Atheist Religion

[Annah]

That must take some serious compartmentalization.

For many people in a religion it is kinda dont ask dont tell (depending on where you worship)

You would be surprised how many church leaders believe in Evolution but too scared to admit it to their churches for fear of being ostracized.

In our ministerial ethics class we read that in a moderate (not conservative and not liberal) Seminaries (Lancaster Theological Seminary, Virginia Theological Seminary, Pacific NW Seminary, etc), about 70% believe in Evolution over creationism, 20% that something else occured other than the typical Adam and Eve story or evolution, and 10% believed in Adam and Eve over Evolution.

In progressive Seminaries (Harvard, Yale, Berkley, etc), 80% believed in evolution, 15% believed in something else, and >5% believed in Adam and Eve

In Conservative seminaries (Pacific Union College, Southern California Seminary, etc), 45% believed in Evolution, 20% believed something else happened, 35% believed in Adam and Eve

In right wing fundamentalist seminaries (Ashbury, Assembly of God Theo, Dallas Theological, Regent, etc), 90% believed in Adam and Eve, 5% believed in Evolution, 5% believed in something else.

[AbraCadabra]

For many people in a religion it is kinda dont ask dont tell (depending on where you worship)

You would be surprised how many church leaders believe in Evolution but too scared to admit it to their churches for fear of being ostracized.

In our ministerial ethics class we read that in a moderate (not conservative and not liberal) Seminaries (Lancaster Theological Seminary, Virginia Theological Seminary, Pacific NW Seminary, etc), about 70% believe in Evolution over creationism, 20% that something else occured other than the typical Adam and Eve story or evolution, and 10% believed in Adam and Eve over Evolution.

In progressive Seminaries (Harvard, Yale, Berkley, etc), 80% believed in evolution, 15% believed in something else, and >5% believed in Adam and Eve

In Conservative seminaries (Pacific Union College, Southern California Seminary, etc), 45% believed in Evolution, 20% believed something else happened, 35% believed in Adam and Eve

In right wing fundamentalist seminaries (Ashbury, Assembly of God Theo, Dallas Theological, Regent, etc), 90% believed in Adam and Eve, 5% believed in Evolution, 5% believed in something else.

Reading these last posts... it strikes me as a very US American thing - this battle of the righteous...
In my experience it is tied to the US mind-set to be the holder of some 'new world' truth that those stuffy old Europeans never really figured out.
Both camps seem ever so stuck in this attitude of HAVING to hold the RIGHT idea, than it ever seemed to be the case in Europe 20th century.
Maybe in Europe they'd burned enough witches in their time to know better?

Axélle
PS: old wine in new (world) wineskins...?

[SarahM777]

Reading these last posts... it strikes me as a very US American thing - this battle of the righteous...
In my experience it is tied to the US mind-set to be the holder of some 'new world' truth that those stuffy old Europeans never really figured out.
Both camps seem ever so stuck in this attitude of HAVING to hold the RIGHT idea, than it ever seemed to be the case in Europe 20th century.
Maybe in Europe they'd burned enough witches in their time to know better?

Axélle
PS: old wine in new (world) wineskins...?

That is it exactly. Neither side wants to see that there are what appears to be flaws in the interpretation of the data. It has become set in concrete and if you even question what appears to be flaws,it's "How dare you question us it's a fact set in stone" Which in reality all that is that the mind is set,and nothing will change it at that point,and it doesn't make any difference if the questions are valid or not,or if the interpretation of the data can be seen to show something different.

[suzifrommd]

That is it exactly. Neither side wants to see that there are what appears to be flaws in the interpretation of the data. It has become set in concrete and if you even question what appears to be flaws,it's "How dare you question us it's a fact set in stone" Which in reality all that is that the mind is set,and nothing will change it at that point,and it doesn't make any difference if the questions are valid or not,or if the interpretation of the data can be seen to show something different.

I kind of agree with this. There was another thread here at susan's talking about global warming, and I said I doubted science's ability to predict what would happen. I was asked whether I had the credentials to raise that question.

[Annah]

oh I am not saying the Theory of Evolution has it all figured out. I'm saying it makes much more sense than a talking snake giving the world's first woman a piece of fruit and then saying it really happened.

[SarahM777]

oh I am not saying the Theory of Evolution has it all figured out. I'm saying it makes much more sense than a talking snake giving the world's first woman a piece of fruit and then saying it really happened.

That is what I said from the very beginning. You see the sign posts as pointing to it. All I am saying is I disagree because I see to many gaps and flaws. I can agree that evolution,on the micro scale does happen. Species will change to a point. But macro,and all of the rest of the definitions of evolution are a bit hard for me to swallow at this point. It doesn't take any more or less faith to believe a fish become a frog than it does to believe a talking snake tempted Eve.

[Nicolette]

Fish do not become frogs. Fish and frogs share a common ancestor. Apes do not and have never become human. Apes and humans share a common ancestor. Sigh.

[SarahM777]

Fish do not become frogs. Fish and frogs share a common ancestor. Apes do not and have never become human. Apes and humans share a common ancestor. Sigh.

Is it really all that different or is that hair splitting? Taken down to bare bones,one animal is transforming from one to one or multiples,it is still the same basic idea. Slightly different definitions is all. All that is different is the starting point.

And I'm not saying it's hair splitting on the back end,because then you defining what you mean,it's only hair splitting on the front end.

The basic premise is one and the same,only the parameters are different.

[SarahM777]

When you take the Bible (which HAS NEVER been proven as a scientific tool) and then use it as your source of a scientific method, you will never be right. In regards to "science" you can perform limited anthropological and archeological research with the Bible...but not Physics, Quantum Physics, Evolution, etc.

The Bible was meant to be a picture window into the heart and mind of God.
Part of problem comes from not reading all the passages within the context of the passages,and leaving other passages out.

Some claim that the Bible "proves" that the Earth is flat,yet what does one do with a passage like this

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Taking the other passages and forcing them to say something they never said is not a very good idea.


What I have a big problem with guys like Kent Hovind who will ridicule evolutionists because he says they believe we "came" from rocks,you better make sure of what you yourself are saying when you say you believe the Bible as he says he does. Does he realize that is EXACTLY what he is saying? Isn't dust from the earth,small broken down pieces of rock? I may be wrong but isn't it the same thing?

[suzifrommd]

The Bible was meant to be a picture window into the heart and mind of God.

How did a book written by anonymous ancient peoples become the heart and mind of god?

[SarahM777]

How did a book written by anonymous ancient peoples become the heart and mind of god?

That's not what I said,I said it was a picture window into His heart and mind. It was never to become a god it was to point to God. Miss that point,and you miss out on knowing the most awesome,wonderful,patient,kind,loving,gentle,holy,pure,just,perfect,and righteous being that is beyond our comprehension.

[peky]

Reading these last posts... it strikes me as a very US American thing - this battle of the righteous...
In my experience it is tied to the US mind-set to be the holder of some 'new world' truth that those stuffy old Europeans never really figured out.
Both camps seem ever so stuck in this attitude of HAVING to hold the RIGHT idea, than it ever seemed to be the case in Europe 20th century.
Maybe in Europe they'd burned enough witches in their time to know better?

Axélle
PS: old wine in new (world) wineskins...?

Yeah, we had to wheel our American boys twice to save their prissy ass from themselves; later on spent a fortune to save them from uncle Stalin, and we finally manage to save the eastern Europeans by defeating the evil communists, not to mention we are continuously making sure the "spice" keeps flowing to their lands.

So, yeah, I guess all of that gives the right to be wee self-righteous sister

[AbraCadabra]

Yeah, we had to wheel our American boys twice to save their prissy ass from themselves; later on spent a fortune to save them from uncle Stalin, and we finally manage to save the eastern Europeans by defeating the evil communists, not to mention we are continuously making sure the "spice" keeps flowing to their lands.

So, yeah, I guess all of that gives the right to be wee self-righteous sister

Well said... but recall NO "wheel-out" without Pearl Harbour. And then who exactly was it that made you do all this? (Include those 4 "wheel-outs" post WWII?) Looking at zero 'wheel-out' for Hungary AND the Wall, will give you the clue.

Food for thought about attitudes I brought up... but now getting quite off the OP enquiry... other than ~'religion', sorry.
Axélle

[peky]

Well said... but recall NO "wheel-out" without Pearl Harbour. And then who exactly was it that made you do all this? (Include those 4 "wheel-outs" post WWII?) Looking at zero 'wheel-out' for Hungary AND the Wall, will give you the clue.

Food for thought about attitudes I brought up... but now getting quite off the OP enquiry... other than ~'religion', sorry.
Axélle

Close but no cigar, darling,we were supporting England, Free France, and the commies, long before "Pearl Harbor"

Lend-Lease (USA, Public Law 77-11) was the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, Free France, and other Allied nations with material between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 but nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, and $1.6 billion to China.

[AbraCadabra]

This "new world attitude" does stand unique in the understanding in that EVERY 'wheel-out' is and was for altruistic reasons..., talking about fervour not only into matters religious only but also  the 'scientific'...

Doesn't that sound at least as self-delusional as the earlier on discussed fervour into the 'righteous' and 'scientific' faith of atheist believes?

Maybe growing up and being immersed in certain cultural surrounding simply imparts certain notions, believes and faith - and so also a "uniquely new-world" one?

It seems that I have been missing out on "new world" immersion, though one of my parents actually hails from the new world.
This just for the record, lest accused of harbouring another 'weapon-of-mass-destruction': A non-believe into a unique new-world idea (idealism), that all THEIR 'wheel-outs', ALL of them, the LOT... have or had been altruistic. Not even the English (UK) believe in it - really.

This uniqueness has method ... it goes way back even beyond the civil-war... and some other most uniquely non-colonial 'wheel-outs' in those then new-world colonies... for lack of a better word.
Comfortably righteous it seems, at least when looking from the outside in.

Everyone else in these situations 'called a spade a spade' – until THIS entirely new idealist attitude came about...

I hope we are not too far veering of the OP here. It is attitudes after all, that lay behind the OP: "Atheist Religion"...

More food for thought?
Axélle

[suzifrommd]

the most awesome,wonderful,patient,kind,loving,gentle,holy,pure,just,perfect,and righteous being that is beyond our comprehension.

OK. So god sees people suffering from famine, war, repeated abuse, disfiguring progressive diseases, etc. He could stop it, being omnipotent and all, but he decides just to let it happen.

How is that kind, loving, and gentle?

[SarahM777]

OK. So god sees people suffering from famine, war, repeated abuse, disfiguring progressive diseases, etc. He could stop it, being omnipotent and all, but he decides just to let it happen.

How is that kind, loving, and gentle?

Is God the cause of it or is it caused by man? Is it the direct result of disobedience and if so are they not the consequences? If God allowed man free will then would He not be overstepping that free will which He gave us? Maybe just maybe these things are allowed so we come to the end of our rope,the end of our human limitations and drive us into His arms,to end our running from Him.
Could that be possible?

Do I like it? No. Do I think that God could do it a different way? For sure. Do I understand it? Not a
chance.  Can I accept that His ways are so far beyond my comprehension? Very difficult but not impossible.  Can I accept that His wisdom is not on my level? Yes  Can I accept that these things are allowed for purposes and plans far beyond my own? Yes

All of this is very difficult to even begin to try grasp and my own limitations will prevent me from seeing the end results of what He is doing and how it will all work out. It all comes down to trust.

The hardest lesson of all to learn is the purpose of suffering,no one likes it,it doesn't seem to make sense unless when one is going through it to take this to heart

Romans 5:3-5

Not only so, but we[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

The ultimate goal is to produce hope.  To our minds it seems backwards,but it's not our wisdom.

[suzifrommd]

Sarah, thanks for your well-worded answer. I'm assuming the reason your posting here, despite being a believer is that you're interested in dialog, and therefore want my reaction.

Is God the cause of it or is it caused by man?

Does it matter. If I'm a doctor, and someone comes to me with a serious infection and I have antibiotic medicine to cure him, but I choose to withhold it, that makes me unkind, right? Even if I was not the cause of the infection.

Is it the direct result of disobedience and if so are they not the consequences?

Obviously not. Not all the Syrian children living in refugee camps on the border with Turkey in subhuman conditions disobeyed god, right?

Maybe just maybe these things are allowed so we come to the end of our rope,the end of our human limitations and drive us into His arms,to end our running from Him.
Could that be possible?

I want you to believe I'm your god, so I just watch and let you suffer even though I could easily help you so you'll knuckle under and worship me. Still doesn't make me sound kind, loving, or gentle.

I don't know for certain whether an omnipotent god does or doesn't exist, but I'm forced to conclude that if he does, he's not an especially nice fellow.

[SarahM777]

Sarah, thanks for your well-worded answer. I'm assuming the reason your posting here, despite being a believer is that you're interested in dialog, and therefore want my reaction.

I just remember a guy I use to work with,he was an atheist but we were able to discuss things in a very civil manner. We actually became friends but we were able to disagree without making each other feel like the other was stupid,ignorant or foolish. We would go out after work for breakfast (Night shift) and each week we would spend 4-5 hours talking to each other about these things. Sometimes he would come up with something,he wanted honesty,he would correct me when I was wrong,and he was brutally honest. Hopefully I am coming across as not making someone else feel
stupid,ignorant or foolish. We just disagree.

If I learned one lesson from him was to ask questions,formulate an idea,then ask the question again,test the answer to the best of your ability,then do it all again. All the questions I ask are the very same questions I ask myself. Do I have all the answers? Of course not.

Obviously not. Not all the Syrian children living in refugee camps on the border with Turkey in subhuman conditions disobeyed god, right?
 

I do want to touch on this one just a bit. The Syrian children are of course innocents,it's not their disobedience,it was because of others. I don't understand it at this time myself,to our mind it makes no sense at all. All I can do is trust God that He knows what He is doing,and His purposes are so far beyond me that I can not fathom it. How it will work out in the end I cannot see.

[AbraCadabra]

If I may butt in here please... I'm reading now just TOO much about this VERY personalized God image... like the wise old man in a robe and a long beard.

Sorry all, but this is just so not my own understanding AT ALL.
It is a sort of childish image, it's why we use it for CHILDREN... it's NOT at ALL an image of a higher power that has an influence (or none if you wish) on our life.

This sort of image BTW is also the cause for SO MUCH misconstrued discussion... sounding like toddlers trying to figure out what e.g. 'the president of this country' could mean...

They will NEVER really get it - and in fashion it is also like a computer wanting to figure out who created the box it is running its operating system on... unless programmed to KNOW its Bill Gates or whoever... no answer, un-answer the question.

If the bible gives this impression to one - it is my contention that we misunderstand/misconstrue and simply misinterpret it. Amen

Sorry, I HAD to share this,
Axélle