He's probably the most friendly person in the world and a great human being, but I honestly had no idea that he was so religious. Which is probably because he's not arrogant about it, nor does he constantly talk about it in the media.
The way he acts is the perfect example of how I think a real Christian should act. Through actions, and not words.
I am equally appalled at the atrocities of all religions, 1. we are stuck in a Christian world so my focus is largely on their faith. As to whether we'd be Muslims if the Christian faith didn't exist? Doubtful as that religion stemmed from Christian influence.
Yes there are many examples of atrocities from other groups as well, equally as horrifying, but what has that to do with the question at hand?
A diversion? The list I provided, and an extensive one at that, caused millions of deaths in the name of religion and the propagation of that religion. Other religions have their own manifestations as well.
2. Are you suggesting that is the path humans would have taken had their been no Christianity? Are you suggesting it was ok for millions to lose their lives, and continue to do so in order for that or other religions to survive?
I have no idea on the likely path we as humans would have taken without the Christian influence, 3. one thing I can be pretty sure about is that science may not have been gagged for the last two thousand years.
1. Depends where you are living. Islam it a Abraham rooted religion....hence it's beginnings are Jewish just like Christianity. And yes history is on my side. Charlemagne's Grandfather stopped the mot advanced army in the world. So yes, unless your ancestors are from China....you would be Muslim.
2. Yes. Fascism and Communism have proven that. Not that you needed to have those two as the Chinese regularly committed genocide against others since the First Emperor. They were killing million before Mao made it a sporting event.
3. I really think you should read your history a little better. The Dark Ages were called that because literacy had simply vanished by 700AD. The history, the science, the knowledge was kept alive by the very religion you despise because they were they only ones literate. Check this video out. From 3:44 will tel you what the "Church" did for knowledge. Actually the entire series is quite "enlightening" and I recommend all to watch it. Science wasn't gagged by Christianity. Hence the reason why we have the knowledge to send someone to another planet.
Is this an actual opinion of Dawkins, or of people's perception of Dawkins? Because these rants and name calling are mostly mythical, on the contrary I've seen Dawkins respond to people ranting and calling religious people names with rational and balanced responses.
Unless you have some actual examples of this behaviour.
Fair enough, but it has been talked about his use of the term idiot as to describe people who believe in faith. Like i said I am a fan of Dawkins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Simple observation isn't science, and the Bible is no different in its observation of events.. some it gets right, some it gets wrong, some it makes up out of whole cloth, each depending on the author's goal when they wrote whatever book they did.
Last time i checked observation is part of the scientific method
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
A global flood? No there isn't, and there's tons against it. The whole account is nonsense.
No not a global flood. Again what you read in the bible can be passed has merely exaggeration or perception, the latter being the more likely. But at the end of the last ice age, plenty of evidence of major flooding. See this as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Genetic evidence supports evolution completely not adam and eve. Unless you're talking about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, but those are just names, those two people didn't live at the same time.
Yes that is all correct. I am not advocating taking the bible literally. But the concept of everyone originating from one man and one women is true.
Fair enough, but it has been talked about his use of the term idiot as to describe people who believe in faith. Like i said I am a fan of Dawkins.
The only time I've seen him use the word idiot was in specific reference to Ray Comfort, who is an idiot when it comes to evolution and science. I don't think he would describe all people who have faith as idiots; his book demonstrates that he thinks otherwise. Just because people talk about what someone says doesn't mean they're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
Last time i checked observation is part of the scientific method
Observation is part of brain surgery, but that doesn't make all observation the precursors of brain surgery.
The point is that the Bible is decidedly mundane with respect to science and history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
No not a global flood. Again what you read in the bible can be passed has merely exaggeration or perception, the latter being the more likely. But at the end of the last ice age, plenty of evidence of major flooding. See this as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Right, we live on a planet with lots of water flowing everywhere, and people tended to settle near large bodies of water when they could, so floods have been part of peoples lives for forever. So it's not surprising that writings have floods in them. Just not a global flood, I wasn't sure because you said "evidence that supports noah's flood", and that usually means a global flood around these parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
Yes that is all correct. I am not advocating taking the bible literally. But the concept of everyone originating from one man and one women is true.
It is, but it's also not a very insightful or deep observation, since all we observe is people coming from one man and one woman.
Some things the Bible says that could be taken in a scientific context that it does get right, it gets right in the sense that a stopped clock is right twice a day.. right but randomly right, not right for the right reasons.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I've never understood the passion with which people debate over religion. I tried my best on this, the latest religious debate thread, to truly read the posts and respective positions but wow... it just gets so boring after awhile.
People believe what they want to believe, and that's that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't get it. Why do people care so much?
What's your favourite colour? Oh really? Huh...alright...
I've never understood the passion with which people debate over religion. I tried my best on this, the latest religious debate thread, to truly read the posts and respective positions but wow... it just gets so boring after awhile.
People believe what they want to believe, and that's that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't get it. Why do people care so much?
What's your favourite colour? Oh really? Huh...alright...
Its because it affect everyone wether you believe or not.
I've never understood the passion with which people debate over religion. I tried my best on this, the latest religious debate thread, to truly read the posts and respective positions but wow... it just gets so boring after awhile.
People believe what they want to believe, and that's that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't get it. Why do people care so much?
What's your favourite colour? Oh really? Huh...alright...
People care so much because it a fundamental belief. It shapes and guides their lives. It's nothing like having a favorite color or a favorite hockey team. It's much deeper than that.
Its because it affect everyone wether you believe or not.
I don't know if this is true anymore if you live in a first world country and are not homosexual. So for some people the effect is quite great but for the majority someone elses religion and religious institutions does no affect their day lives.
I think it is akin to discussing politics. Really if you vote conservative and support them or you vote liberal it doesn't make a difference especially if you never change who you vote for as elections are decided on the margin. And really whoever is in power doesn't affect our day to day lives. I might pay $50 a month more or less in taxes and the economy might grow by 1% more or less but the direct effect on my life is rather minimal.
The reason I think it is discussed so much is that everyone thinks they are right and that the views is ardently defended. It is not so much the effect on people's lives but the percieved attack on a person's way of life.
I don't know if this is true anymore if you live in a first world country and are not homosexual. So for some people the effect is quite great but for the majority someone elses religion and religious institutions does no affect their day lives.
I think it is akin to discussing politics. Really if you vote conservative and support them or you vote liberal it doesn't make a difference especially if you never change who you vote for as elections are decided on the margin. And really whoever is in power doesn't affect our day to day lives. I might pay $50 a month more or less in taxes and the economy might grow by 1% more or less but the direct effect on my life is rather minimal.
The reason I think it is discussed so much is that everyone thinks they are right and that the views is ardently defended. It is not so much the effect on people's lives but the percieved attack on a person's way of life.
Nope, I tend to disagree. I think that people are passionate about this discussion because it does effect our every day lives. (Moreso outside of Canada, but here nonetheless)
The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
Canada and Europe have their own issues with a large influx of Muslims starting to push their influence. (moreso Europe, but making inroads here)
No one would care one iota if they kept to themselves, if they practiced what they preached, and did not attempt to force their views on the rest of society.
Unfortunately religions have a job to do, bring more people into its confines, or perish. The Mormons do a great job of this and others work in their own mysterious ways.
None of this is percieved...its out in the open and quite clear.
The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
This is such a sorry overused trope to make Christians out to be manipulative and evil. Take out Christian and add any other group. Go figure that it all of a sudden doesn't look so horrendous but rather very matter of fact.
The US has a large group of passionate Liberals who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Conservatives who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Democrats who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Republicans who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Artists who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HOZ For This Useful Post:
This is such a sorry overused trope to make Christians out to be manipulative and evil. Take out Christian and add any other group. Go figure that it all of a sudden doesn't look so horrendous but rather very matter of fact.
The US has a large group of passionate Liberals who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Conservatives who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Democrats who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Republicans who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
The US has a large group of passionate Artists who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
well once again you have clearly missed the point. First off Ive never had a group of artists trying to push The Group of 7 on me or come knocking on my door espousing the benefits of Gauguinism. I am forced to stomach politicians every 4 years or so and I have the benefit of using my vote to ouster a group I don't like.
This is about religion, if you want to make a separate post about the effects of artists and politicians feel free.
Actually I know exactly what I'm talking about. It just makes no sense to me how the new testament can over ride the old testament. The old testament is harsh so did god just all of a sudden soften up with the new testament? or is it just written by man to soften up the old testament?
Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
The Mosaic covenant was giving to the nation of Israel alone.
Exo 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
The people of Irsrael willingly entered into this covenant with God. They did this fully aware of the requirements of the law.
What you will see by reading the other 37 books of the Old Testament is that the Israelites again and again failed to keep those 300+ laws. Apparently it was a lot harder than they imagined. Even Israel's heroes of faith failed in keeping the whole law. In fact there is no record a Mother or Father ever gave up a disobedient child to be stoned. I don't even recall a an instance where a women was stoned for adultery. Judging by the account in John I would suggest it wasn't practiced:
Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
If stoning was a common accepted practice for adultery why would they used these circumstances to test Jesus? Wouldn't they just expect Him to affirm the law. They brought this women to him because they knew if Jesus followed the law he would have been seen as barbaric and heartless. But, if he forgave and freed this women he could be accused as a law breaker.
The law was given in order to demonstrate the need for a Saviour. Through it any honest man would see firstly his inability to measure up to God's standard and secondly God's judgement against sin. Galatians calls the law our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ:
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
This is the new covenant with God:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
This is such a sorry overused trope to make Christians out to be manipulative and evil. Take out Christian and add any other group. Go figure that it all of a sudden doesn't look so horrendous but rather very matter of fact.
And I'm willing to take on the beliefs and values of the Christians the same way that I take on the Conservatives and Republicans (though the three overlapping circles would hardly be distinguishable).
To get back to Mr. Coffee's question, I have no problem with people having their faith, be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish. I, myself, am Pastafarian. To each their own.
My issue, as per above, is when they try to influence policy. Last week we had two gay marriage threads. Most of those opposed to giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals were by and large religious people. And their primary justification has nothing to do with reason or logic. It's "this book written thousands of years ago says these people are sinners". You can't debate that. It's virtually impossible to reason with those that have built their values solely around an old book.
Favorite colours or favorite flavour ice creams do not impact public policy on the environment, human rights or social justice. Therefore I don't care.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
No not a global flood. Again what you read in the bible can be passed has merely exaggeration or perception, the latter being the more likely. But at the end of the last ice age, plenty of evidence of major flooding. See this as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Every ice age had major floodings, you don't have to be a scientist to figure out why either! and the last ice age ended long before christianity and likely before any form of religion. The great flood in the bible is bogus BS and just a fairy tale. no different than talking snakes, living in a whale and parting the red sea.
I suppose the next version of the bible will have the dec 26,2004 tsunami that killed 230,000 people be gods punishment for not enough people going to midnight mass.
Every ice age had major floodings, you don't have to be a scientist to figure out why either! and the last ice age ended long before christianity and likely before any form of religion. The great flood in the bible is bogus BS and just a fairy tale. no different than talking snakes, living in a whale and parting the red sea.
I suppose the next version of the bible will have the dec 26,2004 tsunami that killed 230,000 people be gods punishment for not enough people going to midnight mass.
I remember reading about the flood in the ice age. Perceptions of the concept of world wide was certainly different back then because the average persons perception was within square miles of themselves. so a flood that size that wiped out everything within a mans life was perceived as world wide.
I remember about reading about the mis-interpretation of the Red Sea as the Reed sea, where Moses lead his enemies into a swamp that people of feet could successfully navigate, but people in heavy war chariots probably drowned.
The events in the bible were probably loosely interpreted around real world events based of perception and interpretation.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Why live your life having your bias close your mind?
Nobody is saying that floods don't happen. It was a common occurance for communties and tribes to be flooded out and thus, those events spark cultural memory that is passed down via word of mouth and writings through many millenia of the telephone game. Many cultures and religions have flood stories that parallel the Biblical one. The point where divergence happens is whether you believe that the flood story is a divinely inspired chronicle of supernatural power that changed the world and still has relevance and applicability to this day...or if it is just a thousands of years old cultural memory.
