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.
I agree, CMD, but here's my problem. I was raised as a Christian child, and couldn't look up and "flip off" the Lord without the ingrained and proper fear response. But then, as I became a trained engineer and scientist with 3 or more degrees in engineering, biology and earth sciences (!! I've kinda lost track, actually...) plus many years experience in practical and skeptical thinking and research, I just had to walk away from the fundamentalist perspective. In particular the absolute literal interpretation of everything stated in the latest (of, by their own admission hundreds of versions of) the bible.
what gives a single cell life?
When you can answer that you'll know the rest of the story.
“Law of Evolution”? That is great! This is the news the world has been waiting for! Somehow I knew that I would hear about it on a forum rather than the traditional form of scientific study and reporting through pier reviewed conclusion which is then reported via mainstream media.
Scientific laws are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world supported by a thorough history of successful scientific replication. I’m eager to begin reviewing these “proofs” that has elevated Evolution from theory to “Law”.
Rifleman,
Wouldn’t your proof in a Petri dish suggest intelligent design or divine intervention?
What you just don't seem to get is that for biologists the question of whether or not evolution explains the development of life on this planet has long been settled; the question is now focused on the nuances of how the process of evolution unfolded. There are very, very few, if any, respectable biologists out there who don't wholeheartedly believe that evolution is, in fact, true.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the use of the term 'theory.' For the layman the word theory implies ambiguity, it suggests that whatever set of principles is being referred to as a theory is just educated guesswork. In everyday use this is exactly what theory means. However, insofar as the natural sciences are concerned the term 'theory' is about the highest form of knowledge that can be attained. For something to gain the status of theory requires incredibly rigorous testing and debate for a considerable length of time, it requires a high degree of unanimity. Don't forget, we still refer to the 'theory of gravity' though it's pretty clear gravity exists. Evolution is about as settled as science gets, the principles of evolution are employed regularly in the biological sciences.
The other problem, I think, is that the media and high school biology classes tend to play to the lowest common denominator. In other words, they oversimplify things to an incredible degree. When I learned about evolution in high school, for example, it amounted to 'survival of the fittest' and a long slow process of genetic mutations and thats about it. However, in reality evolution is an incredibly complex process that takes years upon years of rigorous study to even begin to understand in any comprehensive manner. That's why the average biologist has to go to school for close to a decade to get their PhD and then goes on to study evolution and the like for the rest of their life. Yet, so many theists come up with witty little ways to 'prove' evolution false, as if they have some great insight that thousands upon thousands of biologists who've spent their entire lives studying evolution have somehow overlooked. I'm sorry, but I tend to defer to the experts.
“Law of Evolution”? That is great! This is the news the world has been waiting for! Somehow I knew that I would hear about it on a forum rather than the traditional form of scientific study and reporting through pier reviewed conclusion which is then reported via mainstream media.
Scientific laws are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world supported by a thorough history of successful scientific replication. I’m eager to begin reviewing these “proofs” that has elevated Evolution from theory to “Law”.
Rifleman,
Wouldn’t your proof in a Petri dish suggest intelligent design or divine intervention?
Yeah, I don't get that either. Since when did evolution become law.....did I miss that memo?
Rereading Rifleman's original post, I think the evolution talk is slightly off topic. Or at least not the main point of his question.
He's asking if the followers of Christ are "on a mission." My answer to that is Yes. And if they're not, they should be. But will quickly say that I have markedly different knowledge of what is that Mission than do the fundamental/evangelicals.
For instance, I do not go into the A&A forum to comment, and even rarely go there to read. Why would I? I know where is found the truth of the Faith, and it's not there. Sorry, I hope this is not speaking too plainly.
It's not my place or "mission" to go around getting in people's faces about what they do or do not believe. The decision to believe or not believe, to follow Christ or to deny Him is each individual's privilege and responsibility. I would add that this is sacred and holy work. And eternally important.
I'm just here to try and answer your question, Rifleman, because it seems you may be sincere.
Last edited by Macrina; 01-03-2009 at 01:38 AM..
Reason: PS Rifleman, it was your thread title which pulled me in to even read...:)
My innocent and curious question, especially in light of what I see as an incredibly strong resistance to any and all of our logical arguments:
Do you Christian posters feel you're sort of psychologically "armoring up" before you venture out into our anti-religion threads? Suiting up in God's own armor, so to speak, to protect you from any errant thoughts, any possible impact we might eventually have on your beliefs? Do you drop the super-dark anti-science/logic welder's eyeshields before reading our ideas in order to prevent damage to your minds by possible exposure to our bright ideas or radiant questions?
I am honestly curious because in general (no, actually, never) I don't see any, ANY... concessions to anything we EVER suggest or question.
It would explain a lot about how you all think. I'm not trying to pick a fight. IMHO, if there's simply no point in ever discussing debating or reasoning anything with you, then I'll just bow out of these particularly argumentative threads for good and leave you to it.
Sincerely; rflmn™
Well Chuck/Lucas
Actually my obsevation has always been that the religious crowd (minus the Atheist/Agnostics crowd) do a good job of going round and round with each other without the help or interference from the Non-Religious gang. I don't see any gearing up for taking on any Atheist thread whatsoever.
What I do see are alot of are the same Atheist usernames starting threads specifically for the purpose of any and every, type of minute controversy and the phrazing of the question in such a way for the purpose of baiting the extremely hated Religious Right gang. Following that same introductory post in the new thread by the O.P. , I then see the same A&A parishioner usernames also chiming in with their bit or slant on the subject. It's actually almost uncanny they way they instantly flood the new thread with their take on the subject. It basically often has the appearance of a cold calculated set up, as if well orchestrated and set up like a Japanese Pearl Harbor attack. Then they get what they so desired in the first place, the Fantatics start showing up and spouting off. Once they have that established, then they simply sit back &
I can compare those A&A threads to the ones started by EX-Members of any specific Religion crowd, like the X-Mormon, X-JW, X-Church of Christ, X-Catholic, etc. It's specific and ONLY purpose is hate! The thread has no other purpose than to tear down. Then once they feel they've accomplished the desired devestation, they don't have anything possititve to replace it with. They themselves have nothing to offer anyone or any newer learned supposed TRUTH.
I've challenged some to post just ONE thread explaining why their secular philosophy is going to change our world of mankind for the better and they eventually have no other response than the usual sarcasm, then finally nothing more than the burned out deafening silence. I don't really go to the A&A section, but I have recently gone there to look up in the thread titles history to see if indeed there is some sort of thread specifically mentioning their superior philosophy and how ALL mankind would benefit if everyone thought and practiced what they believe and lived life the way they do by actions. There's Not One!!!
Beyond that I don't think I have anything more here that can help you.
I've challenged some to post just ONE thread explaining why their secular philosophy is going to change our world of mankind for the better and they eventually have no other response than the usual sarcasm, then finally nothing more than the burned out deafening silence. I don't really go to the A&A section, but I have recently gone there to look up in the thread titles history to see if indeed there is some sort of thread specifically mentioning their superior philosophy and how ALL mankind would benefit if everyone thought and practiced what they believe and lived life the way they do by actions. There's Not One!!!
Beyond that I don't think I have anything more here that can help you. [/b]
And I've already addressed this to you elsewhere on another thread. The simple fact is that you are trying to encompass atheist beliefs with a set, defined way of belief in the same pattern that religion offers such as rules, things to abide by and moral codes. The truth of the matter is that atheism simply means a non-belief in God. It doesn't seek to define how one should live their life or any of the other things a person tries to do in that life. One of my biggest objections to starting the A&A thread when we first voted on it was that there wouldn't be much to talk about simply because there isn't a whole lot that defines our "superior philosophy". While some Atheists certainly seem to have a tendency towards a more liberal mindset and perhaps scientific mindset, I wouldn't say this is true for all of them so the few disagreements have been over things more political and socio-economic rather than how one lives their life - and even those are few and far between. Ultimately, I would venture to guess that there is far less bickering and in-fighting amongst the Atheists than there is on the Christian forum. That would seem to tell you at least a little something about what you lament as a "superior philosophy".
Ultimately, it's not a matter of trying to replace religious philosophy with atheist philosophy because religion tries to dictate how one lives their life. What I think many atheists feel is that without religion in this world it would be a better place. At least, I think it would. Religion tends to enable people to project their own personal beliefs onto their God and gives them an excuse not to live up to their own humanity. How difficult would it be for someone to say "I am attacking you because I hate you" as opposed to "I am attacking you because my God says so"? In essence, caricaturing this God-thing as a willful and benevolent third party enables people to carry on with their ways without taking accountability for them. If there is one single benefit to Atheism it would be that.
But, ultimately, there is no interpretive jargon one has to shuffle through, there is no code of ethics or moral values one should abide by, it is very simply put: a non-belief in God(s). Nothing more and nothing less.
Perhaps YOU want us to invent a religion out of atheism to fill the gaps you think religion provides but I don't think you'll find too many of us wanting to venture down that route. I certainly don't. Because if it did, then I'd have to start calling myself an "A-Atheist."
And I've already addressed this to you elsewhere on another thread. The simple fact is that you are trying to encompass atheist beliefs with a set, defined way of belief in the same pattern that religion offers such as rules, things to abide by and moral codes. The truth of the matter is that atheism simply means a non-belief in God. It doesn't seek to define how one should live their life or any of the other things a person tries to do in that life. One of my biggest objections to starting the A&A thread when we first voted on it was that there wouldn't be much to talk about simply because there isn't a whole lot that defines our "superior philosophy". While some Atheists certainly seem to have a tendency towards a more liberal mindset and perhaps scientific mindset, I wouldn't say this is true for all of them so the few disagreements have been over things more political and socio-economic rather than how one lives their life - and even those are few and far between. Ultimately, I would venture to guess that there is far less bickering and in-fighting amongst the Atheists than there is on the Christian forum. That would seem to tell you at least a little something about what you lament as a "superior philosophy".
Ultimately, it's not a matter of trying to replace religious philosophy with atheist philosophy because religion tries to dictate how one lives their life. What I think many atheists feel is that without religion in this world it would be a better place. At least, I think it would. Religion tends to enable people to project their own personal beliefs onto their God and gives them an excuse not to live up to their own humanity. How difficult would it be for someone to say "I am attacking you because I hate you" as opposed to "I am attacking you because my God says so"? In essence, caricaturing this God-thing as a willful and benevolent third party enables people to carry on with their ways without taking accountability for them. If there is one single benefit to Atheism it would be that.
But, ultimately, there is no interpretive jargon one has to shuffle through, there is no code of ethics or moral values one should abide by, it is very simply put: a non-belief in God(s). Nothing more and nothing less.
Perhaps YOU want us to invent a religion out of atheism to fill the gaps you think religion provides but I don't think you'll find too many of us wanting to venture down that route. I certainly don't. Because if it did, then I'd have to start calling myself an "A-Atheist."
You don't have to have anything comparable to anyone's religion. Just what is it that you believe as to a better world through your sterile unadulterated pure Secualism ???
Or perhaps doing nothing more than tearing other beliefs is your only mission & purpose in life ???
I don't know since none of you really ever say anything of any real import or benefit to your fellow man.
You don't have to have anything comparable to anyone's religion. Just what is it that you believe as to a better world through your sterile unadulterated pure Secualism ???
Or perhaps doing nothing more than tearing other beliefs is your only mission & purpose in life ???
I don't know since none of you really ever say anything of any real import or benefit to your fellow man.
"What Is TRUTH ???"
First of all, I think you're trying to paint us all with a broad stroke. I have many friends on here that are Christians and I have actually grown rather close to a few of those friends. We do disagree on our beliefs or non-beliefs but we don't let that come between our friendship. At least, not usually.
Second, what you're asking me would only be my opinion and not the opinion of any particular other atheist. I know that I share similar thoughts on many things with many other atheists but to ask me what I believe would make the world better through pure, unadulterated secularism may be entirely different than what another atheist thinks about it.
I already explained to you, in my initial response why I think the world would be a better place without religion (i.e. - secular). I think there are some good things that religion does in this world. Of that, I have no doubt. But, by and large and as a whole throughout history and present day I feel that it has been more detrimental to humankind than helpful. I think that it provides an excuse for people to behave in accordance with their own personal philosophies but they can justify those actions with "God wants me to do it" rather than "I want to do it." This, of course, does not encompass just the Christian faith but belief in Gods in entirety.
Furthermore, I have often wondered just how damaging belief without strict scientific evidence is to a society in terms of the overall congruency of thought processes. I am really starting to wonder if America's devout infatuation with the acceptance of people believing in things without evidence is more of a hindrance than a help to society. This, of course, is just a thought I have had but I do not have any sort of confirmation to prove that true. But, I do wonder why there is a broad acceptance of illogical thought patterns and I wonder if that does not trigger an acceptable behavioral pattern within societies for other irrational thought processes.
I do wonder, for example, if someone who believes without evidence in things like UFO's, psychics, Gods, etc... also shows tendencies towards "superstitious" concepts in other areas of their life. So, to take someone who consistently berates oneself to the point of depression and anxiety to satiate an internal need for this particular "belief" I wonder how that is any different than focusing only on the "correct" answers a psychic provides rather than all of the incorrect answers in opposition to that. It seems like wish-thinking with a subtle overtone to it. In other words, if we are convincing ourselves to think that we are no good, what better way to do it than to ignore all of the good things about ourselves and focus only on the "bad"? Or, in other words, cherry picking what we want to believe. Again, that's just a thought I have but I think the human mind is a little more multi-dimensional than that as well. I do wonder about the logical concepts formulated as acceptable and unacceptable in that sense.
I do think that there is far too much emphasis in at least the American society that belief without evidence is ok. I have to be honest and say that belief without evidence has led us to places like Iraq. This, I think, brings up an important question as to the mindset of what we consider to be evidence as a society - and does that have anything to do with irrational religious beliefs or, at least, does the implanting and general consensus that believing without evidence is OK lead us into accepting other things outside the realm of religion as acceptable to believe in without evidence? I think that's an interesting question that I wish I knew the answer to.
My wife comes from Japan which is a very predominantly "Secular" society. Many of their traditional origins stem from Buddhism and Shintoism but they seem a lot more like traditions now rather than actual religious undertakings. Sort of like how Christmas is becoming in the States. One of her very persistent thoughts on Americans is that we always change our minds so quickly because we don't have all of the information we need before we make a choice. This, I think, brings up another interesting question. Is acting impulsively and without full evidence another embodiment of the thought process involved with the widespread acceptance of religious beliefs and belief without evidence? It's hard to say.
Thus, I think that if we as a nation (as well as the rest of the world) focused more steadfastly on evidence in a scientific fashion we would at least have a bearing on what is truth and what is false. If we instilled in our children the ability to remain skeptical at every leap and turn and to question everything and not be satisfied with answers until they were proven to be real, I wonder how much good that would do with a society?
Naturally, these kinds of robust methodologies can't always be practically applied in the real world. We shouldn't consume ourselves with an obsessive compulsive-like manner to question whether every bump in the road is not a human being disguised as a pothole but rather that when things of pertinent decision making come to pass - should we jump onto the bandwagon before we know what is really happening and until we have weighed the evidence? This, I think, is a proper mindset that a good scientific as well as secular thought process gives us.
Something that has always frustrated me to no end is to hear people thank their God for all of the little things in their life as if he is some divine tinkerer manipulating the laws of physics strictly for them. It is such an egotistical and self-centered viewpoint that it drives me absolutely nuts. It tends to take away from so much of the human element in my point of view.
Through and through, I think that a secular society would be much more beneficial to the human race than a religious one. Think about that for a second. Would you rather have one worldwide religion that pervaded society or would you rather have a secular society? Think about that very hard because it may not be the religion of your liking. I understand that you live in Sweden (if I remember correctly?) - is Sweden so bad that you would rather subject yourself to Sharia Law or perhaps a complete Southern Baptist fire and brimstone "burn in the lake of fire" subjection within all of our states and governments? I honestly do not see how religion becomes good in this sense - even if we are talking about a more laid back religion.
Ultimately though, my thoughts are my thoughts and they may not necessarily jive with what another atheist believes so it would be hard for me to wave a banner of "Atheism" for everyone and say that we should all be doing this or doing that. But, I think what so many atheists are absolutely frustrated with are those who have chosen to live their lives in pursuit of believing in something without evidence who feel compelled to force their points of view on others as if it should be accepted without questioning it and then become offended when it is.
Personally, religious beliefs should be able to stand up to just as much rigorous scrutiny and careful skepticism as anything else on this planet. Religion does not need to have its own private little box where we all huddle around and say "You can't touch this" because that is precisely how it gets taken advantage of by those with less than good merit behind them.
Those are my thoughts and my thoughts only. I can't speak for anyone else and I won't pretend like I will. But, I hope you see my point.
Thanks GCSTroop for these two amazing posts. I agree with you, particularly about the dangers of teaching children that a belief based on faith alone is acceptable - worse, that it deserves respect because it is based on faith.
I would also add that the social consequences of the disappearance of religion are not the issue. Assuming that, say, religion makes us behave better, prevents war, makes us happier, whatever (I disagree, of course, but that's not the point). None of it makes religion true. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
What I do see are alot of are the same Atheist usernames starting threads specifically for the purpose of any and every, type of minute controversy and the phrazing of the question in such a way for the purpose of baiting the extremely hated Religious Right gang.
I'm going to object your overuse of the word "hate" in this post. Personally, I'm not ashamed to say that part of the reason I come here is to have a laugh at the "Fantatics" you mentionned. However, I don't hate them, and I doubt that any other atheist here do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
It's actually almost uncanny they way they instantly flood the new thread with their take on the subject. It basically often has the appearance of a cold calculated set up, as if well orchestrated and set up like a Japanese Pearl Harbor attack.
Paranoid much? I know that I don't conspire with other atheists to make a concerted attack on religion. It just happens that I often have the CD window open, so when a new thread is created I come and have a look. I can't be the only one in that case, can I?
interesting title. the riflemen, a symbol of rugged individualism and fierce defense of family and children the self reliance thing. the history of the series however brings out that somebody always came to his rescue when he got over his head which was often--- higher power?.
Thanks, huck! I'll take that as a compliment, and I'm always ready to have a little help when the need arises. My Win 92 just kayn't reach out fur'nuf to wing them black-hatted fellers sneakin' throoo the sage t'wards me!
Chuck's stern father-figure character was interesting. A bit uber-strict, but good nonetheless, esp. when compared to taday's more, shall we say, "liberal" types.
Actually, I've been a student of rifles, their finer mechanical and desighn points for, oh, 50 years. And now, in my "retirement", I'm a custom rifle builder as well as a chat-line hound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esselcue
I have no problem believing, or rather "feeling", that there is something to this Universe that cannot be explained, something that created the Big Bang and has led evolution on its path, energy perhaps, but I long ago stopped trying to believe the Bible as the "truth", because my scientific mind will just not allow it.
My only problem is when they force their beliefs onto others or threaten non-believers with hell or worse...or when they use their fundamentalist Bible beliefs to condemn other's life-styles or beliefs. Then it sometimes becomes hard for me to keep neutral
I completely agree: Those fine bible-thumpers in Georgia who, last year, tried to run evolution teaching and facts out of town. nice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
“Law of Evolution”? That is great! This is the news the world has been waiting for! Somehow I knew that I would hear about it on a forum rather than the traditional form of scientific study and reporting through pier reviewed conclusion which is then reported via mainstream media.
See, S&L, the hair on the necks of wayy tooooo many fundy Xtians' gets all fuzzy and stiff whenever I or others even get half of the word "evolution" out of our mouths in search of a bit of honest debate. "It's only a THEORY!! A THEORY!!! AN HYPOTHESIS AND A THEORY!"
Simply 'cause some scientists once "admitted" that all of their discoveries were, every one, "just a theory". So that bit of tired semantics is used against them, all the time.
But they accept The Laws of Thermodynamics, Gravity, and on and on. Well, scientists know EVERYTHING is a theory. Do I need to go through all of this again? No.
So we earth scientists and biologists, having seen more than enough evidence, now simply accept the facts of evolution, gravity, etc. Gravity. You gotta know that, once we start bending time and space, gravity's standard "laws" will go out the window. so it's only a theory too, but Xtians believe it completely. Evolution? On earth? We won't bve "bending" those facts. The fossil record, the determined age of rocks, old bits and pieces, other bits that completely fit in and meld properly, the absence of any evidence of T-Rexs cuddling at the feet of cave men, AOAOAI (and on and on ad infinitum...). That "evidence" just doesn't cut it.
Rifleman, Wouldn’t your proof in a Petri dish suggest intelligent design or divine intervention?
First off, imy trusty petri dish will still "prove" that species arrive on the scene through the relentless but ohh soo logical and observable process of transcriptional DNA/RNA errors resulting in mostly lethal but occasionally beneficial traits that better fit the original species for a newly available niche. Or make it more aggressively successful. Eloquently simple! Well designed, even if by an intelligent designer or space alien. But irrefutable by any but the most basalt-headed. Wouldn't you agree, thoughtful people?
Never said I knew what the original origins of life were. There may well have been an originator of this grand petri dish we call Earth. An alien perhaps? and of course if it must take an always-smarter creator of whatever you have under your microscope to explain it, then who, precisely, created the Creator? Your logic, not mine.
Evolution is precisely how we all then got to our current (and transient) forms. We're latter-day apes. Fact.
But, back to the OP. Can we get anywhere? The answers by you guys suggest NO.
I'm off to the first Audubon bird Walk of the year. Nice little flitting-about dinosaur descendents all!
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.
Fantatics start showing up and spouting off. Once they have that established, then they simply sit back & 
Thanks, all!
