Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Wierd title I know, by ideals I consider myself atheist for non belief.  Much like a Deist is a believer who questions, and a theist a believer of the book.

My problem with Atheism as a movement are those militant to their non belief.  They make us seem like a belief of non belief rather than just the nature of non belief in any religion.  By fighting so hard to prove to others it feels like Atheism is becoming in itself its own religion.

Which is why I hate to use it.

Yup, I feel that too, it's too easy for it to become another Stance or Position. This is why I just say I'm a non-theist. Note the lack of capital letters :).

Quote from: Padma on September 24, 2012, 04:40:34 PM
Yup, I feel that too, it's too easy for it to become another Stance or Position. This is why I just say I'm a non-theist. Note the lack of capital letters :).

I rather just tell people that ask I am a heathen doomed to hell  ;D >:-) ;D

The look on their face shuts em up right away. 

But whyyyyy!  Because my last song gets to be highway to hell  >:-)

Although I call myself an atheist, I'm really an agnostic. I'm also agnostic about pink unicorns and flying teapots and an infinite many other things. Indeed, it gets very tiring listing all the things I feel agnostic about.

Quote from: Felicitá on September 24, 2012, 05:31:18 PM
Although I call myself an atheist, I'm really an agnostic. I'm also agnostic about pink unicorns and flying teapots and an infinite many other things. Indeed, it gets very tiring listing all the things I feel agnostic about.

I saw a pink unicorn before, except it was really a horse I painted pink and stuck a horn on.


Edit:
My lawyer told me the beastial harrasment claim is still pending and I should not talk too much about it.

Quote from: Rita on September 24, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
Wierd title I know, by ideals I consider myself atheist for non belief.  Much like a Deist is a believer who questions, and a theist a believer of the book.

My problem with Atheism as a movement are those militant to their non belief.  They make us seem like a belief of non belief rather than just the nature of non belief in any religion.  By fighting so hard to prove to others it feels like Atheism is becoming in itself its own religion.

Which is why I hate to use it.

I've said before that Militant Atheist and Fundamentalist Religious people are the same exact people. The only difference is the "god factor." Faith still plays a part in both. The rhetoric of "I'm right and you're stupid" is exactly the same, and the general disdain for a belief system that they themselves do not adhere to is exactly the same.

You might think that, and indeed for some that is true because it's merely one more form of belief.  One more substitute of faith for reason and rationality.  And in that - despite their labored protests, they are exactly the same as those they disagree with.  But for a lot of the people I've talked to - like people who do particle physics, and astrophysics at national labs, and other types of highly educated people, and interestingly enough artists - it's not about belief at all.  It's about knowing through doing.  And knowing requires hard work.  That stands in direct opposition to the easier way of giving into just believing.  One is a vigorous - and rigorous - constant and unending pursuit, the other is acceptance akin to surrender and saying 'yeah, sure, good enough for me as long as I don't have to think about it too much.' 

So sure there are 'atheistic' true believers.  And like all true believers they are deluded.  On the House show there were several remarkable bits of screenwriting, but none so cogent as House's remark that: If you could reason wth religious people there would be no religious people.  And the militant atheists, so convinced of their truth (without any proof) are being just as unreasonable as those they deny. 

Because any rational atheist is really an agnostic, and they are more than happy to admit two things.  One, that the universe, as Einstein said is not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.  And there are vast things, far beyond our current abilities and perceptions, that we don't know what they are, or what their name is, is not a cosmic failing, it's just stuff we don't, or perhaps can't ever know.  And, second, that regardless of which popular creation/cosmology story/legend people believe in as a matter of faith, it seems absurd, surreal and downright perverted and bizarre to any rational person upon first telling, and that first impression is correct.  Talking snakes?  Living in the belly of the whale?  Really?  God becomes man and suffers a death so horrible and completely psychosexual that only the fricking Romans could have invented it.  Really, given all time and space he didn't chose the French Rivera or California in the modern age?  Really?

Quote from: tekla on September 24, 2012, 11:49:36 PM
You might think that, and indeed for some that is true because it's merely one more form of belief.  One more substitute of faith for reason and rationality.  And in that - despite their labored protests, they are exactly the same as those they disagree with.  But for a lot of the people I've talked to - like people who do particle physics, and astrophysics at national labs, and other types of highly educated people, and interestingly enough artists - it's not about belief at all.  It's about knowing through doing.  And knowing requires hard work.  That stands in direct opposition to the easier way of giving into just believing.  One is a vigorous - and rigorous - constant and unending pursuit, the other is acceptance akin to surrender and saying 'yeah, sure, good enough for me as long as I don't have to think about it too much.' 

So sure there are 'atheistic' true believers.  And like all true believers they are deluded.  On the House show there were several remarkable bits of screenwriting, but none so cogent as House's remark that: If you could reason wth religious people there would be no religious people.  And the militant atheists, so convinced of their truth (without any proof) are being just as unreasonable as those they deny. 

Because any rational atheist is really an agnostic, and they are more than happy to admit two things.  One, that the universe, as Einstein said is not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.  And there are vast things, far beyond our current abilities and perceptions, that we don't know what they are, or what their name is, is not a cosmic failing, it's just stuff we don't, or perhaps can't ever know.  And, second, that regardless of which popular creation/cosmology story/legend people believe in as a matter of faith, it seems absurd, surreal and downright perverted and bizarre to any rational person upon first telling, and that first impression is correct.  Talking snakes?  Living in the belly of the whale?  Really?  God becomes man and suffers a death so horrible and completely psychosexual that only the fricking Romans could have invented it.  Really, given all time and space he didn't chose the French Rivera or California in the modern age?  Really?

The universe is definitely weird, only certain thing in life are death and taxes. 

There could be a parallel universe with talking snakes  ;D but who knows xD.  People have worshiped just about every kind of god and creature on this earth at some point in time.

Google "New Atheists." It is a movement and belief system--basically a religion in my opinion. Read the first sentence on their website. The movement's been around for nearly a decade and was founded by big names in atheism such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. So it has pervaded a pretty substantial part atheist community. Personally, as an atheist myself, I steer clear of these ideas. That's all I'll say.

Quote from: tekla on September 24, 2012, 11:49:36 PM
Because any rational atheist is really an agnostic, and they are more than happy to admit two things.  One, that the universe, as Einstein said is not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.  And there are vast things, far beyond our current abilities and perceptions, that we don't know what they are, or what their name is, is not a cosmic failing, it's just stuff we don't, or perhaps can't ever know.  And, second, that regardless of which popular creation/cosmology story/legend people believe in as a matter of faith, it seems absurd, surreal and downright perverted and bizarre to any rational person upon first telling, and that first impression is correct.

As I said, I identify with atheism as well, but I do consider myself much more of an agnostic atheist. I agree with tekla. A truly objective person will realize, even with all the research that has been done in physics, astrophysics, anthropology, and other sciences, we still do not have an entirely complete picture, nor do we have completely irrefutable evidence to explain the seemingly metaphysical experiences people claim to have. There will always be questions.

Quote from: tekla on September 24, 2012, 11:49:36 PM
  God becomes man and suffers a death so horrible and completely psychosexual that only the fricking Romans could have invented it.  Really, given all time and space he didn't chose the French Rivera or California in the modern age?  Really?

the story or history I heard goes like this: so, it is the future, and we -the human race- are in the verge of defeating  a foe fighting for control of our part of this galaxy. The enemy last ditch effort rest rest in a time machine. Using their time machine they sent this human-like person back in the history of humanity. This alien agent gives rise to a new religion that plunges humanity in 1 thousand years of little progres and innumerable religious wars. The consequence of this action is that by the time -in the future- the aliens come by earth, we are technological 1 thousand years behind them, and thus we fell prey to them.

Pretty good story-history, eh?

Oh, I forgot one part, if it was not for the alien agent, the Roman Empire would have generated the industrial revolution 1,800 years before England and Spain did.


Just imagine where we would be, hummmm

Been reading this thread, and am mystified.

What, exactly, is wrong with atheists believing very strongly in their worldview?

Quote from: agfrommd on September 25, 2012, 10:39:27 AM
Been reading this thread, and am mystified.

What, exactly, is wrong with atheists believing very strongly in their worldview?

I believe "believing" is the keyword here.

What, exactly, is wrong with atheists believing very strongly in their worldview?

A true atheist does not believe in believing.  They have no faith.  They don't take anything on faith.  Rationality, reason, and science are not ways of believing, they are methods of knowing.  Knowing requires proof.  Knowing requires that anyone, anywhere using the same methods will arrive at roughly the same conclusions.  It's having a worldview based on physics (conclusions arrived at, and demonstrable though the use of the senses), not metaphysics (conclusions arrived at though thought alone).

there'd be no religion. No need for it at all.

Increasingly in Western society that is the case, and many of the people who do 'religion' are not really doing the belief/faith deal, but rather something more like a communal spirituality.  I'm sure that at CERN in Switzerland, as in Los Alamos in New Mexico that if you want total peace and quite and absolutely no one else around, church services on Sunday morning would be the place to be.  Most of the great cathedrals in Europe get far more tourists than faithful anymore, and are seen by most as architectural masterpieces designed and built by men as opposed to being 'a house of god'.

That's not to say that such people do not have a spiritual component in their life, nor do they deny that there are powers in the universe far beyond those which we know and understand - it's just saying that it's kinda hard to believe the stories of a bunch of Bronze Age sheepherders in that way anymore.

And there are those of us with a deep spiritual commitment that just doesn't involve any belief in a god.

Quote from: Abracadabra on September 25, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
You are reading my mind at times... eerie, um. :)

Axxx

Perhaps we knew each other in another time  ;D

Quote from: tekla on September 25, 2012, 11:11:55 AM
A true atheist does not believe in believing. 

Really? I don't believe there's a god. I thought that made me an atheist. But apparently not a TRUE atheist. (So I'm what kind? A false atheist? A disloyal atheist? What is the opposite of "true" in this context?)

For me, believe HAS to be a part of my atheism. I can't PROVE there is not god (for were there an omnipotent being, they could certainly arrange the universe so that it APPEARED they didn't exist). Therefore, all I really have is belief.

Some have taken note that science with all its various components is the modern version of religion

Not only would they be wrong, they would pretty much be total idiots in terms of their understanding of both science and religion.

Religion is a series of beliefs and practices that help the practitioner relate to G-d.

I am a scientist, and had been since 1979. so I can say: that to the best of my knowlege no scientist has proclaim a sciences God.

Perhaps, good Axelle is referring to the Scientology?

The word Religion in no way implies a god.

Quote from: Padma on September 25, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
The word Religion in no way implies a god.

Beg to disagree my dear Padma, see below


religion (n.) Look up religion at Dictionary.com
    c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. Beg to religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion)

No, that's just one of several meanings, so a god is not implicit.

Oxford English Dictionary:

religion /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/ noun. ME.
[ORIGIN Anglo-Norman religiun, Old French & Modern French religion from Latin religio(n-) obligation, bond, scruple, reverence, (in Late Latin) religious (monastic) life, prob. from religare: see religate, -ion.]

1 A state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church. ME.

Hor. Walpole My father...was retired into religion.

2 A particular monastic or religious order or rule. Now rare. ME.

3 Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to achieve spiritual or material improvement; acceptance of such belief (esp. as represented by an organized Church) as a standard of spiritual and practical life; the expression of this in worship etc. Also (now rare), action or conduct indicating such belief; in pl., religious rites. ME.

Gibbon The public religion of the Catholics was uniformly simple. H. Martineau The best part of religion is to imitate the benevolence of God. Day Lewis Religion...formed a natural part of my life. personified: Pope There stern Religion quench'd th' unwilling flame.

4 A particular system of such belief. ME.

W. Cather What religion did the Swedes have way back? fig.: Ladies Home Journal (US) Care of the hair has become a religion.

†5 Devotion, fidelity; conscientiousness; pious attachment. L16–L17.

Shakes. A.Y.L. Keep your promise...With no less religion than if thou wert...my Rosalind.

†6 The sanction or obligation of an oath etc. E17–E18.

It's not a belief system at all.  It's a knowledge system based upon demonstrable proofs that can be replicated by anyone (and everyone) else, and, as such, have predictive qualities set in a mathematical model.  No one in science is expected to take anything on 'faith'.  If you walk into a college physics course and say "Hey, I don't think that gravitation exists" the teacher would say, 'Great, prove it.' 

And those two little words - prove it - are the chasm that separates science and reason from faith and belief.  And it's one hell of an abyss between them.

You ask a religious person for some 'proof' and what they give you back is 'you must have faith.'  For the world's largest GOD based religions (and not all religions are GOD based), they have between them not a single shred of evidence, not a single iota of proof about Jesus being God, about the Jewish God existing, or the existence of Allah.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  People believe them based on faith - or as others see it, based on imagination, hallucination, and wishful thinking.  The best you can get out of the three of them combined is 'look at the world/universe, it has to be true', which is no proof at all.

A religious person would say that you have to have faith in order to get god/religion to work for you.  A scientist will tell you that you can doubt gravitation all you want but if you jump off the Golden Gate Bridge you're still going to fall, and the speed at which you hit the water is going to be determined by 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of your descent up to the terminal velocity.  No believe required.  Splat.

And, sho 'nuff, each and every person who has jumped off that bridge - 1,200+ - have fallen down.  Not a single one fell up.  Not a single one hovered.  And though we have lots of evidence from interviews with those that have survived it that you have a long time to really regret the decision on the way down, no amount of faith, belief or prayer has ever stopped the fall.

Science and reason/rational thought do not DENY the existence of god, because you can't prove a negative.  Lacking proof, they instead say, 'perhaps'.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  They say: Hypotheses non fingo, as Newton did.  They also say, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Quote from: tekla on September 26, 2012, 08:49:31 AM
Science and reason/rational thought do not DENY the existence of god, because you can't prove a negative. 

Right, and that's where believe comes in. Since I, an atheist, cannot prove there is no god, then my conviction is based on personal belief rather than proof.

Quote from: tekla on September 26, 2012, 08:49:31 AM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Be careful. While I consider the claim that life was created by an omnipotent being extraordinary, I also find the opposite claim, that life evolved naturally, to be equally extraordinary.

For life to exist and replicate, need three things:

1. A way to encode its construction. (I'll call this DNA).
2. A structure that constructs it based on the encoding (I'll call this a ribosome).
3. A way to transfer the information from #1 to #2 while still preserving the encoding (I'll call these transfer enzymes).

Any two of these, and life would quickly die out. You need all three.

So the claim that life evolved naturally requires that three very complex structures, DNA, a ribosome, and transfer enzymes all came about at the same time in the same place.

What an extraordinary claim!

Quote from: agfrommd on September 26, 2012, 09:12:42 AM

Right, and that's where believe comes in. Since I, an atheist, cannot prove there is no god, then my conviction is based on personal belief rather than proof.

I for one do not believe that there is a god but I also don't believe there is no god. I'm not making a claim that there is no god, I simply don't accept the claim that there is. I have absolutely no belief either way concerning the issue of god's existence.

Quote from: AbraCadabra on September 30, 2012, 04:42:30 AM
Sounds like agnostic to me... since atheists BELIEVE there is know God... as it is something you cannot know... at least not in a 'scientific' sense...

Axélle

Actually you can be agnostic and atheist. Gnostic refers to knowledge and theism refers to belief or lack of.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2Fanyc5u.jpg&hash=a3f1a66f6a0648026b9848391c5e0eb3d169fb5e)

I'm an agnostic atheist, I lack a belief in god but make no claim saying there is no god.

Quote from: Nathan. on September 30, 2012, 06:11:44 AM
Actually you can be agnostic and atheist.

That's me. I'm certain that the existence of God cannot not be disproven (an omnipotent being could create a universe where it appears there is no God), so I don't think it's possible to know that there is no God.

But ask my what I believe, based on all I do know, I'd tell you that I believe there is not a God.

I guess I got it easy. I don't believe in souls or any sort of afterlife, so I guess I don't care if there's a god or not. I might be slightly nihilistic, but at the same time a materialist/physicalist.

Quote from: tekla on September 26, 2012, 08:49:31 AM
They also say, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also, yay - I love Carl Sagan <3
*unf unf*

Quote from: Padma on September 25, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
The word Religion in no way implies a god.

absolutely agree.

My doctorate level class of World Religions defines religion as follows:

Religion is a system of thought, experiences, and inter related ideas which make metaphysical, epistemological, and culturally conditioned claims about the nature of reality itself.

No mention of God. Why? Because not every religion has a God.

Quote from: AbraCadabra on September 30, 2012, 09:06:40 PM
It's a funny thing to figure out the difference between -knowing- and -believing-...

Can it be that what we think we KNOW is just another form of BELIEVE?

If we have any experience we tend to think we KNOW something because we have experienced it i.e. -materialist/physicalist- , right?

How about spiritual experiences?! Are they just humbug because we are 'trained' only to 'experience' the -materialist/physicalist- ?

How about e.g. "the square root of the power of -2" ???
How -materialist/physicalist- is that?

Now do we –know- it... or just –believe- in it... and therefore it exists? And therefore it is not just some spook?
Some spook as God might be considered - by some?

So once again,  "what does the flea in dog's fur know even about the dog" - never mind his master?

Axélle

That's why I bolded "believe."

Besides, our brains are (amazing) finite, fleshy masses. They's got limits.

What about hate and love? Can they be measured? What do they look like physically? Are they always rational? Can we stick them in a box,weigh them up,and do they repeat themselves in the exact same way time after time? Can we define them from a scientific or rational view point? We all believe they exist but can they be proven from a rational point of view?

I tend to avoid the word atheist and just try to find substitutes for god that everybody can understand - science, nature, our own species, the sky, whatever.

Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2012, 04:53:17 AM
I tend to avoid the word atheist and just try to find substitutes for god that everybody can understand - science, nature, our own species, the sky, whatever.

I noticed a lot of people do that, avoid saying the word Atheist.

That's the most annoying thing about being an atheist. Expressing our beliefs is seen as putting down everyone's belief who believes in God.

For some reason the converse is not true. Nobody thinks that implying you believe in God in any way puts down atheists.

Strange assymetry.

Quote from: agfrommd on October 01, 2012, 07:40:54 AM

I noticed a lot of people do that, avoid saying the word Atheist.

That's the most annoying thing about being an atheist. Expressing our beliefs is seen as putting down everyone's belief who believes in God.

For some reason the converse is not true. Nobody thinks that implying you believe in God in any way puts down atheists.

Strange assymetry.

Coming from a theists point of view. I see it as an atheist does not see enough evidence in the sign posts to draw a conclusion that God really does exist. The difference for me comes in that I see enough in the sign posts to convince me it's true.

It's when either side puts the other down and calls them ignorant,foolish,and starts to "throw stones" so to speak. Everyone has reasons why they believe as they do and they are reasonable to the believer or non believer,and if one is sensitive to the other party and can discuss it in a manner in which neither is put down it works much better.

Quantum phenomena only applies to quantum world, cannot be extrapolated to the Newtonian universe.

On Enstein: yeah, the guy was great until he decided he would not accept the quantum theory, because he did not like it. Well, that is a most unscientific position, similar to the people who do not belive in the theory of Evolution because it does not agree with their religious belifs.

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 09:04:50 PM
absolutely agree.

My doctorate level class of World Religions defines religion as follows:


No mention of God. Why? Because not every religion has a God.

Examples?

Quote from: peky on October 01, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
Examples?

1. A god is not necessary for Buddhism. Some worship a God(s)...others do not...it is not a requirement
2. Shambhala
3. Taoism
4. Confusanism
5. Satanism
6 Some Animism
7. Many schools of Shinto


These are a few examples.

There are figures whom one might (or might not) call gods in Buddhism, but there is no Creator God, as there is no creating happening.

Quote from: peky on October 01, 2012, 04:16:34 PM

Well, that is a most unscientific position, similar to the people who do not belive in the theory of Evolution because it does not agree with their religious belifs.

Both sides make assumptions to try to fit the "evidence" into their mind set. Neither can be proven by direct evidence. No one has been alive long enough to have seen it. Both are events. Events can not by definition be proven scientifically. They are not repeatable. Any variables that may change it needs to be taken into account. Can it be "proven" that the earth is the same today as it was 5,000,10,000 or even 100,000 years ago? Can one actually be sure that the methods of testing are accurate or that the assumptions used to define the tests are accurate? Have the samples been altered to begin with? Did the dinosaur fall into the mud or it was buried by a flood? Can it be proven by the evidence left behind? Or is the evidence that is left behind really nothing more than a sign post that depends on the interpretation and assumptions that one starts with?

So what does it come down to? Most often it's the most likely scenario that "fits" preconceived interpretations of the evidence that is left behind. Not that it truly proves either or disproves either.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 02, 2012, 05:50:37 AM
Both sides make assumptions to try to fit the "evidence" into their mind set. Neither can be proven by direct evidence. No one has been alive long enough to have seen it. Both are events. Events can not by definition be proven scientifically. They are not repeatable. Any variables that may change it needs to be taken into account. Can it be "proven" that the earth is the same today as it was 5,000,10,000 or even 100,000 years ago? Can one actually be sure that the methods of testing are accurate or that the assumptions used to define the tests are accurate? Have the samples been altered to begin with? Did the dinosaur fall into the mud or it was buried by a flood? Can it be proven by the evidence left behind? Or is the evidence that is left behind really nothing more than a sign post that depends on the interpretation and assumptions that one starts with?

So what does it come down to? Most often it's the most likely scenario that "fits" preconceived interpretations of the evidence that is left behind. Not that it truly proves either or disproves either.

they can prove the "ageness of the earth"...and the tests are accurate as pregnancy tests. Carbon, Uranium and Potassium testing has some error...but it isn't as bad as conservative religious people make it out to be. It's a very stable testing platform. Whether we may debate if the earth is 6 billion or 900 million years old is one thing....saying the earth is 10-20,000 years old is way off base.  Even the 10,000 year old earth conservative GAP theory is also way off base.

No, the dinosaurs did not drown Noah's flood.  Uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 dating and other tests plus fossilization processes shows these bones to be millions of years old....not six to ten thousand years old like some suggests the age of Noah's story.

Quote from: Annah on October 02, 2012, 01:40:47 PM
they can prove the "ageness of the earth"...and yes the tests are accurate. Carbon, Uranium and Potassium testing has some error...but it isn't as bad as conservative religious people make it out to be. It's a very stable testing platform. Whether we may debate if the earth is 6 billion or 900 million years old is one thing....saying the earth is 10-20,000 years old is way off base.

No, the dinosaurs did not drown in the flood.  Uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 dating and other tests plus fossilization processes shows these bones to be millions of years old....not six to seven thousand years old like some suggests.

The tests are only accurate if you know what the starting amount Uranium-238,Uranium -235,and Potassium-40,if not you can not say that they are accurate because it is based on an assumption that can not be proven. They were not be tested at the time they were buried or fossilized. It is only assumed that they had a certain amount. And then does weather factor into the rate of decay? Does solar radiation affect the rate of decay and by how much? If the tests are based on a constant that does not exist in nature it throws off the tests and they are not reliable.

Add to that when testing fossils most of what remains is rock not bone it will skew the tests also. Rock by necessity MUST be older than the animals that were fossilized.

Take a pot of water place it outside at 33 degrees F with a calm wind will not evaporate as quickly as the same pot at 72 degrees F with a 5 MPH wind,do so with the same pot at 95 degrees F with a 25 MPH wind and it's quicker. Change one parameter of the test and it can not help but to change the end result,change multiple parameters and the the end results are even worse.

the simple fact that Uranium and Potassium requires a half life of 700 million years and other forms of Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years and carbon is 5,730 years, they do have the testing method down to a science.

Trust me, I used to be a conservative. I know all the propaganda and laymen illustrations to try to disprove dating.

The simple fact is, the scientists is far more superior in their dating methods through dating, mathematical formulas and the atomic structure analysis while the conservative creationism looks at a book written by one culture thousands of years ago and say "this is right."

I just don't buy into the creation story as literal. Sorry.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 02, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
Rock by necessity MUST be older than the animals that were fossilized.

I'm not getting into the main argument here - I'm just going to point out that rock by necessity MUST be exactly the *same age* as the animals that were fossilised - at least insofar as it's rock, and their remains are embedded in it. Though obviously, the component elements of both the rock and the animals pre-date them as entities.

Awe heck, everyone knows that smoking, fatty foods and a strict following of the homosexual agenda killed off the dinosaurs.

And science is always open to new ideas and theories as long as you are willing to test them.  And when people start to look it's pretty amazing what they can find.  All sorts of theories for the end of the dinosaurs have been tossed out there.  Some come out looking more possible, some less.  Will we ever be able to know with 100% dead accuracy?  Most likely no, but people of reason and rationality are comfortable with that.  It's faith and religion (some of them at least) that offer that kind of certainty.

If you look at the theories and research of the DinoNuts, you'll find that there are two schools of thought, both based on climate, but one seeing a gradual and natural change, the other pointing to a catastrophic event ushering in an Ice Age.  But they do seem to be in agreement that in some way - due to something - the environment changed in a way that the dinosaurs could not adapt to.  Which is in harmony with basic evolutionary thinking, that species that survive and thrive are not necessarily 'the fittest' but those that are the most adaptable and find a niche.  While that does discount the Noah and the animals 2x2 story, it's not the radical departure from observable world to find that living things adapt, and those that adapt the best thrive.


And most of atheism in the West is not about the denial of god, but rather a profound doubt about the major stories that have come out of the Bronze Age.  I'm down with the Deli Lama (about a lot of things as it turns out), and it seems sensible that if some major tenet is proven to be wrong or in error, then perhaps the wise thing to do is change it.  Even the Catholic Church eventually gave into Galileo and his brash claims of a heliocentric solar system- though with it's usual glacial pace it took them quite a few centuries to do it.  The pictures from Chandra and Hubble don't prove that god does or does not exist - they do however show us a universe that is much, much, much larger than we thought (and the thinking of average/norm hasn't even begun to come to grips with what those photos show.  See: The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF)), and the larger the universe is, the less likely it is that whoever, or whatever, created it really wants a personal relationship with you, and it's also highly unlikely that any such entity is sitting in judgement over your sex habits.

Quote from: Padma on October 02, 2012, 02:57:51 PM
I'm not getting into the main argument here - I'm just going to point out that rock by necessity MUST be exactly the *same age* as the animals that were fossilised - at least insofar as it's rock, and their remains are embedded in it. Though obviously, the component elements of both the rock and the animals pre-date them as entities.

Not necessarily so. Most believe the rocks were formed earlier,if they did form earlier they already had a certain amount of decay. If the rocks particles that formed the fossils were 100,000,000 years older than the dinosaurs (in theory). Then by dating those rocks it could show that the dinosaurs were living 100,000,000 years before they actually did.

Are you taking about rock in general, or about the rock in which fossils are fossilised? I was assuming the latter. Obviously there's existing rock that spans a vast age range. But for animals to die and be fossilised in rock, the rock must form around the dead bodies (starting as sediment), so as rock, that particular rock can't pre-date the fossils.

Quote from: tekla on October 02, 2012, 03:13:25 PM
Awe heck, everyone knows that smoking, fatty foods and a strict following of the homosexual agenda killed off the dinosaurs.

Homosexuals are a vital part of the water cycle.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FA12UAhrCAAAXgnI.jpg%3Alarge&hash=38853fee689cd1e663331554ec0a9798d2a71910)

Into each life, a little homosexuality must fall...

Quote from: Annah on October 02, 2012, 02:49:09 PM
the simple fact that Uranium and Potassium requires a half life of 700 million years and other forms of Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years and carbon is 5,730 years, they do have the testing method down to a science.

Trust me, I used to be a conservative. I know all the propaganda and laymen illustrations to try to disprove dating.

The simple fact is, the scientists is far more superior in their dating methods through dating, mathematical formulas and the atomic structure analysis while the conservative creationism looks at a book written by one culture thousands of years ago and say "this is right."

I just don't buy into the creation story as literal. Sorry.

I salute you for your enlightenment. I guess there is hope for Christianity after all

Quote from: Annah on October 02, 2012, 02:49:09 PM
the simple fact that Uranium and Potassium requires a half life of 700 million years and other forms of Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years and carbon is 5,730 years, they do have the testing method down to a science.

Trust me, I used to be a conservative. I know all the propaganda and laymen illustrations to try to disprove dating.

The simple fact is, the scientists is far more superior in their dating methods through dating, mathematical formulas and the atomic structure analysis while the conservative creationism looks at a book written by one culture thousands of years ago and say "this is right."

I just don't buy into the creation story as literal. Sorry.

It's still based on assumptions. Even if the half lives are accurate,there is one fly in the ointment. If the earth was created to our eyes with the appearance of age,no matter how many tests you do it will be a "false reading". I can not  prove it nor on the other hand is it disprovable. It is based totally and completely on assumptions. No one saw how the earth came into being. The rest is nothing more than sign posts,that will either persuade you to believe creation or evolution,based mostly on preconceived ideas that may or may not actually fit the "evidence". Neither is 100% provable by what little "evidence"
is available at this point. Both have to be taken by faith that the starting assumptions are true.

And both sides saying they have the "proof" is disingenuous,when all we have is sign posts and people reading things into the sign posts that may or may not be true.

If evolution is true please if you can explain any of the following,with a plausible explanation that fits in with the laws of nature that we do know at this point? And I am not asking for proof just an explanation. How did inorganic compounds come together and somehow spring to life? How did a single cell organism become a multicelled organism? How did they go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? How is it possible that a male and female would have been produced at exactly the same time? How did the male and female find each other at the same time in over 332,000,000 cubic miles of water? How did a water based creature become a land based creature in a way that was not detrimental to the organism? How is it that a bird came out of a reptile egg that it was not eaten? Why is it that in all the time that man has been doing both natural and unnatural testing on single cells organisms that not one new organism has been produced yet man went through more changes in less generations to come from an ape? How is it possible that mutual symbiotic relationships with insects and  plants that some how they both evolved at the same time that was not destructive to both? These are just some of the questions that evolution must explain. If you are to convince me that evolution is true then please explain.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 04, 2012, 07:02:13 AM
If evolution is true please if you can explain any of the following,with a plausible explanation that fits in with the laws of nature that we do know at this point? And I am not asking for proof just an explanation. How did inorganic compounds come together and somehow spring to life? How did a single cell organism become a multicelled organism? How did they go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? How is it possible that a male and female would have been produced at exactly the same time? How did the male and female find each other at the same time in over 332,000,000 cubic miles of water? How did a water based creature become a land based creature in a way that was not detrimental to the organism? How is it that a bird came out of a reptile egg that it was not eaten? Why is it that in all the time that man has been doing both natural and unnatural testing on single cells organisms that not one new organism has been produced yet man went through more changes in less generations to come from an ape? How is it possible that mutual symbiotic relationships with insects and  plants that some how they both evolved at the same time that was not destructive to both? These are just some of the questions that evolution must explain. If you are to convince me that evolution is true then please explain.

Take a college level Biology 101 woman!!!

Please let's keep communication here civil. This is a topic that stirs passions all round.

Many of these question were covered by the second year of my secondary school. I suggest you drop by a good book store in your neck of the woods or a library.

I am not looking for the generalized answers that are given,I am asking how did they get from point A-B,and how did they survive in a half way point? How does a fish with a single joint fin go to a multi jointed amphibian,step by step,and how was a fish with a leg,fin combo able to swim or walk and could they survive in a half way stage? What I am asking for is to spell it out a bit more specifically than just the general answer of they muted that way.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 04, 2012, 08:51:56 AM
I am not looking for the generalized answers that are given,I am asking how did they get from point A-B,and how did they survive in a half way point? How does a fish with a single joint fin go to a multi jointed amphibian,step by step,and how was a fish with a leg,fin combo able to swim or walk and could they survive in a half way stage? What I am asking for is to spell it out a bit more specifically than just the general answer of they muted that way.

         
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSEvbxu6yPQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSEvbxu6yPQ#)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 04, 2012, 04:58:22 AM
It's still based on assumptions. Even if the half lives are accurate,there is one fly in the ointment. If the earth was created to our eyes with the appearance of age,no matter how many tests you do it will be a "false reading". I can not  prove it nor on the other hand is it disprovable. It is based totally and completely on assumptions. No one saw how the earth came into being. The rest is nothing more than sign posts,that will either persuade you to believe creation or evolution,based mostly on preconceived ideas that may or may not actually fit the "evidence". Neither is 100% provable by what little "evidence"
is available at this point. Both have to be taken by faith that the starting assumptions are true.

And both sides saying they have the "proof" is disingenuous,when all we have is sign posts and people reading things into the sign posts that may or may not be true.

Actually, the molecular constructs of Uranium, Potassium and Carbon and how they are applied to scientific dating is NOT an assumption. It's a fact.

That is like getting an xray and your doctor says "you have a broken wrist" and you reply, "it's only an assumption because you could have gotten the process and formula wrong through the analysis of xray bombardments by means of a chaotic catalyst.

The dating methods are an actual fact. There is absolutely no way you can get around that. A scientist may be off a couple hundred years but if an item registers at 100,000 years old or 1 million years old, it is safe to assume the item existed prior to the literalist view of the world being created 7,000 years ago. Which disproves creationism.

There is no assumption in this.

This is why Christianity is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to scientific progress. We do not believe when it is right there front of us. Even the Catholic Church denounce Galileo and labeled him as a heretic because he believed the Sun was the center of our system...not earth.  We see this even today.

Lord Cardinal Bellarmine stated, "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."  We see this with literalist who say "you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. It's like taking that quote and saying "To assert that the earth and it's inhabitants evolved is as erroneous as to claim that Adam and Eve was not the first born."

I would then reply just as Galileo (a devout Christian till he died): "It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved"

Aquinas would be rolling in his grave.

loved the video Peky. Thank you :)

There you go, Sarah. Evolution and the questions you raised explained to you in that video.


...but something inside of me will say "I still don't see it."

I saw that video years ago. I just love the four legged whale embryo! I find it incredible that one can almost witness the evolutionary stages of a species through the development of an embryo.

Except for a few minor tweaks it was almost identical to what I got in High School. None of the questions that I asked were directly answered. All of the animals either had fins or legs. Not one has has a fin with an elbow. To much of it is still based on subjective interpretation of the data with no direct evidence to show otherwise. All there is is sign posts nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 04, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Except for a few minor tweaks it was almost identical to what I got in High School. None of the questions that I asked were directly answered. All of the animals either had fins or legs. Not one has has a fin with an elbow. To much of it is still based on subjective interpretation of the data with no direct evidence to show otherwise. All there is is sign posts nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, dear

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 04, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Except for a few minor tweaks it was almost identical to what I got in High School. None of the questions that I asked were directly answered. All of the animals either had fins or legs. Not one has has a fin with an elbow. To much of it is still based on subjective interpretation of the data with no direct evidence to show otherwise. All there is is sign posts nothing more and nothing less.

...

I think that since the beginning of this I have stated that I can see how someone can take what little we really have and can see it as either creation or evolution. I just disagree that it has been "proven".
I don't think that I have come across as saying that anyone who disagrees with me is uneducated,foolish,or stupid. My direct questions have not been answered,even though they haven't been,it has been implied that I am uneducated,foolish and stupid.

Well dear... I for one did not think you uneducated, foolish and stupid. Not at all. And I also think you posted some good questions.
In final analysis (for me) it ALL comes down to believes... if we don't BELIEVE in science - or at least not in all that science wishes to be known as scientific... you will be presently in the minority as much as Copernicus and the like during their time period.

All is just a blip on the timeline of the universe's progress after all. Nothing to get phased about :)

Axélle
PS: and once we're dead who really gives rat's-ass about any of it :P

Quote from: AbraCadabra on October 05, 2012, 06:17:59 AM
Well dear... I for one did not think you uneducated, foolish and stupid. Not at all. And I also think you posted some good questions.
In final analysis (for me) it ALL comes down to believes... I we don't BELIEVE into science - or at least not in all that science wishes to be known as scientific... you will be presently in the minority as much as Copernicus and the like during their time periode.

All is just a blib on the timeline of the univers' progress. Noting to get phased about :)

Axélle
PS: and once we're dead who relly gives rat's-ass about any of it :P

Axelle,

I did not mean you. But I think it proved one of your points (If I remember correctly) that science can itself be a religion. And I think that was all I was trying out that it's in the person's view point,and that it can not be definitively proven by the "evidence" and methods we have now,both evolution and creation come to a point where you have to have a certain amount of faith and faith alone in that position. Events by definition can not be proven scientifically because they can not be repeated.
It all nothing but sign posts. It will either convince you one way or another,nothing more and nothing less. Even though I can not directly prove creation I believe I have enough sign posts to convince me it's true.

Science as a belief system?

http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html (http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html)

Quote from: Tesla on October 05, 2012, 06:43:16 AM
Science as a belief system?

http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html (http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html)

Yes, absolutely BUT... one system that required somewhat less faith than does religion - yet it STILL requires some faith into certain propositions and hypothesis.

The problems with hypothesis alone that for that matter ... "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite... and one is unable to go through all of them!

We need short-cuts by e.g. using Ockham's razor Theory... yet again a tool we need have some faith in. It mostly works well... but of course NOT all the time!

And who was it said we have only ONE universe? There could be an infinite number of universes... and simply we (at present) only may behold ONE only.

A few key pints for me from the article quoted are:

Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.

No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is.

[Scientific] Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.

When suggesting that science has more explanatory power over a religion, one must be careful.


If an entity such as an electron, which is not directly observable, is hypothesized to explain some occurrence, how does it have more explanatory power than hypothesizing supernatural beings such as little invisible demons?

Axélle

How strong is your faith in your chosen belief system? If the unfortunate comes to pass and you acquire a life threatening cancer (god forbid), which system do you rely upon? Let's say that medical science comes up with a possible cure derived directly from evolutionary biological research. Would you prefer to place your faith in science and be a guinea pig for the new medical scientific cure or would you prefer to take your chances in faith based medicine? If science explains a possible reason for transsexuality, would this help justify your condition, or would you prefer to find an interpretation in the bible as justification? Or do you prefer to mix and match based on convenience?

Quote from: AbraCadabra on October 05, 2012, 07:44:53 AM
Yes, absolutely BUT... one system that required somewhat less faith than does religion - yet it STILL requires some faith into certain propositions and hypothesis.

The problems with hypothesis alone that for that matter ... "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite... and one is unable to go through all of them!

We need short-cuts by e.g. using Ockham's razor Theory... yet again a tool we need have some faith in. It mostly works well... but of course NOT all the time!

And who was it said we have only ONE universe? There could be an infinite number of universes... and simply we (at present) only may behold ONE only.

A few key pints for me from the article quoted are:

Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.

No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is.

[Scientific] Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.

When suggesting that science has more explanatory power over a religion, one must be careful.


If an entity such as an electron, which is not directly observable, is hypothesized to explain some occurrence, how does it have more explanatory power than hypothesizing supernatural beings such as little invisible demons?

Axélle

The key to it is that is it does NOT say no faith at all.

My faith in my choosen belief system (Christianity) is doing just fine.  And I have no problem accepting medical cures discovered through "science".  After all, God created science, so all medical discoveries we have are through God's power.

So your faith in science is obtained through your god? Science and religion are not mutually exclusive or at loggerheads? I like it.

The way I see the difference between science and faith:

Faith requires no ability for its truth to predict events.

Science requires its truth to be able to predict observational results and outcomes and demand that its truth be changed if predictions are incorrect.

E.g. If Science knowledge sets the age of the earth at 6000 years old, and finds something that appears 7000 years old, science requires itself to change that knowledge.

Quote from: agfrommd on October 05, 2012, 10:58:10 AM
The way I see the difference between science and faith:

Faith requires no ability for its truth to predict events.

Science requires its truth to be able to predict observational results and outcomes and demand that its truth be changed if predictions are incorrect.

E.g. If Science knowledge sets the age of the earth at 6000 years old, and finds something that appears 7000 years old, science requires itself to change that knowledge.

And this simply so long one knows that all this requires FAITH and BELIEVE into the scientific method...

This discussion would be mute if it were not for science ever so often to arrogate itself into a place where FAITH and BELIEF (into its methods) where not any issue at all.

It's this believe e.g. "doctors are always to be right" because after all they ALSO belong to science... as does the Pharma-Industry, etc. etc. etc.
There is a LOT of BS happening in the name of science... my impression.

It has become the same sort of emotional believe-process that was behind the idea that the earth was flat... that had to be irrevocable.

Now scientific 'truth' is passed on as irrevocably right... until it's changed, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, ...

A little bit more humbleness might not be such a bad idea I feel, so both systems would not need to fight but rather complement each other?

Oh, and of course the same applies to any religious overzealousness...

Axélle
PS: Is this getting one ever so frightenly un-girl-like discussion?

I have no problem with religion, unless it impedes scientific progress or women's rights. Oh, and add LGBT into that.

Quote from: agfrommd on October 05, 2012, 10:58:10 AM
Science requires its truth to be able to predict observational results and outcomes and demand that its truth be changed if predictions are incorrect.

E.g. If Science knowledge sets the age of the earth at 6000 years old, and finds something that appears 7000 years old, science requires itself to change that knowledge.

^this...big time

Various scientific views changes time after time depending on hypothesis and study and the results. There is always study to improve itself or to dwelve deeper into a mystery (the human genome for example)

Religion doesn't do this.

Various religious thoughts may and sometimes will add a different light or viewpoint to a certain creed or orthodox behavior (Process theologians, Karl Barth, Kierkegaard, etc, etc) but the roots of their studies stay the same. If you veer to far to the either side of the creed or orthodox position of the faith you are studying then you become a heretic.

Hell, I am a pastor and I can tell you that much of many religions has creeds set in place like it is stone. If you deviate from it you are an outcast. Something as simple as abolition of slavery, women rights, the rights to marry inter racially and gay rights are pushed and pulled from every direction against change all the time. It's like giving a toddler vegetables to eat.

With science, if someone comes up with a claim that is out there then other scientists who disagrees will simply say "prove it." If the scientist can prove it then the scientific community will accept it. It's the scientific method.

Religion is a philosophy. Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Scientific method is an operation which proves a certain hypothesis.

With Philosophy, more specifically, religion is a system of thought, experiences, and inter related ideas which make metaphysical, epistemological, and culturally conditioned claims about the nature of reality itself.

I view science just as importantly as religion. One without the other is chaos. Religion and spirituality (if performed right) serves more of a sociological role and therapy for people. Science expands our knowledge of the universe and progress us outwards.

If there was no science, we would still be dying from long ago cured illnesses, living in huts with no electricity, have limited knowledge of the universe outside of our own earth, etc etc.

When I hear people say Science is wrong, the Bible is right it scares the hell out of me. This is important: the Bible was NEVER meant to be a scientific handbook to explain the facts of the formation of the universe. The Bible is a book with collected stories to express certain truths that are important to some people.

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.

I can go with that (the above)... so long science NEITHER goes and claims religion/God - as Nietzsche had put it: "God is dead... and we killed him".

At one stage science was (is?) overstepping the mark and it is this, which makes for the impression the science had become the "new age" religion.
All things scientific are RIGHT and most if not all things religious are daft or foolish...

A scientific system as some understand does not require ANY faith or any BELIEVES, and all things scientific by definition are totally and irrevocably rational always and ONLY.

No faith or believe at all seems required, and claiming all this with something reminiscent of fundamentalist religious fervour.
Welcome to self-delusion...

With that same sort of fervour some atheists also like to claim their PURELY rationalist/scientist motivation – ONLY. No exceptions at all, so if something is "scientific" it HAS to be right. Amen.

I have been subject to this, which is why I mention it - and I do NOT think myself being such an exception...

Axélle

i think the reason why many view Christianity as daft and foolish is because how we (I am talking about my religion in particular on a personal level...not the generalization of "we" as in you and I or others in this thread) have acted foolish and daft when it came to religion.

It doesn't help christianity much when religious leaders say that Dinosaurs were created by Satan to test our faith, how fossils were created by Satan to trick us, and so forth and so on. From a ministerial point of view, I can't say I blame people who view Christianity that way.

This type of outlook towards Christians from the science community dates back for almost a thousand years and yes I do blame Christianity for dropping the ball. St. Thomas Aquinas embraced the cohabitation of religion/science and since Augustine, Aquinas was the leading theologian of his time and many still argue of all time within the realm of Christianity.

Aquinas applauded the merits of Science and stated it would (paraphrasing) be foolish and unwise to discredit the works of Science. However, with the expansion of the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal Powers over the states, and the increasing views that people felt Christianity was being threaten by "the moors" and other outside influences, they put a stop to many scientific endeavors.

It wasn't until the Pope lost his sovereign power of the Countries in Europe and elsewhere did the Renaissance take root and started to expand greatly. Sciences, art, humanism, secularism, it all began to flourish because people weren't afraid of being burnt to the stake (well..they still did in some nations..but that's another story).

So, I tend to believe hundreds of years of scientific tests, data, and rationalization when it comes to creation verses a collection of books that talks of talking asses, Prophet swallowing fish, and prophets dashing the Babylonian babies upon the rocks and rejoicing.

Quote from: Annah on October 05, 2012, 04:25:10 PM

It doesn't help christianity much when religious leaders say that Dinosaurs were created by Satan to test our faith, how fossils were created by Satan to trick us, and so forth and so on. From a ministerial point of view, I can't say I blame people who view Christianity that way.

I have never known of anyone that I know,that has stated such,but knowing that many of those who say they are Christians do not even know 10% of what is actually in the Bible it doesn't surprise me. If one doesn't know it's very easy to pass off things that sound plausible.

Let's face it seems at times that more Atheists,agnostics and Muslims know the Bible better.

I got to know a stealth Jehovah's Witness who became my best friend for a year at university. Finally trusting me, they admitted their beliefs to me, including dinosaurs fossils as a test of faith. They were a very mysterious and secretive person, disappearing sometimes in the afternoon, probably doorstep proselytizing. In every other sense, they seemed completely scientific and rational. That must take some serious compartmentalization.

Quote from: Tesla on October 05, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
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.

Quote from: Annah on October 05, 2012, 06:37:42 PM
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...?

Quote from: AbraCadabra on October 05, 2012, 10:27:21 PM
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.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2012, 06:40:49 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: Annah on October 06, 2012, 06:50:38 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Tesla on October 06, 2012, 07:18:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Annah on October 05, 2012, 12:00:21 PM

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?

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2012, 09:23:21 AM
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?

Quote from: agfrommd on October 06, 2012, 11:48:30 AM

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.

Quote from: AbraCadabra on October 05, 2012, 10:27:21 PM
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

Quote from: peky on October 06, 2012, 02:09:24 PM
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

Quote from: AbraCadabra on October 06, 2012, 04:09:31 PM
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.

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

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2012, 01:01:33 PM
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?

Quote from: agfrommd on October 07, 2012, 06:30:04 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 07, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
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.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 07, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
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?

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 07, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
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.

Quote from: agfrommd on October 07, 2012, 08:40:13 AM
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.

Quote from: agfrommd on October 07, 2012, 08:40:13 AM

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.

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

Quote from: AbraCadabra on October 07, 2012, 11:41:40 AM
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

Axelle,

If that is how I am coming across I do apologize,because God is so far beyond the image of a wise old man with a white beard and a long robe,He is also not a Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

He is also fearsome and terrible. He is beyond time,space,and dimensions. He has not nor ever will be subject to our judgements. He does not answer all of our questions nor is He required to. He is the Lord God above everything else seen and not seen. He made everything for His purposes and pleasure,and He has the absolute right to do with it as He pleases. Because He is sovereign.

I wouldn't call God terrible or fearsome.

The point of God is not to be terrible or fearsome. Sadly, some churches and radical sects of religion portrays this image, in my opinion, to control the masses.

I see God as benevolent, outside of our own impressions of expression, and a mother-like creator who loves us enough not to control us through fear...but to make our own decisions.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 07, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
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.

At the beginning a singularity was in equilibrium, and HaShem perturbed the singularity, and gave the nascent Universe all the rules and laws for its unfolding. This nonintervention post creation is in essence the "free will" of the Universe.

The evolution of the Universe, including that of Sentient beings, follows Quantum and Newtonian and Relativistic and Chaotic laws, with an innate element of randomness altering their course.

As man evolve, the need to explain his perceived universe, lead him to attributed phenomena not understood to divine forces, this is the genesis of theism, that while it serve its purpose by dictating morality and ethics to otherwise unruly superstitious mobs, but that IMHO has no value in modern times.

To control the mobs, books attributed to HaShem, were written and codified by different civilizations. Depending of your level of evolution, and your ability to belief what is so by its own merits and reproducibility, you may or may not need to have a book dictate your actions or lack off.

I respect those of my own kind, and other theistic persuasions for following the precepts of their holly books as long as they do not try to impose to their beliefs into other, or deprive me of my rights.

Personally, I belief in the existence of HaShem, and continuously seek to feel Her bliss.

I wouldn't call God terrible or fearsome.

Nor would I call god 'awesome' like god was a candy bar, some new shade of lipstick, or a pop song.  When people (like me) want to say that god is made in man's image and likeness it's that attribute of giving the creator of the entire universe some kind of all too human attributes.  At least when the Greeks did it, they had a style about it.

and, FTR, you (Sarah, not Annah) don't get to redefine words like 'science' to suit your convince. 

Quote from: tekla on October 08, 2012, 10:56:06 PM
I wouldn't call God terrible or fearsome.

Nor would I call god 'awesome' like god was a candy bar, some new shade of lipstick, or a pop song.  When people (like me) want to say that god is made in man's image and likeness it's that attribute of giving the creator of the entire universe some kind of all too human attributes.  At least when the Greeks did it, they had a style about it.

Nor did I say He was,most English words do have multiple definitions.

Awesome

1: expressive of awe <awesome tribute>
2
a : inspiring awe <an awesome task>
b : terrific, extraordinary <had an awesome time>

Awe

1: an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime <stood in awe of the king> <regard nature's wonders with awe>
2
archaic
a : dread, terror
b : the power to inspire dread

Various

1 archaic : variable, inconstant
2
: varicolored <birds of various plumage>
3
a : of differing kinds : multifarious
b : dissimilar in nature or form : unlike
4
: having a number of different aspects or characteristics <a various place>
5
: of an indefinite number greater than one <stop at various towns>
6
: individual, separate <rate increases granted in the various states>

Terrible

a : exciting extreme alarm or intense fear : terrifying
b : formidable in nature : awesome <a terrible responsibility>
c : difficult <in a terrible bind>
2
: extreme, great <a terrible disappointment>
3
: extremely bad: as
a : strongly repulsive : obnoxious <a terrible smell>
b : notably unattractive or objectionable <terrible behavior>
c : of very poor quality <a terrible movie>

Fearsome

a : causing fear <a fearsome monster>
b : intense, extreme <fearsome determination>
2
: timid, timorous

Extreme

a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty>
b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical <went on an extreme diet>
c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>
2
archaic : last
3
: situated at the farthest possible point from a center <the country's extreme north>
4
a : most advanced or thoroughgoing <the extreme political left>
b : maximum
5
a : of, relating to, or being an outdoor activity or a form of a sport (as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk <extreme mountain biking down steep slopes>
b : involved in an extreme sport <an extreme snowboarder>

As one can see from the above there is multiple meanings for the same exact word. So if one is using a different meaning of the word,then someone else is using but yet still within the definition of the word,doesn't that lead to a bit of confusion? Does the word science have multiple meanings and what do you mean by it?

Sarah

When you use words like Terrible and Fearsome, the typical english speaking person on the streets (or in these forums) will not be thinking "good" attributes to that descriptor...they wont be thinking "oh..that's the fourth definition down on the word...not the first two...I understand"

In fact, it would only solidify a non christian's belief that Christianity is a tactic to tell people they must be a christian or go to hell because God is fearing and terrible...i.e., proselytizing and that Christianity is a method in which to control the masses through "fear and trembling."

Quote from: Annah on October 09, 2012, 08:46:56 AM
Sarah

When you use words like Terrible and Fearsome, the typical english speaking person on the streets (or in these forums) will not be thinking "good" attributes to that descriptor...they wont be thinking "oh..that's the fourth definition down on the word...not the first two...I understand"

In fact, it would only solidify a non christian's belief that Christianity is a tactic to tell people they must be a christian or go to hell because God is fearing and terrible...i.e., proselytizing and that Christianity is a method in which to control the masses through "fear and trembling."

Annah,

Your right,and that's why it leads to too many understandings. We too often forget that. We say A and someone else hears B,but then we don't define it so that others can understand what we really mean. I am sorry that I didn't do that to begin with,it's my fault for not doing so.
I do apologize for it.

It's part of being an insider and forgetting that those outside haven't got a clue as to what we are saying. That is wholly on us.

It's part of being an insider and forgetting that those outside haven't got a clue as to what we are saying.

You're kidding, right?  Xianity has been the dominant majority religion in The West for what, a few millennia at least, and over 80% of the population of the US currently identify themselves as Xians, so stop with the 'help, help, we're being oppressed' and acting like no one really knows what it is.

Myself, agnostic to the core, got there by doing 12 years before the cross in Catholic School, the first 8 under the Franciscans, the last 4 under the Precious Blood and Jesuits.  And if you can't lean religion straight from god, the next best thing is to learn it from a Jesuit, just ask one.  I think Cindy had Jesuit instruction also, it's something that if you haven't done it, or been close to someone who has, is difficult to comprehend, suffice it to say that it's extremely - almost ridiculously - rigorous.  (at least until you go to college and find out that even in an elite private college you're about 1.5 to 2 years ahead of your non-Jesuit classmates)

Oh, and those old Franciscan nuns taught us evolution in biology class, and atomic theory too way back in grade school, they didn't seem to have any problem with it.  Of course at the heart of an order founded by St. Francis of Assisi is a very special relationship with animals, so teaching that we are part of the animals, and not all that different from them, and our superiority to them in both intelligence and god's love was overrated, well I can see where it meshed with their beliefs.

And they are not even the only order of Catholics that have some animal presence, the Dominicans have a huge dog thing going on, and it's not at all unusual to go into a Dominican church and see people there with their dogs.  Because St. Dominic founded the order based on a dream with a dog, and because going back to the middle ages (when people knew Latin) they were referred to in a play on words as Domini canes, the "dogs of the God" largely because of their role in The Inquisition.

Good post - "cleanup time" :P

It once again ever so brings to mind the line: "What we can't feel... we cannot understand...".

Thank you, I enjoyed reading it, quite interesting,
Axélle

The Jesuits are no joke.

Quote from: tekla on October 09, 2012, 10:19:54 AM
It's part of being an insider and forgetting that those outside haven't got a clue as to what we are saying.

You're kidding, right?  Xianity has been the dominant majority religion in The West for what, a few millennia at least, and over 80% of the population of the US currently identify themselves as Xians, so stop with the 'help, help, we're being oppressed' and acting like no one really knows what it is.

Myself, agnostic to the core, got there by doing 12 years before the cross in Catholic School, the first 8 under the Franciscans, the last 4 under the Precious Blood and Jesuits.  And if you can't lean religion straight from god, the next best thing is to learn it from a Jesuit, just ask one.  I think Cindy had Jesuit instruction also, it's something that if you haven't done it, or been close to someone who has, is difficult to comprehend, suffice it to say that it's extremely - almost ridiculously - rigorous.  (at least until you go to college and find out that even in an elite private college you're about 1.5 to 2 years ahead of your non-Jesuit classmates)

Oh, and those old Franciscan nuns taught us evolution in biology class, and atomic theory too way back in grade school, they didn't seem to have any problem with it.  Of course at the heart of an order founded by St. Francis of Assisi is a very special relationship with animals, so teaching that we are part of the animals, and not all that different from them, and our superiority to them in both intelligence and god's love was overrated, well I can see where it meshed with their beliefs.

And they are not even the only order of Catholics that have some animal presence, the Dominicans have a huge dog thing going on, and it's not at all unusual to go into a Dominican church and see people there with their dogs.  Because St. Dominic founded the order based on a dream with a dog, and because going back to the middle ages (when people knew Latin) they were referred to in a play on words as Domini canes, the "dogs of the God" largely because of their role in The Inquisition.

I went to jesuis collge, and like Tecla said; no problem teaching Evolution, and in relgion we discussed the "Cosmological G-d," as fete accomplished

Quote from: Annah on October 09, 2012, 11:02:20 AM
The Jesuits are no joke.

Yet one collection of highly intelligent people...

Axélle

Absolute rejection of anything supernatural is my motto.

Quote from: Annah on October 07, 2012, 12:10:47 PM
I wouldn't call God terrible or fearsome.

The point of God is not to be terrible or fearsome. Sadly, some churches and radical sects of religion portrays this image, in my opinion, to control the masses.

I see God as benevolent, outside of our own impressions of expression, and a mother-like creator who loves us enough not to control us through fear...but to make our own decisions.

Long ago God was only seen as something to fear yet now why isnt he, I mean ever read revalations I am suprised christians dont fear ever trumpet they hear !

This seems to come up quite often, the idea that because god is unfalsifiable, non belief actually means the belief in gods non existence, and therefore is a matter of faith (and perhaps a religion). It's true that this could be the case, although the only famous atheist I can think of  that takes this position right now is Penn Jillette. But at least as far as I can see most tend to argue that non belief in an unproven claim is just the default position to start at.

That's true of me, so I think the closest fit i could find for myself is agnostic atheist. I've not heard or seen anything yet that's convinced me to believe, and I don't really expect to, but I'm still open to the possibility that it could.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.noforbiddenquestions.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fagnostic-diagram2.png&hash=1a8761e394ec26188367e892648f88773c3adf07)

Quote from: hazel on January 06, 2013, 11:48:50 AM
This seems to come up quite often, the idea that because god is unfalsifiable, non belief actually means the belief in gods non existence, and therefore is a matter of faith (and perhaps a religion). It's true that this could be the case, although the only famous atheist I can think of  that takes this position right now is Penn Jillette. But at least as far as I can see most tend to argue that non belief in an unproven claim is just the default position to start at.

That's true of me, so I think the closest fit i could find for myself is agnostic atheist. I've not heard or seen anything yet that's convinced me to believe, and I don't really expect to, but I'm still open to the possibility that it could.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.noforbiddenquestions.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fagnostic-diagram2.png&hash=1a8761e394ec26188367e892648f88773c3adf07)

Very interesting. I like that diagram.

I wonder where I fit. Not only do I believe that I don't know whether God exists, but I believe that God's existence is unknowable by humans. In short, "I don't know and you don't either..."

All that diagram needs is a Antitheism cuz thats what I am (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pic4ever.com%2Fimages%2FDancing_unhappy.gif&hash=ccf681fe957bc6ea18067bfac2ada2f4c866c957)

Quote from: agfrommd on January 06, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
Very interesting. I like that diagram.

I wonder where I fit. Not only do I believe that I don't know whether God exists, but I believe that God's existence is unknowable by humans. In short, "I don't know and you don't either..."

Militant agnostic maybe?  ;D

I think it helps to know what sort of god we're talking about. There's three I can think of right now, a deistic interpretation that probably really is unprovable either way, a personal god who could perhaps be proven/dis-proven depending on the validity of the scripture it's tied to. And then there's Einstiens/Spinosa's god which seems more like a metaphor for the sense of awe we get trying to make sense of the universe.

Quote from: agfrommd on January 06, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
Very interesting. I like that diagram.

I wonder where I fit. Not only do I believe that I don't know whether God exists, but I believe that God's existence is unknowable by humans. In short, "I don't know and you don't either..."

Kia Ora A,

::) So how do you 'know' that others don't know ? To know of what 6 billion odd people may or may not know , I would have thought too is 'unknowable' ! ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on January 06, 2013, 12:23:06 PM
Kia Ora A,

::) So how do you 'know' that others don't know ?

Didn't say I "know". Said I "believe". Two different things. "Know" is certainty. "Believe" is making your best judgment based what you do know.

Quote from: agfrommd on January 06, 2013, 05:06:16 PM
Didn't say I "know". Said I "believe". Two different things. "Know" is certainty. "Believe" is making your best judgment based what you do know.

Kia Ora A,

Sorry my mistake...I was responding to this "I don't 'know' and you don't either !"

Which lead me to 'believe' you were saying that you 'knew' that others didn't know either...

Metta Zenda :)

Well actually it is arguable that it is possible to know that nobody knows.
From a philosophical standpoint on the concept of knowledge and the value of subjective "knowledge" versus the objective.

Since there is no way of expressing or experiencing objective knowledge of God, and that the only experience people can have of God is personal religious experience which is highly subjective. It is quite arguable that there can be, philosophically, no "true knowledge" on such matters and that it is therefore impossible for anyone to "know".

Some atheists also argue that in this world of science that you can also know God does not exist. However anyone supporting this idea needs to learn more about the scientific method. Which in no way supports such a baseless claim. And baseless is what it is.

---

I would also make the point that given religion is based on faith, the whole point is that they do not "know". Being a religious person and arguing that you do in fact "know" of God's existence would defeat the point of having faith would it not?

---

No offense intended if given to anyone. I know people can be touchy on this stuff. I just have a philosophical interest on this subject, being a proud hard sceptic agnostic. I made a topic once on these very forums about my views on atheism... Got messy!

Here's a thought: who cares? If god made Earth, who made god? Who made the thing that made god? So on and so forth. No matter what, if you look back far enough, there would have to be nothing. Therefore, we should come up with a religion on nothingness.  ::)

Quote from: DianaP on January 15, 2013, 03:27:21 PM
Here's a thought: who cares? If god made Earth, who made god? Who made the thing that made god? So on and so forth. No matter what, if you look back far enough, there would have to be nothing. Therefore, we should come up with a religion on nothingness.  ::)

Kia Ora Diana,

::) "Buddhism" !

"Form is Emptiness-Emptiness is Form !"

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on January 15, 2013, 03:35:54 PM
Kia Ora Diana,

::) "Buddhism" !

"Form is Emptiness-Emptiness is Form !"

Metta Zenda :)

That's what I like about Buddhism. It is actually more of a philosophy than a religion. And it doesn't necessitate belief in a God or gods. An amazing friend of mine is actually a Buddhist atheist. Worshiping the Buddhas as gods came later in the religion's history. It didn't begin that way.  The founder, the original Buddha, didn't tell anyone to worship him or pray to him. For him, teaching the philosophy to others was a kindness--it was about helping others to bring the individual mind to enlightenment--becoming a Buddha yourself.

Anyways, that is a great analogy. Something from nothing. That is Buddism-one of the first real atheist philosophies from what I've read.

Quote from: DianaP on January 15, 2013, 03:27:21 PM
Therefore, we should come up with a religion on nothingness.  ::)

Nah, we should abandon religion altogether ;-)

Quote from: blue.ocean.girl on January 15, 2013, 06:41:47 PM
That's what I like about Buddhism. It is actually more of a philosophy than a religion. And it doesn't necessitate belief in a God or gods. An amazing friend of mine is actually a Buddhist atheist. Worshiping the Buddhas as gods came later in the religion's history. It didn't begin that way.  The founder, the original Buddha, didn't tell anyone to worship him or pray to him. For him, teaching the philosophy to others was a kindness--it was about helping others to bring the individual mind to enlightenment--becoming a Buddha yourself.

Anyways, that is a great analogy. Something from nothing. That is Buddism-one of the first real atheist philosophies from what I've read.

Kia Ora B O G,

I see my'self' as an agnostic atheist,[or atheistic agnostic] and thrown Buddhist into the mix, because  Siddhartha Gautama's [The Buddha] teachings are for the most part scientific, where one systematically takes the mind apart to explore the working [inner science] to find out how one ticks...

From an old thread on Buddhism :

A good example of this is in the essay "Buddhism Meets Western Science", where Gay Watson explains:

" Buddhism has always been concerned with feelings, emotions, sensations, and cognition. The Buddha points both to cognitive and emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause is desire and its negative opposite, aversion. The cognitive cause is ignorance of the way things truly occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and without essential self.

The noble eightfold path is, from this psychological viewpoint, an attempt to change patterns of thought and behavior. It is for this reason that the first element of the path is right understanding (sammā-diṭṭhi), which is how one's mind views the world. Under the wisdom (paññā) subdivision of the noble eightfold path, this worldview is intimately connected with the second element, right thought (sammā-saṅkappa), which concerns the patterns of thought and intention that controls one's actions. These elements can be seen at work, for example, in the opening verses of the Dhammapada: The noble eightfold path is also the fourth noble truth.

"All experience is preceded by mind/perception,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
And suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox!
All experience is preceded by mind/perception,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a peaceful mind,
And happiness follows
Like a never-departing shadow!"

Thus, by altering one's distorted worldview, bringing out "tranquil perception" in the place of "perception polluted", one is able to ease suffering. Watson points this out from a psychological standpoint:

Research has shown that repeated action, learning, and memory can actually change the nervous system physically, altering both synaptic strength and connections. Such changes may be brought about by cultivated change in emotion and action; they will, in turn, change subsequent experience !"



" I'm an agnostic atheist till the day I die...   :eusa_think: Then I'm open to offers !" ;) ;D


Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: blue.ocean.girl on September 25, 2012, 07:40:01 AM
Google "New Atheists." It is a movement and belief system--basically a religion in my opinion. Read the first sentence on their website.

"Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue" (http://newatheists.org/ (http://newatheists.org/))

I don't see a problem with that sentence. What's wrong with it?