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.
Was it Cantor's book? My copy is down in Florida right now so I can't check, but it is an amazing book about how much the Church influenced, and in some cases held back, civilization in the Middle Ages.
In large part, the stranglehold the Church had on what passed for science during those years and the lack of education among the peasant class caused fear and superstition to trump all else -- including logic, common sense, critical thinking, and even their own experiences.
One of the worst things to happen to Christianity was having the Catholic Church interdict the individual's personal relationship with God. Thus the Church and its clergy acted as spiritual "middlemen" for thousands of years, giving the people the misguided and incredibly stupid belief that priests could actually send people to Hell on God's authority.
Excommunication is STILL a serious threat even today -- as if being tossed out of the Catholic Church is a one-way ticket to the Ol' Scratch Hotel.
This kind of power-mongering and twisting of religion -- not to mention the fact that the Catholics literally slaughtered all of its early competitors -- was at the forefront of causes as to why the "Dark Ages" were so bloody dark.
This is not another thread about the evidence or lack thereof for a god, so let's please not waste time going there . This is about some statements I routinely see here suggesting that the reason atheists and agnostics don't want to believe in God is because they want to sin. Which makes no sense in and of itself . But I want to directly address this oft repeated statement .
Do theists really believe that the only reason atheists and agnostics don't believe is because they want to sin?
Can theists truly not grasp that some people simply see no evidence of a God , and certainly none that might want a person to follow a particular faith, and see no point in believing in something like this without solid evidence ?
On what basis would a theist who believes this claim that someone like Stephen Hawking just wants to sin ? What evidence would a theist have that Sam Harris's atheism is rooted in a desire to pretend God doesn't exist so he can sin without guilt ? What about Dan Barker , a former Pentecostal preacher who decided he no longer believed ? What evidence would a theist have that Dan Barker left the faith so he could sin at will?
Is the concept of simple disbelief in invisible and silent supernatural beings really this hard to grasp , that theists have to resort to these kinds of allegations ?
I have been assured many times over the years by Christians that of course everyone is born with an innate sense of and knowledge of the existence of God. Therefore the only reason to deny the existence of God is the desire to do sinful and wicked things. I personally doubt the existence of God in exactly the same way I doubt the existence of Santa Claus. As it turns out however I am not allowed to disbelieve in the existence of God because Christians declare that no such thing is possible.
In large part, the stranglehold the Church had on what passed for science during those years and the lack of education among the peasant class caused fear and superstition to trump all else -- including logic, common sense, critical thinking, and even their own experiences.
One of the worst things to happen to Christianity was having the Catholic Church interdict the individual's personal relationship with God. Thus the Church and its clergy acted as spiritual "middlemen" for thousands of years, giving the people the misguided and incredibly stupid belief that priests could actually send people to Hell on God's authority.
Excommunication is STILL a serious threat even today -- as if being tossed out of the Catholic Church is a one-way ticket to the Ol' Scratch Hotel.
This kind of power-mongering and twisting of religion -- not to mention the fact that the Catholics literally slaughtered all of its early competitors -- was at the forefront of causes as to why the "Dark Ages" were so bloody dark.
I have been assured many times over the years by Christians that of course everyone is born with an innate sense of and knowledge of the existence of God. Therefore the only reason to deny the existence of God is the desire to do sinful and wicked things. I personally doubt the existence of God in exactly the same way I doubt the existence of Santa Claus. As it turns out however I am not allowed to disbelieve in the existence of God because Christians declare that no such thing is possible.
If someone is trying to define your relationship, or disbelief, in God, it's just as wrong as someone telling another they have no relationship with God.
I say disbelieve in God, the tooth fairy, or Easter Bunny. Has zero effect on me. I sure as hell don't try to answer another's metaphysical questions. They have to define that themselves.
I have been assured many times over the years by Christians that of course everyone is born with an innate sense of and knowledge of the existence of God. Therefore the only reason to deny the existence of God is the desire to do sinful and wicked things. I personally doubt the existence of God in exactly the same way I doubt the existence of Santa Claus. As it turns out however I am not allowed to disbelieve in the existence of God because Christians declare that no such thing is possible.
Yes, both theists and atheist like to use this correct by default rhetoric (by saying babies are born theists or atheists) as a tactic to push the burden of proof on the other side. Of course, the argument in both cases is invalid. Where the burden of proof really lies comes from the very definition of proof. Proof is what give a reasonable expectation that others should agree with you. Therefore, logically, the burden of proof lies with ANYONE who expects other people to agree with them. If people just accept the simple fact that they cannot expect others to agree with them on things they have no proof or objective evidence for and this mind-numbing-ly boring game dries up.
If someone is trying to define your relationship, or disbelief, in God, it's just as wrong as someone telling another they have no relationship with God.
I say disbelieve in God, the tooth fairy, or Easter Bunny. Has zero effect on me. I sure as hell don't try to answer another's metaphysical questions. They have to define that themselves.
I doesn't bother me when other people try to present their beliefs to me. What annoys me is that they often get angry and hostile when I go about pointing out exactly why their beliefs are utter nonsense. When they do it it evangelizing. When I refute every claim they make, I am persecuting them.
Yes, both theists and atheist like to use this correct by default rhetoric (by saying babies are born theists or atheists) as a tactic to push the burden of proof on the other side. Of course, the argument in both cases is invalid. Where the burden of proof really lies comes from the very definition of proof. Proof is what give a reasonable expectation that others should agree with you. Therefore, logically, the burden of proof lies with ANYONE who expects other people to agree with them. If people just accept the simple fact that they cannot expect others to agree with them on things they have no proof or objective evidence for and this mind-numbing-ly boring game dries up.
I disagree, with babies they are more than likely, at least to begin with, to follow the belief or lack of belief of their parents. There is a reason that a North American is less likely to be a Hindu than a child born in India or less likely to be a Muslim than is a child born in Iran.
The burden of proof falls directly upon the person making an absolute declaration. The person who states that a god exists or that gods definitely do not exist should be held to it more than the person who says that for them God exists or in my case I do not believe that any gods exist. There should never be a burden of proof for simply what you believe or don't believe. How is it possible for me to prove to anyone that I don't believe in a god. I have no interest in attempting to prove that a god cannot or does not exist as I do not know that for sure.
If a theist makes the claim that I must believe in God because He is real and everyone believes in Him and if you claim that you do not then you are either lying or you hate Him, it is then up to the theist to try to prove that point if you are having a discussion. If they accept that you can legitimately not believe in a god and they tell you why they do, there is no onus on either.
That it is inconceivable for some to accept that a person does not believe in God does not mean that you hate god for some reason, the fault is on them. I have no reason to care if I show I am correct. I just what them to not use their religion to harm others or to push their belief into the science courses or to make claims that they do all the good and none of the bad.
So, if God didn't do the things listed in Genesis chapter 1, then what did God do exactly? Is all religion just a poem?
Note that, until fairly recently, the vast majority of Christians believed that Genesis chapter 1 was a literally and historically true account.
I don't think all religion is just a poem. Genesis I pretty obviously is when it's looked at as literature, as are other books/parts of books of the bible. On the other hand, there's some decidedly UN-poetic stuff in some of the writings. Lots of death and war and dogs licking the blood of the baddies and whatnot. But, thanks for the thought. I do sort of like the concept of religion as poetry.
As far as what God did, I believe that God is the Creator, although not in the snap-your-fingers, Merlin-the-Magician way that the ancients imagined. We know now that it was a lot more complex than that and that there is still so much we don't know. The unfolding of the universe is much more awe-inspiring than everything happening in an instant, but I still believe that a power greater than mere chance set it in motion. IMO, of course, and if you take note of this thread title and my earlier posts on the thread title, yes, I do get that you and lots of others don't believe in God. It's easy to understand disbelief in God. Disbelief makes more sense, logically. I have no interest in trying to change your mind, so if you're thinking about going the "prove to me that there's a God!" route, find someone else. I won't engage.
Yes, until fairly recently, the vast majority of Christians did believe that Genesis Chapter I was a literal account. Until recently, the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike also believed that women were inferior to men, that some segments of humanity are inferior to others, that ulcers are caused by stress and not bacteria, that gay people are mentally ill, and on and on and on. Humanity seeks knowledge, and so we know we were wrong about those things. We've moved forward and now seek deeper knowledge. Some of us, anyway.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 07-16-2016 at 09:37 PM..
I have read the opposite, that in Medieval times Christians viewed the Bible as allegorical. I do not remember whwre I read it but it was in more than one place. If I am mistaken please ignore as going on memory of what I read.
Well, there was never one all-encompassing school of thought on whether the Bible or parts thereof were allegorical or what they meant. Arguments have been going on over this stuff since the beginning, and always will.
I have been assured many times over the years by Christians that of course everyone is born with an innate sense of and knowledge of the existence of God. Therefore the only reason to deny the existence of God is the desire to do sinful and wicked things. I personally doubt the existence of God in exactly the same way I doubt the existence of Santa Claus. As it turns out however I am not allowed to disbelieve in the existence of God because Christians declare that no such thing is possible.
If someone made an untrue sweeping generalization about another group, say, 'All black people steal watermelons!" you'd grab your crotch and dance around your patio firepit in self-righteous rage.
It's not true that all Christians think what you claim or would "declare" what you say they do, and you know that. Such cheesy Internet-forum tactics are common, but they don't further conversation.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 07-16-2016 at 09:22 PM..
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.
