NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[peter12]

Well, in response to your first point, Photon. I have to apologize, I did not intend to generalize non-believers as simply being unable to understand. I was attempting to state that a life-long journey of faith is a private matter, relegated solely to an individual's cognitive experience. Perhaps my over-defensive attitude was related to the fact, that often as a moderate person of faith, I feel that my beliefs are placed upon an "Inquisitional" stand and made to stand a test, even though I feel that I have no obligation to defend them to anybody. If I'm minding my own business, I have the right to be allowed to mind my own business.

I do personally feel that on an individual-to-individual basis, the beliefs of both believers and non-believers can be debated in a reasonable manner. Certainly, the arguments against religion are valid and reasonable. I also believe that the arguments for a personal faith are valid and reasonable. I do feel that many of arguments used by atheists depend upon a basis of generalization. The accusations of intolerance are only valid, if ALL religious people have an underlying tolerance that is unique from that shared among the general human population.

In general, it's hard to comment on the cause for faith or religious experience. I've been reading quite a bit of critical analysis of the Bible and I have a growing interest/knowledge of the historicity of the Church and the Judeo-Christian experience. I'm definitely not the best person to answer that question, I know that there are way more knowledgable posters, like Textcritic who could answer your question from an academic standpoint.

It's interesting to me as well how many people base their faith upon a real-life experience. I even talked to someone who believed in God for literally opening an unlocked door. I personally think that faith precludes these acts and makes belief in them possible. But even so, I don't believe that was what faith was originally intended to be by the early Christian church. Popular Christianity has turned faith into sort of a cosmic lifeline between you and God. You grab the life-line and you get stuff. That seems to be how it works. I don't feel that is true to the original intent of Christ or the early Church. To me faith is a something a bit more complicated, a following of the social and moral teachings of Christ, to end of transforming human nature. My faith has had an "real" impact in my life that can only be measured by the way I treat my fellow human beings. It has impacted my kindness, my generosity, and my humility.

As for St. Paul's conversion, I'm not really certain. I do know that it appears that he underwent a conversion from a rabid Grand Inquisitor of the Christian faith, to a radical social activist of the Jesus Movement almost overnight. Why is this? John Newton once said, "God works powerfully, but for the most part gently and gradually". Maybe it's not the same for everybody. I don't really know.

[photon]

Well I do think you have some obligation to defend them, at least to yourself. But I agree you have the right to mind your own business and believe what you will, and most wouldn't disagree with that. Others also have a right to question your beliefs and ask for justifications and reasons. And posting to a public discussion thread invites it.

I think describing faith as the following of a moral and social teaching is interesting, and an important thing to understand. When using the word faith to an atheist at least, the image of belief without evidence is what is conjured. Using the term to describe a system of morals and social standards starts a whole different conversation.

I subscribe to a lot of what Jesus taught personally as well. I also discard a lot of what was taught in the Bible because it is either outdated or socially bound.

As to Paul, it's true that we don't know.. and we will never really know because of the lack of reliable sources of information. His transformation may have been much more gradual. Things have a way of changing and being romanticized after retelling, even by the person who experienced them

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by photon

Well I do think you have some obligation to defend them, at least to yourself. But I agree you have the right to mind your own business and believe what you will, and most wouldn't disagree with that. Others also have a right to question your beliefs and ask for justifications and reasons. And posting to a public discussion thread invites it.

Would you say an atheist has the right to ridicule and show disrespect for posters who try to justify their beliefs?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Would you say an atheist has the right to ridicule and show disrespect for posters who try to justify their beliefs?

Sure. It's counterproductive, and jerky--but he/she definitely has that "right."

Free speech is a bitch. Sometimes it means letting people say offensive stuff and deciding for yourself whether to take the bait and get angry, try to persuade them or just ignore it. If you honestly feel ridiculed by posters in this thread, I suggest the last course. It's not worth getting too worked up over.

The reverse is, of course, true also: you have the "right" to ridicule and disrespect others who don't share your beliefs. Whether or not you choose to do so is up to you.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sure. It's counterproductive, and jerky--but he/she definitely has that "right."

Free speech is a bitch. Sometimes it means letting people say offensive stuff and deciding for yourself whether to take the bait and get angry, try to persuade them or just ignore it. If you honestly feel ridiculed by posters in this thread, I suggest the last course. It's not worth getting too worked up over.

The reverse is, of course, true also: you have the "right" to ridicule and disrespect others who don't share your beliefs. Whether or not you choose to do so is up to you.

Free speech is a bitch. I agree with the notion that we should be allowed to say anything and everything. No sacred cards should be played.

However, it is good to promote responsible free speech that contributes to the good of everyone. Ridicule and mockery only serve to debase civil conversation.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Free speech is a bitch. I agree with the notion that we should be allowed to say anything and everything. No sacred cards should be played.

However, it is good to promote responsible free speech that contributes to the good of everyone. Ridicule and mockery only serve to debase civil conversation.

Agreed. Of course, part of the necessary process is that we all develop slightly thicker skins--but a civil conversation is always more productive than one which begins from a standpoint of absolute right and wrong, in my opinion.

Which is why I find dogmatic atheism a little weird--because to me, atheism is the rejection of dogma.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Agreed. Of course, part of the necessary process is that we all develop slightly thicker skins--but a civil conversation is always more productive than one which begins from a standpoint of absolute right and wrong, in my opinion.

Which is why I find dogmatic atheism a little weird--because to me, atheism is the rejection of dogma.

I think any enlightened belief, whatever form it takes, atheism, Christianity, or Buddhism, should be free of dogma. Personally, I believe that the vast majority of adherents are capable of civil conversation and the overall contribution to social well-being.

[metal_geek]

"My faith has had a "real" impact in my life that can only be measured by the way I treat my fellow human beings. It has impacted my kindness, my generosity, and my humility."

To each his own, because the realization that I have no faith has had a "real" impact in my life that can only be measured by the way I treat my fellow human beings. It has impacted my kindness, my generosity, and my humility.

I have a "Religious" experience every time I look at something in the universe. Every time I look at objects in space, ponder their existence, and my place in the whole thing. I realize how small I am, how small humans are, how small the earth is and how small our little solar system is in the big picture.

I look at all the little world wars, the brief existence of our species, and the amazing variety of life that just happens on this itty bitty plant. Laid out before me is how brief a time we have and how lucky we are to have as a form of life in this unimaginably big system, to be able to experience each and every event and interaction that happens.

It often leads to thoughts about "Why and how are we here?", "What?s the point?", and all the fundamental questions that we as humans have. When I look at all the religions on our infinitely small planet, it?s in this context I completely understand how people need something "Bigger" to help deal with these questions, and for some even validate their existence. My "Bigger" is how insignificant we are, there is no point, and how amazingly beautiful ,peaceful and enlightening that is...

The very real problem that I have with "Religion" are the conditions, it puts on peoples existence. I'm not saying that people are not allowed to have religions, on the contrary, have a religion, exist how you want, but the idea of Preaching infuriates me. Teaching secular view, behind a veil of acceptance and inclusion is hypocritical and dangerous to the extremely fragile existence we share. It's not an individual person?s belief that?s a problem. It's a religious organizations goal to "Spread the word" that?s like second hand smoke to the rest of the planet...
________
Vapir Oxygen

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Cheese, I thought you'd show up eventually. I believe a divine experience would be seeing you believing in a Higher Power. However, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

What do you mean by this exactly?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What do you mean by this exactly?

Cheese is usually very active in a thread like this, and I hadn't seen him until then. He seems so dogmatic in his atheism, that I felt it would take an act of God to get him to Believe.

My first inclination was to chastise him for his rudeness, but the idea of "do unto others......" was so imbedded in my psyche that I made a conscious decision to do otherwise. See, religion does moderate one's behavior.

[MarchHare]

the idea of "do unto others......" was so imbedded in my psyche that I made a conscious decision to do otherwise. See, religion does moderate one's behavior.

Emphasis added.

I didn't realize that treating others in the manner one would like to be treated was an attitude exclusive to the religious.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Emphasis added.

I didn't realize that treating others in the manner one would like to be treated was an attitude exclusive to the religious.

I didn't say it was. It just seems that way with some atheists in this thread.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I didn't realize that treating others in the manner one would like to be treated was an attitude exclusive to the religious.

It's not--but really, in this case isn't it the outcome that matters? If I treat people with respect because I'm a secular humanist, and others treat people with respect because of their religion--doesn't everyone win?

Religion has a checkered history--but it's only fair to recognize that it's done a lot of good as well as a lot of not-so-good things. In all probability that means that religion is in and of itself basically neutral, a vessel that is filled with whatever moral/ethical content we choose--and given the right moral/ethical content, what's wrong with allowing for a plurality of beliefs anyway?

For me--I'm an atheist, but have no objection to the occasional trip to church, or even to having my daughter christened at the request of our family. What's the harm? Religion may sometimes serve as a mask for hateful beliefs--but it doesn't always. Sometimes it just fulfills a very human need for ritual and togetherness, and that's a good thing IMO.

[MarchHare]

I didn't say it was.

The implication of your statement "See, religion does moderate one's behaviour" was that you would not have chosen to "do unto others..." if not for your religion.

Religion has a checkered history--but it's only fair to recognize that it's done a lot of good as well as a lot of not-so-good things. In all probability that means that religion is in and of itself basically neutral,

I strongly disagree with the emphasized portion of that statement. While there are certainly cases of good deeds being done in the name of religion, on the whole religion has been responsible for a huge amount of unspeakable evil. I wouldn't go so far to say that relgion is entirely bad, but for sure it is on the negative end of the spectrum, hardly neutral.

what's wrong with allowing for a plurality of beliefs anyway?

That, as it turns out, was one of the key themes in the NOVA documentary that spawned this thread (if you haven't already, take the time to watch it, as it's quite fascinating). The creationism/ID proponents in Dover, PA, weren't arguing to eliminate evolution from the science curriculum, only to also teach a plurality of beliefs alongside Darwinism. "Why shouldn't both views be taught?" was their claim.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The implication of your statement "See, religion does moderate one's behaviour" was that you would not have chosen to "do unto others..." if not for your religion.



I strongly disagree with the emphasized portion of that statement. While there are certainly cases of good deeds being done in the name of religion, on the whole religion has been responsible for a huge amount of unspeakable evil. I wouldn't go so far to say that relgion is entirely bad, but for sure it is on the negative end of the spectrum, hardly neutral.



That, as it turns out, was one of the key themes in the NOVA documentary that spawned this thread (if you haven't already, take the time to watch it, as it's quite fascinating). The creationism/ID proponents in Dover, PA, weren't arguing to eliminate evolution from the science curriculum, only to also teach a plurality of beliefs alongside Darwinism. "Why shouldn't both views be taught?" was their claim.

How can you possibly legitimate that statement?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The implication of your statement "See, religion does moderate one's behaviour" was that you would not have chosen to "do unto others..." if not for your religion.



I strongly disagree with the emphasized portion of that statement. While there are certainly cases of good deeds being done in the name of religion, on the whole religion has been responsible for a huge amount of unspeakable evil. I wouldn't go so far to say that relgion is entirely bad, but for sure it is on the negative end of the spectrum, hardly neutral.



That, as it turns out, was one of the key themes in the NOVA documentary that spawned this thread (if you haven't already, take the time to watch it, as it's quite fascinating). The creationism/ID proponents in Dover, PA, weren't arguing to eliminate evolution from the science curriculum, only to also teach a plurality of beliefs alongside Darwinism. "Why shouldn't both views be taught?" was their claim.

I love that statement.....has religion been reponsible for all these evil things you speak of? or is it a small minority of homo sapiens that are reponsible ?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Cheese is usually very active in a thread like this, and I hadn't seen him until then. He seems so dogmatic in his atheism, that I felt it would take an act of God to get him to Believe.

My first inclination was to chastise him for his rudeness, but the idea of "do unto others......" was so imbedded in my psyche that I made a conscious decision to do otherwise. See, religion does moderate one's behavior.

Quite frankly Im surprised by your and others need to "chastise" me.
My post...and the only one here was this...

Believing in a car, another person or the idea of flight is something ALL of us can believe.
When skeptics apply higher standards for claims based on religious experiences than they do for claims based on other experiences, they are thought of as exhibiting a prejudice against religion.
There are many problems with this train of thought. The biggest of all of them is, if there is just one God, why is there such wide variety in the reports of religious experiences?
Real experiences that have a large impact on a person can have completely natural sources without any divine connections....yet we as atheists dont suggest that you the "theist" cannot have a real experience!
The idea that only the religious can experience something divine sounds a whole lot like grape flavored Kool-Aid to me.

Please explain the rudeness to me....and then slowly scroll backwards and re-read comments by other atheists and skeptics and try to suggest that they havent been as profound as I in my excercise.
It is simply because of who I am...because I try to provide hard facts that are inarguable. IF anyone who carries the burden of belief wants to discuss things using educated responses I am all for them...no matter who or what they represent. Im personally not against anyone who chooses dogma, quite frankly you can believe in anything you desire as far as Im concerned. When you bring your points of view to an open message board or into the public eye, then we all have the choice to express our thoughts. I have NEVER accused any theist of slander and Im 100% sure you wont find me calling out an individual personally for their own beliefs. I absolutely will respond to false information or data and will certainly call out anyone who chooses to defend their faith publicly on this or any other message board without backing themselves up with something.....anything. Even YECs try to discuss theology based on "their idea of the facts".
As to the comment about me being "dogmatic" about my atheism? WTF is that supposed to mean? IF I truly believe, and I do, that there is no God, doesnt that give me or anyone else the right to discuss it openly? Im sure most theists would prefer us Atheists would simply go back to the closet and leave things as they were for the last 2 thousand years. Im sorry...its not going to happen and that is why many theists are feeling like they are being attacked for their beliefs, because there is simply no answer for "Belief"....that is called Education.

If any theist truly wishes to have "open" discussions on their choice with people of faith and un-faith this is absolutely the best place... http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Try it.....
If you choose not to discuss things there, then go to the Library where thousands of articles on every possible idea you have encountered are located... http://www.infidels.org/library/index.html

[MarchHare]

How can you possibly legitimate that statement?

Oh wow...that's a topic for a whole other thread, but surely you can't possibly be so naive that you're unaware of all the terrible crimes that have been and continue to be committed because of religion.

I love that statement.....has religion been reponsible for all these evil things you speak of? or is it a small minority of homo sapiens that are reponsible ?

I would say it's a relatively sizable number of people who were motivated because of their religious beliefs who have been responsable for a great deal of evil, misery, and suffering throughout human history. Hitchens and Dawkins (among others) have both discussed this in much greater length than I will go into here.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Oh wow...that's a topic for a whole other thread, but surely you can't possibly be so naive that you're unaware of all the terrible crimes that have been and continue to be committed because of religion.



I would say it's a relatively sizable number of people who were motivated because of their religious beliefs who have been responsable for a great deal of evil, misery, and suffering throughout human history. Hitchens and Dawkins (among others) have both discussed this in much greater length than I will go into here.

I totally know about the Inquisition, anti-Semitism, and the abuse of homosexuals that has occured at the hands of those who call themselves religious. Certainly a lot bad things have been done in the name God or gods. However, to assume that you have some sort of Divine scale that can come out with some solution as to the absolute effect of religion on a spectrum is ridiculous.

Hitchens devotes a little over 300 pages to his dogmatic attack on religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition stretches 1000s of years and countless acts of goodness have been done in the names of their beliefs. Don't you count those?

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I love that statement.....has religion been reponsible for all these evil things you speak of? or is it a small minority of homo sapiens that are reponsible ?

I'm sure the people who kill other people in the name of "GOD" would have killed that person, in the name of their TOWN, or the name of their MOTHER, or for whatever other reason.

The problem in religion lies in the fact, it's as a common thing between people from all over, so it's bigger then familys and citys and countires. Religion just becomes in enabling factor for so many more people, it just scales like nothing else.
________
M62