunk drivers are able to successfully navigate their ways home. But few (there are those 'special' few who suggest they drive better after a few drinks) would suggest that being drunk enhances your ability to do so.
I also acknowledge that plenty of drivers who aren't drunk cause their fair share of accidents.
But the reality is, the mind free of intoxication is better suited to perform the task.
Or it's intellectual honesty. Not everything in life is a snap decision, and there often isn't enough data to actually make a determination, ever. Religion, by and large, is speculating about things that can't be known or verified, at least not by the living. Personally I prefer to only make statements about things I can know and to allow the unknown to be what it is.
Were I an agnostic (which really just means that the possibility of god(s) rises from where it is for me as an atheist (= highly unlikely) to, say, (somewhat possible), that's simply a statement of probability, not a vacillation between two binary choices. This is nuanced and honest, not confused. Although, of course, it's quite possible for a particular individual to have a lot of hand-wringing angst and confusion because of a misplaced desire to make an unambiguous decision one way or the other. But this is forcing a false choice into the picture. If there is not clear evidence for god, then that's true whether or not a particular individual wishes there were more certainty.
When you think if it, much of religion is really just about not being willing to sit with uncertainty, and thus, needing to make stuff up and speculate to fill this perceived need for certitude.
Your reasoning is faulty because there is real evidence of God, but you are handicapped in that you cannot see this real evidence; to you its not real evidence. So the problem is not lack of evidence to help one decide or choose, the real problem is lack of clear vision that can see the traces of God. Now, the hypocroacy involved is this; one can see enough evidence that they can stipulate God " May be real", because you can't even go that far unless you see something; but then they stifen up and claim its " Not enough evidence" for them to fully committ to the idea; Really!-- enough to keep your foot in the door, but not enough for you to walk complettely away from the door; your just playing a game with yourself; a game of caution, because " If" the door opens, well then you can just walk into it.
This is called " Keeping the benefits within your reach at least"; a common tactic that gamblers use.
Every Atheist who post here on a daily basics is intrested in God, and most of them wouldnot admit it! Not publically. I can see the intrest comming out of their debates like sweat comming out of skin. Its obvious to me; and not surprising that they cannot see their own sweat, no wonder they cannot see the evidence of God. They are prejudice of their own intrests. Agnostics are no different, they think belief is a caution flag, you only step out if nothing comming can damage you.
Every Atheist who post here on a daily basics is intrested in God, and most of them wouldnot admit it! Not publically. I can see the intrest comming out of their debates like sweat comming out of skin. Its obvious to me; and not surprising that they cannot see their own sweat, no wonder they cannot see the evidence of God. They are prejudice of their own intrests. Agnostics are no different, they think belief is a caution flag, you only step out if nothing comming can damage you.
We are not interested in the idea of a god per say. We are interested in combating the ignorance many believers exhibit towards us and others that stem from their beliefs. Believe what you want but please don't use an unfounded belief to decry science or use that belief to deny others the same rights you enjoy. If you could only keep your religions in your churches and homes we would get along swimmingly.
BTW Mick not to nitpick but a smidgen of proof reading would go a long way. All browsers have auto spell check and with just one click you would be taken much more seriously. Spelling counts.
Most drunk drivers are able to successfully navigate their ways home. But few (there are those 'special' few who suggest they drive better after a few drinks) would suggest that being drunk enhances your ability to do so.
I also acknowledge that plenty of drivers who aren't drunk cause their fair share of accidents.
But the reality is, the mind free of intoxication is better suited to perform the task.
Yep. It is a good analogy.
Boy, it took me a few times to figure your point on this one. Guess it must be the whole "atheist/agnostic" smart, believers stupid" working its magic again....
So lets see, you are saying that religion is like a drug, in that believers are "intoxicated" and therefore unable to make sound decisions about.....pretty much anything, I guess?
WOW.
Well lets see here. First Id say that the vast majority of accidents are not caused by drunk drivers. Most of the time its distracted, careless or reckless drivers that cause accidents. Based on this alone, Id say your analogy is extremely weak -- at best.
Second, believers all around you make sound decisions about their daily lives, their careers, families, etc, every day. Its only when a believer makes that (rare) bad decision that publicity accrues. Thats also when atheists start pumping their chests about the "inherent wrongness" of religion.
So yea, I guess Id say my analogy rocks, while yours rolls.....away. Buh bye.
We are not interested in the idea of a god per say. We are interested in combating the ignorance many believers exhibit towards us and others that stem from their beliefs. Believe what you want but please don't use an unfounded belief to decry science or use that belief to deny others the same rights you enjoy. If you could only keep your religions in your churches and homes we would get along swimmingly.
BTW Mick not to nitpick but a smidgen of proof reading would go a long way. All browsers have auto spell check and with just one click you would be taken much more seriously. Spelling counts.
I think we have a lot of pots calling the kettles black. Decry science. Many gays were very happy when science was decried in '73.
Boy, it took me a few times to figure your point on this one. Guess it must be the whole "atheist/agnostic" smart, believers stupid" working its magic again....
I'm not making this claim. I am 100% certain that there are believers who are 'smarter' than non-believers.
Quote:
So lets see, you are saying that religion is like a drug, in that believers are "intoxicated" and therefore unable to make sound decisions about.....pretty much anything, I guess?
WOW.
Nope. I didn't say that.
Quote:
Well lets see here. First Id say that the vast majority of accidents are not caused by drunk drivers. Most of the time its distracted, careless or reckless drivers that cause accidents. Based on this alone, Id say your analogy is extremely weak -- at best.
I specifically addressed this.
The biggest difference in the analogy is that the majority of individuals are believers while the majority of drivers are not intoxicated.
It there were an equivalent number of believers and intoxicated drivers there would certainly be a lot more drunk driving crashes.
Quote:
Second, believers all around you make sound decisions about their daily lives, their careers, families, etc, every day.
Of course. As I said, the majority of drunk drivers make their way home safely.
I'm not an atheist that hates religion and my comment about 'wrecks' was a bit harsh and not meant to apply to every believer. A drunk at home isn't likely to cause too many wrecks. Nor are the other drunks in the car. But those that drive, they are a problem.
That said, people who believe in deities have a fundamentally flawed understanding about the universe.
If your not interested in God, then why are you so interested?
I hate to interrupt this infighting and theist/atheist dust-up, but the title of the OP offers an opportunity to inject a bit of Spirituality into the mix. The answer to the question is the central one that motivates the Spiritualist. We know there is an aspect of being human that transcends the physical and material aspects of this world. The religious attribute it to God with a diversity of concepts about God. We consider it spiritual and it is an inescapable aspect of human experience. I am not pretending there are not many different concepts about what that entails among Spiritualists too, because there are quite a few. Diversity would be one of the human traits that seems to be endemic to all our endeavors and speculations.
Every Atheist who post here on a daily basics is intrested in God, and most of them wouldnot admit it! Not publically. I can see the intrest comming out of their debates like sweat comming out of skin. Its obvious to me; and not surprising that they cannot see their own sweat, no wonder they cannot see the evidence of God. They are prejudice of their own intrests. Agnostics are no different, they think belief is a caution flag, you only step out if nothing comming can damage you.
Maybe people are interested in god Mickiel, but that doesn't have to mean they believe..does it?..Like I already said, I'm interested, no doubt about it...if I wasn't I wouldn't be here now would I?...I'm also interested in a lot of other stuff, and some of that I don't believe either.
I'm not making this claim. I am 100% certain that there are believers who are 'smarter' than non-believers.
Of course. But atheists/agnostics still unfailingly express the view, as you do albeit indirectly, that on average, believers are (much) less intelligent than they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
The biggest difference in the analogy is that the majority of individuals are believers while the majority of drivers are not intoxicated.
It there were an equivalent number of believers and intoxicated drivers there would certainly be a lot more drunk driving crashes.
Yea...? Its like saying the majority of people wear pants. Therefore if there were an equivalent number of intoxicated drivers as pants wearers there would be more drunk driving caused accidents. I dont consider this "observation" too terribly revealing -- to say the least. But it seems you do....
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Of course. As I said, the majority of drunk drivers make their way home safely.
I'm not an atheist that hates religion and my comment about 'wrecks' was a bit harsh and not meant to apply to every believer. A drunk at home isn't likely to cause too many wrecks. Nor are the other drunks in the car. But those that drive, they are a problem.
That said, people who believe in deities have a fundamentally flawed understanding about the universe.
The bold above -- spoken like a true atheist. No one else's views are valid, nobody "understands the universe" (whatever the 'F' that means) as well as the super braniacal atheist/agnostic crowd....oh dear lord, deliver me
So tell us, oh great one, all about the universe. Explain all its workings, how it came to be, solve all its (perceived) mysteries, down to the minutest details, will you? I mean, you must have that capability, right, because otherwise there would be no way you could completely eliminate other influences and possibilities beyond your (what most people consider VERY limited) understanding of said universe.
There are no doubt deists who understand the universe quite well. But I guess not as well as you. Are you perhaps an MIT professor/author/scientist/phsyicist/astronomer/nasa engineer/theorest? Have you picked off where old Albert left off?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If your not interested in God, then why are you so interested?
