The dumbing down of America continues...

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As a religious person, I would respond to this by claiming that when religious doctrine becomes a hindrance to advancement, or when it becomes dangerous, this is not so much a problem with "religion" as it is with people who wield power in the name of that religion.

That is true of all power, and I agree with you. But it is religion that allows people to wield it without question. The lack of critical thinking regarding faith provides them that power.

The pope is infallible. Does that make sense?

On another note, "advancement" is not always positive. Sometimes advancement in the wrong hands, with the wrong motivation, with improper education or understanding, is exceedingly dangerous.

Agreed. I was using the frame of reference as scientific discovery. Copernicus on trial for knowing the earth revolves around the sun. Fiddles being the devil's instrument. Stem cell research being restricted.

Does this make science evil? Technology? Certainly not. But it is illustrative of my point that it is these sorts of excesses I believe religion is key to correcting: learning to appropriately manage our passion.

I see religion as having had the whole of human history to play that role, and failing every step of the way thanks to it being based on fabrications. If the message was a simple "do unto others..." instead of specifics of what is right and wrong "because god says so" it might have had more success in stopping some of the world's atrocities.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Good post. So for discussions sake, you say that people are predisposed to committee terrible acts, how come no one has committed anything terrible in the name of atheism? People have certainly done such acts in the name of a god.

Probably because until very recently it was largely unacceptable to be an atheist. They aren't likely to denounce god when you would be burned at the stake, or shunned in the community for your troubles.

Except for Soviet Russia. Where the authorites destroyed churches and executed religious leaders. I tend to think that was more the result of Stalinisim than atheism though.

Anyway, look hard enough, I am sure you will find a heinous atheist act. There are crazies in every community.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

PHP Code:

Picking apart religion based on facts serves no purpose when religion is not based on facts to begin with 


.[/quote]

What is it based on?


This is awesome. See how people get all worked up over religion? Its a great way to divide people and start wars! I've never met a man more positive that they are right than a religious man.

I once knew a Mormon fella that was convinced that if he was born in the middle east, that he would still be a Mormon. Nothing against Mormons, but religious people in general seem to breed hate due to the fact that they see the "other side" as wrong and tend to take offense. Religious war is a fact.

[MarchHare]

I once knew a Mormon fella that was convinced that if he was born in the middle east, that he would still be a Mormon.

Yeah, I have a similar story. I once confronted a Mormon girl with the fact that she only had the faith she did because she happened to be born to Mormon parents, and that if by cosmic chance she was born in, say, India instead, she would have been a Hindu. She countered by insisting that she still would have been a Mormon. When arguing with religious people, you can't use logic and reason, because belief (or "faith") in a higher being is inherently illogical.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As a religious person, I would respond to this by claiming that when religious doctrine becomes a hinderance to advancement, or when it becomes dangerous, this is not so much a problem with "religion" as it is with people who wield power in the name of that religion.

i think you nailed it here. religion in itself is not bad. the religious institution provides a place for people from all walks of life to feel accepted and try to find answers in their life. the fact that religion occasionally preys on the fears of the less fortunate and then takes advantage of them is another discussion (ie. religion is the opiate of the masses - Marx)

it is the men who use religion as a means to further their place in society or any other variant of abusing ones power. Especially when dealing with religion because of the human nature to want to know what our place in the universe is or what the meaning of life is. i think these two aspects make religion a very dangersous institution to abuse because our questions about the meaning of life and a greater power make us very succeptible to do things we might not normally do for an institition that we are a part of like say PETA.

now to answer the original discusion about the ark and creationism i think the problem is that moderate christians (or religious people) tend to get offended when agnostics (not atheist, i don't deny god, i just don't know if he exists) like me say "holy **** people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old/believe in noahs ark are ****ing crazy"

then the moderates proceed to call us a bunch of ignorent jerks and tell us that it is possible to believe that god gave the 1st spark of life or to examine the bible metaphorically in some places and literally in others.

the point i think a lot of moderate christians seem to be missing, and not necessarily just in this thread, is that the argument that many of the anti-creationists and atheists have made is that the fundamentalist views are dangerous, ignorant and in some instances just plaiin stupid.

you may say you are a catholic (talking to no one imparticular here) but by saying you are catholic means you believe what the pope believes which is that there is no such thing as evolution and that noah did in fact build an ark to the exact specifications laid out in the bible, when science has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is real and there was no ark.

if you do not adhere to the official church position then technically you should be part of a different religion. even though catholocism may be the closest one to your particular belief pattern. you cannot (according to the church) just pick and choose which parts of the doctrine you are going to believe.

a note about noahs ark, in case no one has mentioned it yet, is that most of the cultures in the area of the middle east where noah is thought to have originated have some mention of a great flood at the time that the christians claim that the great flood took place.

fact is much like many true historical events someone recorded history of a giant flood and took the story to a fantastical level and infused the story with religion.

a really big flood did happen in noahs time this is a fact. however, there was no noahs ark this is very likely a fact. if there was an ark they would have found at least some evidence by now.

is it possible that some guy really quickly built a boat and survived the flood because of it? sure but he did not gather two of each animal while the rest of the earth perished because of gods wrath.

for the record i personally feel that many stories in the bible are great to use for their message or to be analyzed metaphorically. (and many stories were intentionally written to be metaphorically like the story of abraham sacrificing his son was actually a protest to cultures that did sacrifice...its true!)

[troutman]

Originally Posted by flip

for the record i personally feel that many stories in the bible are great to use for their message or to be analyzed metaphorically. (and many stories were intentionally written to be metaphorically like the story of abraham sacrificing his son was actually a protest to cultures that did sacrifice...its true!)

I agree, but why just limit ourselves to one mythology? I think this is the kind of spirituality that Joseph Campbell was proposing. I always return to this quote. Take what is good and useful from religion. Don't get distracted about the literal truth.

Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts -- but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. Myth tells you what the experience is.
-- Joseph Campbell

Too many of our best scholars, themselves indoctrinated from infancy in a religion of one kind or another based upon the Bible, are so locked into the idea of their own god as a supernatural fact -- something final, not symbolic of transcendence, but a personage with a character and will of his own - that they are unable to grasp the idea of a worship that is not of the symbol but of its reference, which is of a mystery of much greater age and of more immediate inward reality than the name-and-form of any historical ethinic idea of a deity, whatsoever ... and is of a sophistication that makes the sentimentalism of our popular Bible-story theology seem undeveloped.
-- Joseph Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

Campbell writes:"...Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology." In other words, Campbell did not read religious symbols literally as historical facts, but instead he saw them as symbols or as metaphors for greater philosophical ideas.

[MarchHare]

by saying you are catholic means you believe what the pope believes which is that there is no such thing as evolution

Just a point of correction: as I noted earlier in this thread it is the official position of the Vatican that evolution is factual and Catholics are permitted to accept the theory with the caveat that it was the process by which God created life. This view was first espoused by Pope Pius XII in 1950 and re-iterated by Pope John Paul II in 1996.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by flip

...by saying you are catholic means you believe what the pope believes which is that there is no such thing as evolution and that noah did in fact build an ark to the exact specifications laid out in the bible, when science has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is real and there was no ark...

Not to nitpick, but this is a misreprestantation of official Catholic doctrine. Evolution has been deemed compatible with faith for many decades now, and it is generally accepted among Catholic clergy that the Noahic myth is little more than a trumped up legend.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodic.../Article3.html

Oh, and Trout: fantastic post, as always!

[flip]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Just a point of correction: as I noted earlier in this thread it is the official position of the Vatican that evolution is factual and Catholics are permitted to accept the theory with the caveat that it was the process by which God created life. This view was first espoused by Pope Pius XII in 1950 and re-itereated by Pope John Paul II in 1996.

this is true but i was just trying to make a point. use any other topic that is often debated or take any other christian (or non christian) religion then who would not support their members not believing in creationsism.

and in response to your quote the reason the catholic church did this was as much because of declining numbers in their churches and in terms of number of people becoming priests etc. it was as much a move to be seen as a "progressive" organization in order to increase the $ in the collection plate.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not to nitpick, but this is a misreprestantation of official Catholic doctrine. Evolution has been deemed compatible with faith for many decades now, and it is generally accepted among Catholic clergy that the Noahic myth is little more than a trumped up legend.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodic.../Article3.html

Oh, and Trout: fantastic post, as always!

Right back at you. I always enjoy your thoughts on this. If I ever am in Chilliwack, I'd like to buy you a beer. It would be nice to chew the fat with you . . . or just get happy on beer.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

Right back at you. I always enjoy your thoughts on this. If I ever am in Chilliwack, I'd like to buy you a beer. It would be nice to chew the fat with you . . . or just get happy on beer.

I like beer...and...I like happy...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Krieger99

If any creationists view this thread, I'd like to ask a question.

If the universe was created 6,000 years ago, why can we see stars which are millions of light years away using the Hubble Telescope, and even see stars 10,000 lightyears away with the naked eye?

Because God created the universe that way. Duh.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Krieger99

If any creationists view this thread, I'd like to ask a question.

If the universe was created 6,000 years ago, why can we see stars which are millions of light years away using the Hubble Telescope, and even see stars 10,000 lightyears away with the naked eye?

God created the universe with this base design. Just like man was created in the same form he presently is in, the cosmos was created in the exact form that it presently is found. God created the universe to be infinitely huge and placed the stars thousands and millions of light years away intentionally. God had a grand design and made sure that there level of complexity would forever challenge his greatest creation. It is this complexity, and the challenges found there in, that prove the existence of God Himself.

Or something along those lines (I come from a very religious family, and I've heard all the excuses you can imagine).

[Cube Inmate]

/dork on
Does anybody know what happened on the planet Vulcan before they were saved by logic? I kind of get the feeling it would have looked very much like what's happening on Earth right now, as exemplified by this thread.
/dork off

On the message of this thread, I (as an atheist) am opposed to anything that suppresses critical thinking...it's an ability that's severely lacking in humanity in general. So, while you may have the right to believe anything you like, that won't stop me from engaging you in discussions intended to make you question your religion. I had such a discussion last week, and I didn't have to aggressively tell the person he was "wrong" in his beliefs. It's enough to simply ask questions and know that I've made someone else think a little more critically. On the other hand, he made me think a little bit too. Neither of us changed our beliefs, but that wasn't the point in the first place.

I should add...

One-on-one, the vast majority of religious people I encounter are also reasonable people. They're aware that their beliefs defy logic, but they're fine with that (a la Textcritic). As a movement, though, I think religion is much less capable of being reasonable. That's the same for any large group--political parties, minorities, majorities, feminists, Calgarians, etc.... So, if we (atheists as a group) could reason with them (religions as a group) the same way that is possible as individuals, I don't think we'd have the same level of argument. It's not possible, unfortunately.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Krieger99

If any creationists view this thread, I'd like to ask a question.

If the universe was created 6,000 years ago, why can we see stars which are millions of light years away using the Hubble Telescope, and even see stars 10,000 lightyears away with the naked eye?

I've heard things ranging from God created the intervening light in transit (God created the universe fully complete and functional including rings in trees that are older than 6000 years), to the speed of light changing over time, to there being an infationary period after the moment of creation (kinda like the big bang). Some even have some pretty good math around them apparently, though they have some problems with relativity from what I've read. My math is many years behind me though.

If God can create a universe, then He can create it in such a way that it looks 100% naturally caused with every piece of evidence pointing to an Old universe. Which gets back to having to believe it on faith.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The absolute intolerance for those that believe differently about something than yourself in this string is just amazing in my mind.

I could only read two pages of it quickly and then give up.

I grew up in a Catholic family, had my children baptized, they will go to a Catholic school. As I've matured I have changed my belief system both in modernizing my stance on it, and in applying my own take on things.

I really don't have a clue as to what did or didn't happen to begin "life", nor do I profess to know where any of are going if we're going at all when this "life" comes to a close.

But I certainly know that I have a much more open mind and have tolerance to pretty much anyone else when it comes to a differing opinion on these subjects than most in this string.

Really sad actually.

I work with many Atheists and we can talk at length over a few beers about things like this without anyone calling me pathetic, or weak minded or begin sentances with "all religion is ..." as if this person honestly can reach such a point in a discussion.

Wow.

Great post.

It bugs the hell out of me too. I have a problem with the prevailing arrogance of atheists. Many, not all, believe they are smarter than people of faith. They are atheists because they are intelligent enough to know that what religion teaches can't be true. The believers are idiots.

Evman's post is indicative of this attitude. Of course, he's posted similarly arrogant things on other subjects too so maybe it's not the perfect example.

I think it's hilarious that people actually think that they can comprehend all the universe has to offer. We don't know squat.

Is there any scientific evidence that magical space pixies DON'T exist?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Krieger99

If any creationists view this thread, I'd like to ask a question.

If the universe was created 6,000 years ago, why can we see stars which are millions of light years away using the Hubble Telescope, and even see stars 10,000 lightyears away with the naked eye?

Not labeling myself a creationist here, but not all creationists believe the universe was created that recently.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm only referring to public, government-funded schools. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, private schools, church-run schools, or home schools are free to teach any curriculum they please.

So you have a problem with creationism, or creation as pointed out in the Bible being taught in a theology class?

Sure it isn't science...we all know that...but it is theology.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you have a problem with creationism, or creation as pointed out in the Bible being taught in a theology class?

Sure it isn't science...we all know that...but it is theology.

Is theology a class generally taught at the K-12 level in public schools?

As I said before, it's all about the context. Teaching about religion in a history or social studies class is perfectly acceptable. Teaching religious beliefs as an alternative to scientific theories in a science class is not acceptable.

[MarchHare]

Is there any scientific evidence that magical space pixies DON'T exist?

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that something exists. It's not the onus of the non-believer to disprove the existance of God, because that's no more possible than disproving the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot.