RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: The Ususal Futile Religious War on PT and Elsewher, With apologies to Lenny!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,16:59   

Christopher, just as an explanation, it should not be surprising what Bush I & II have said.  A traditional interpretation of christianity says only believers (that and 144,000 jews, of course) will go to heaven.  Kinda harsh but that's not even an extreme belief.  As far as atheists being evil that's not a great step either if you take for granted that everything not of God belongs to the Devil whether intentional or not.  Remember the Salem Witch trials.  These aren't really radical beliefs, they're more of traditional doctrine.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,17:42   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,14:49)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,12:49)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24)
...
It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn...
Chris

So what?

Nobody living is responsible for what happened a thousand years ago. Nobody living suffered it.

Who blames atheists for 9/11? Nobody I know, let alone the general public. Nor am I aware of atheists being blamed for Hitler.

Stalin may have been an atheist but I don't think many people equate all atheists as being Stalin-like.

How many regular posters here criticise people for being atheist? I can't think of any.

It was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who blamed 9/11 on secular humanists (they also credited lesbos and pagans as well).  And not a day goes by where the tards at UD don't blame hitler's deeds on his atheism.  Religionists also trelessly point to Stalin as an example of what secular humanism/atheism gets you at the godless store.

Intelligent design is a full frontal assault on secular humanism.  You've heard of Intelligent Design I assume.  It's like creationism but they use bigger words.

And you are aware that Bush I said atheists should not consider themselves citizens or patriots?  And his mentally retarded son said no one but christians get to go to heaven.  

This is pretty common stuff, religionists blaming atheism for pretty much everything as well as portraying them as wicked and dangerous (or just doomed to leading meaningless, unhappy lives).  I'm surprised you weren't aware of any of this.  You should get out more.  Read the paper even.

There are several tards here to either blame secular humanism/atheism for the worlds ills, or they simply try and save us.  

But my point was if the religionists dish it out they should plan to have some flung their way too.  And those who get their feelings hurt because Dawkins thinks their beliefs are stupid might consider growing up or adopting ideas that are more bullet proof.

Chris

So a couple of whacko bible thumping pig-ignorant people make a claim and that is = to every none-atheist saying it? I don't think so. That is hardly the general public blaming atheists is it?

Inteligent Design was an atack on science (particularly evolution) rather than atheists.

I was not aware about the Bush comment against atheists. I am English so forgive my ignorance on that topic please.

Dawkins does not hurt my feelings. But it seems to me that you want to group everyone that isn't an atheist in the same camp. That is silly. Judge Jones isn't an atheist but he sure stomped on ID.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,17:45   

In reading this thread, I wonder if an element of humility is not in order.

From where I sit, the most crucial drivers behind questions of religious belief pertain not to origins, but rather to the severe human dilemma presented by the inevitability of one’s personal death.  Although I happen to believe that oblivion will follow my own death, and indeed all deaths, I would be lying if I denied sometimes bolting upright in the middle of the night with the full realization of that reality, accompanied by a very cold fear.  Although this quickly passes, and indeed I cannot reproduce this feeling at will (psychological denial and intellectualization quickly reassert themselves, I suppose), it seems clear that this is really the central human dilemma.  

In view of that, I have enormous sympathy for those who cope with the spector of death by, in essence, denying its reality and positing an afterlife. In particular, having children and finding myself unable to even contemplate loosing one of them, I cannot fault those who have responded to such an unbearable grief by resorting to the comforting notion that death is not real.  Probably one of the most severe costs that accompany what I perhaps vainly fancy to be my intellectual honesty is that such comforts will not be available to me should I be faced with a similar loss. Part of me is sympathetic to whatever cover an individual wishes to take in the face of those realities.

A second point vis humility pertains more directly to questions of science and religion. I recall reading – I think that it was in Timothy Ferris’ “The Whole Shebang” - a description of some of the implications of inflationary models of the origins of the universe.  Ferris invited the reader to imagine the observable universe – that volume of the universe from which light (and hence any causation) will have had time to travel since the big bang - as a sphere with a radius of 13.9 billion light years.  Ferris asserted that, if inflationary models prove correct, that volume stands in proportion to the actual volume of the universe as the area of a silver dollar stands in relation to the area of the surface of the earth (I hope I am properly recalling this – I don’t have a copy handy).  That, frankly, blows my mind.  Undoubtedly, even if this proves to be inaccurate, the realities that do emerge from cosmology will be equally mind-blowing.

My personal response to facts like these is one of awe and humility. Although we have mathematics based upon powers of ten with which to calculate on such scales, I find that it is not really even remotely possible to directly imagine the reality that such facts denote.  Speaking for myself, I feel my level of comprehension of such things stands in relation to these facts much as an ocean going larva stands in relation to the Pacific ocean itself. Indeed, the universe being disclosed by contemporary science (and here I most emphatically include evolutionary biology) is so vastly larger and richer than any pre-modern view of any deity that I would argue that the concept of “God” is best properly viewed as an historical placeholder for these larger, vastly more rich realities, a placeholder that we could only just now have discarded. If some people are not quite ready for that, I understand completely.

What we don’t find in this contemporary view, however, is a larger agency that resembles human agency, nor refuge from death.  That’s the tradeoff. I am an atheist in that sense: I don’t believe in life after death, and I don’t believe that something resembling the human capacity for intentionality and design underlies this particular shebang.  I am sympathetic to those who believe that it does, but happen to believe that they are mistaken.  I wouldn’t presume to steal that belief from them, however.

All that said, the battle over science classrooms at the K-12 level is over for now, and it had the right outcome.  The battle was won at Doverloo.  That was my primary concern.

Personally, at the college level, I find it absurd to “pre-flunk” students who enter school rejecting contemporary evolutionary biology.  Indeed, I feel that any student who takes such a course, fully masters the materials, and demonstrates full comprehension by means of the relevant exams should get the grades that his or her performance warrants, regardless of whether they have retained their earlier beliefs, because that’s the academic bargain at that level.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,17:51   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 27 2006,14:49)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,13:49)
Who blames atheists for 9/11?

Pat and Jerry discuss 9/11:

 
Quote
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

You quote mined that. Nobody I know blames atheists for 9/11.

The atrocities of 9/11 where commited by fundy religious extremists. Please don't try and make it look as though I believe otherwise.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,18:02   

Thoughtful and insightful post, Bill.  I for one, appreciated it.

 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 27 2006,17:45)
From where I sit, the most crucial driver behind questions of religious belief pertain not to origins, but rather to the severe human dilemma presented by the inevitability of one’s personal death.  Although I happen to believe that oblivion will follow my own death, and indeed all deaths, I would be lying if I denied sometimes bolting upright in the middle of the night with the full realization of that reality, accompanied by a very cold fear.  Although this quickly passes, and indeed I cannot reproduce this feeling at will (psychological denial and intellectualization quickly reassert themselves, I suppose), it seems clear that this is really the central human dilemma.


The truth laid bare.  Perhaps you and I might start a support group.

Personally, I find some comfort (and indeed awe) in the thought that when I kick the bucket, whatever energy that was once used to fire the neurons in my brain will be assimilated back into the universe from whence it came.  My stinking, rotting corpse will become the fertilizer which feeds the grass, which feeds the animals which will shit on my grave.

It's the circle of life, baby.

(Ok, on those nights where I'm in the described predicament, I construct these thoughts with a fair amount less snark, and there are flowers and small children playing in the park, but you get the idea.)

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,18:51   

Quote (mcc @ Nov. 27 2006,04:20)
The people at PT and such who have been expressing concern with "burn the religionists"-flavored atheism over the last week or so aren't trying to say all atheists, all materialists, or even all people who think religion is harmful, fall into this excessive category.

Indeed.  I can count the names of the primary offenders, almost, on the fingers of one hand.

Every time that the "religion is stupid!!!" invective starts to fly in PT, it's one of those same 5-6 people.  Every time.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,18:52   

Quote (skeptic @ ,)
...you might consider Outspoken Atheist to [Evangelical].

Heh, how 'bout Practical Atheist? Sure, I'm a "strong" atheist, I'm even "unashamed" (lol)... I could even conceive of something unknowable out there, but I know that if I ever gave it a name, 6 billion people would disagree with me.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,19:01   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24)
It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn.

Dude, any time you want to trade places with the Marxists, you just let me know.  I've been tear-gassed, arrested, beaten up, visited by the FBI, and threatened more times by more people than I can even remember.  Of course, if this were some Central American country where the police and army were trained by the US, I'd have been found long ago in a ditch, with a bullet in the back of my head.  As for my friends in the former USSR who were fighting the government there, I will spare the details of what happened to them, since I'm eating dinner right now.

You think atheists are "repressed"?  Dude, you have no idea at all what "repression" looks like.  Not a clue.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,19:05   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,16:59)
These aren't really radical beliefs, they're more of traditional doctrine.

Actually, there is nothing "traditional" about them.  Indeed, fundamentalism and Biblical literalism itself are not "traditional".  They didn't even appear as an organized religious movement until the 1910's.

Alas, I long ago learned that fundies are just as utterly pig-ignorant about the history of their own religion as they are about . . . well . . . everything else.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,19:13   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2006,18:02)
Personally, I find some comfort (and indeed awe) in the thought that when I kick the bucket, whatever energy that was once used to fire the neurons in my brain will be assimilated back into the universe from whence it came.  My stinking, rotting corpse will become the fertilizer which feeds the grass, which feeds the animals which will shit on my grave.

It's the circle of life, baby.

In Taoist thought, this idea is depicted in the example of the Five Elements, which are  Earth, Water, Wood, Metal and Fire.

These form a cycle.  A seed is planted on the Earth, and begins its life.  With the help of Water, it grows, and after a period of growth becomes a mature tree of Wood.  Alas, an axe made of Metal cuts it down, and Fire consumes it, leaving behind ashes which return to the Earth, to nourish a new seed and start the cycle all over again.

Everything is born, grows, lives, declines, and dies.  Indeed, everything forms a cycle.  Everything, whether it's individual people, governments, empires, mountains or planets, is formed, grows, reaches maturity, dies and its constituents form the beginning of the next cycle.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,19:26   

Quote (Ved @ Nov. 27 2006,18:52)
I could even conceive of something unknowable out there, but I know that if I ever gave it a name, 6 billion people would disagree with me.

"If you can talk about it,  It is other than the constant Tao.
If you can name it,  It is other than the constant Name.
Nameless, Tao is the beginning Of Heaven and Earth.
Named, It is the mother of the 10,000 things."



(big fat evil grin)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,19:33   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 27 2006,17:45)
I
I wouldn’t presume to steal that belief from them, however.

Well, that is the difference between you and people like, say, PZ or Larry Moran.  You are quite willing to let people use their faith as a crutch if they need it.  PZ and Moran, however, would kick their crutch out from under them and scream "Walk on your own, you pussy!!!!"

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,20:26   

Bill, eloquent and very nearly poetic.  Thank you for that post.  I remember many a night in those pre-teen years lying awake and staring at the ceiling trying to wrap my brain around the concept of eternity.  Rite of passage, huh?

Lenny, wouldn't the various Inquisitions demonstrate the Christian view of the pagan unbelievers?  They certainly occurred before 1910.  Maybe I was using the "traditional" term incorrectly.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,20:48   

I tend to think that the biggest difference between Dawkins et al and myself is that I think an important part of this fight is explaining to the religious that theories such as evolution are not a threat to a belief in God, preferably through a proper understanding of the nature of science and the scientific method, taught in schools if at all possible. Also this presumably conflicts with the goal of some people who appear to use the terms 'critical thinking' and 'rational thought' as synonymous with atheism.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,20:55   

I fear that the question as to whether or not rational thought does equal atheism is what is currently up for grabs, if I am finally understanding Louis correctly.  But it is funny how the extremes, and I would say the minorities, are by far the loudest and most influential in popular thought.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,22:06   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,20:26)
Bill, eloquent and very nearly poetic.  Thank you for that post.  I remember many a night in those pre-teen years lying awake and staring at the ceiling trying to wrap my brain around the concept of eternity.  Rite of passage, huh?

Lenny, wouldn't the various Inquisitions demonstrate the Christian view of the pagan unbelievers?  They certainly occurred before 1910.  Maybe I was using the "traditional" term incorrectly.

The Inquisition didn't have a #### thing to do with "pagans" or "unbelievers".

Like I said, fundies are utterly completely pig-ignorant about the history of their own religion.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,22:16   

Quote (Russell @ Nov. 27 2006,05:56)
Quote
I think pretty much any lurkers reading this thread will find it painfully obvious that you're the one being reasonable here and "skeptic" is being just a crazy, straw-man flinging fundie.
Well, now, that's not quite fair. "Skeptic" may be somewhat irrational, and is certainly given to flinging straw-men, but "fundie"? How so?

Well, I decided to use the label due to some comments he made about school prayer and the pledge of allegiance that I took issue with. I may well have been unfairly jumping to conclusions.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,22:49   

I guess I should set the record straight for MCC, Lenny and all other confused individuals.  I'm not a religious fundamentalist by any objective definition.  I know that's hard to imagine anyone questioning ToE not from a religious agenda but it is the unfortunate truth.  If I remember right my references to school prayer and the pledge of allegiance were made in the broader context of the current conflict between religion and atheism and not the advocation thereof.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,05:19   

Quote
I know that's hard to imagine anyone questioning ToE not from a religious agenda but it is the unfortunate truth.


hey now, don't think we all label you as a creobot.  I personally have always thought you just an intractable ignoramus.

it's just easy to get you confused with the intractable ignoramuses that also spout "goddidit" at the top of their lungs at the same time.

ignorance is ignorance, after all, and you commonly build your arguments based on nothing but.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,07:11   

Hey Ichy, welcome back from vacation.  It is good to see your smiling face again.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,07:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,22:49)
I know that's hard to imagine anyone questioning ToE not from a religious agenda but it is the unfortunate truth.

Don't bullshit us, Skeptic.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,07:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,22:49)
I'm not a religious fundamentalist by any objective definition.

Five simple questions for you, Skeptic :

1.  Is the Bible wrong about anything?
2.  Was Jesus born of a virgin?
3.  Is faith in Jesus necessary for salvation?
4.  Did Jesus rise from the dead?
5.  Is Jesus going to return sometime in the future?

Answer as clearly and specifically as possible.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,08:07   

Spastic Colon,

I think you'll find that I've answered your questions re students at least twice in previous posts (before you even asked the questions).

Should you at any time desire to start reading what people write for a modicum of comprehension before going off half cocked, let me know. Until then.....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,09:24   

Some of you guys are nutty.

I am not saying atheists are oppressed and I don't lose any sleep over religionists blaming atheists for everything.  I think it's funny/absurd.  I also think it's funny to see guys like Dawkins pointing out how silly religious faith is and I hope he keeps it up.  

It is absurd to think atheists should keep their opinions to themselves while religionists portray atheists as evil and dangerous.

That's it.  That's my point.  Try not to read more into my comment(s) than what I have written.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,11:07   

Quote
Although I happen to believe that oblivion will follow my own death, and indeed all deaths, I would be lying if I denied sometimes bolting upright in the middle of the night with the full realization of that reality, accompanied by a very cold fear...In view of that, I have enormous sympathy for those who cope with the spector of death by, in essence, denying its reality and positing an afterlife. In particular, having children and finding myself unable to even contemplate loosing one of them, I cannot fault those who have responded to such an unbearable grief by resorting to the comforting notion that death is not real.  Probably one of the most severe costs that accompany what I perhaps vainly fancy to be my intellectual honesty is that such comforts will not be available to me should I be faced with a similar losses. Part of me is sympathetic to whatever cover an individual wishes to take in the face of those realities.

A second point vis humility pertains more directly to questions of science and religion....My personal response to facts like these is one of awe and humility.


Humility also follows reading a post like this and recognizing my own experience in it (although I have no children). I find it amazing that human beings can have the same subjective experiences. Surely that is one thing that unites human beings. I do bear that in mind when I read the writings of Dembski and others like him. I do.

In light of that, let me say that though I know I am guilty of the "Religion is stupid!" fight myself on PT and Pharyngula, I was just offering what I truly felt and thought. As an atheist I like to say that I don't believe in anything that divides people, and yet I am frustrated by the sense that others, who are believers, divide themselves from me, and believe that it is I who is doing it. I don't buy the atheist = fundy believer, everyone-go-to-the-center plea for "tolerance." I want to believe in an afterlife, too, but if it is not true, going to the middle won't make it exist.

I most certainly do not hate believers, but I have come to hate what many religious beliefs do to believers. I don't hang around angry atheists either no matter how I may sometimes come off in an online forum. I can only say that, once we drop all of the baggage that we've been carrying with us since the development of consciousness in humans, we will then be free to finally see and discover what is. Logic and rationality are the beginning, not the end, of knowledge, but I see no value in stampeding to conclude the existence of a God or an afterlife at the outset when in fact this is mere wishful thinking.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,12:28   

Lenny, it wouldn't be not Tao! ;) Oh, and I know it's not like getting shot or anything but when a man who became president of this country a couple years back said that he thinks atheists probably shouldn't be considered citizens, it's a bit disturbing.

Quote (skeptic @ ,)
Society as a whole does not bend over backwards to accept The Pledge and "In God we Trust", they are the norm and unthreatening.

Yeah, they're the norm now. "In God we trust" wasn't the norm until after 1864 for coins, and 1964 for paper money, and Congress didn't add "under God" to the pledge till 1954.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,12:43   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 28 2006,07:23)
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,22:49)
I'm not a religious fundamentalist by any objective definition.

Five simple questions for you, Skeptic :

1.  Is the Bible wrong about anything?
2.  Was Jesus born of a virgin?
3.  Is faith in Jesus necessary for salvation?
4.  Did Jesus rise from the dead?
5.  Is Jesus going to return sometime in the future?

Answer as clearly and specifically as possible.

I will have a go at those questions.

1) Probably, or God is a monster.
2) Dunno. Should be if Christianity is correct.
3) No.
4) Should have if Christianity is correct. Again I do not know.
5) Doubt it.

I have to admit that while I am not an atheist I don't have much faith either. Thought I was a Christian but guess I am realy an agnostic that has hope.

I will admit that I hope to get to see loved ones again that have died. I guess there is only 1 way to find out and I am not looking forward to it.

Saying that...Oblivion seems ok.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,13:38   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 27 2006,20:48)
I tend to think that the biggest difference between Dawkins et al and myself is that I think an important part of this fight is explaining to the religious that theories such as evolution are not a threat to a belief in God, preferably through a proper understanding of the nature of science and the scientific method, taught in schools if at all possible. Also this presumably conflicts with the goal of some people who appear to use the terms 'critical thinking' and 'rational thought' as synonymous with atheism.

The problem is that no anti-evolutionist really cares about whether evolution is "a threat to A belief in God"; they care about whether evolution is a threat to THEIR belief in God.

Those whose religion allows them to answer this question in the negative (e.g., Ken Miller) are not at risk of associating evolution with atheism (especially having already detached it from theism). They are perfectly capable of fighting PZ Myers et al. on different fronts, outside the evolution wars and outside the classrooms. Even if these pro-science religious folk are caught in "friendly fire", I seriously doubt that the flak from the attacks of more outspoken atheists upon more fundamentalist theists will turn them against evolution. And if it does, then you have not accomplished your stated goal of separating science from belief in God in the first place.

Meanwhile, for those who see evolution as a threat to THEIR God, no amount of, "but you can still believe in A God...just a slightly different version" will appease them. Politely tip-toeing around faith as it relates to anti-science fundamentalism in the well-meaning hopes of erecting a new brand of more science-friendly theism is a silly strategy: you will be rebuffed and/or blamed for your perceived attack as much as any atheist.

In short, the truly nuanced, potentially pro-science religious moderates have nothing to fear from zealous atheists and everything to fear from religious extremists, who will throw the Ken Millers of the world up against the wall of infidels with everyone else. If your goal is defending evolution from the faith wars, you accomplish little by muzzling rabid atheists -- the pro-science religious moderates will see no more association with distasteful atheists based on their science than they see association with distateful fundamentalists based on their faith.

As far as I can tell, there are VERY few people on the fence when it comes to evolution. There are those who are dogmatically against it. There are those who see it for what it is -- a scientific theory with no inherent connection to theism or atheism. Finally, there are those who (correctly or incorrectly) think it buttresses their worldviews, from PZ to Deepak Chopra (a wide range, that). Reaching the first group absolutely requires stripping away the dogma that generates anti-science, which, like it or not, is inextricably wound up in their religion. You cannot attack their 'science' without attacking THEIR faith, regardless of how you view faith in general. Therefore, I applaud the relentless attacks of Myers, Moran, Dawkins, etc. They might not win, they might not be palatable, and they might not be right, but they are at least engaging the enemy on the only flank that has the potential to be effective.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,15:00   

Well said, Incorygible.

 
Quote
the truly nuanced, potentially pro-science religious moderates have nothing to fear from zealous atheists and everything to fear from religious extremists, who will throw the Ken Millers of the world up against the wall of infidels with everyone else.


I have said this at RedStateRabble and I'll say it again, I not only fear the religious extremists myself, I think that the ID folks should fear them too and separate from them. I found a video of Dembski debating Eugenie Scott in which he asserts his belief in a billions-years-old earth and the recent development of man. I get the impression that this is the real William Dembski, not the slick operator who will take any position in order to get a dig in at Dawkins/Darwinism. Yet he's not willing to jettison the YECs, and I think he's out of his mind not to.

 
Quote
As far as I can tell, there are VERY few people on the fence when it comes to evolution.


Right on. YECs are certainly not on any fence. They want to hear that the 6-day creation is "scientific" and nothing else. Already some are grumbling about the "heresy" of ID and such (whereas I have also stated elsewhere that if evolutionary theory fell apart tomorrow--but I wouldn't bet on it--I wouldn't be devastated, but would simply accept that it's back to the drawing board for science). I don't like it or the vehemence of these Jesus Camp/megachurch types. When they go after the heretics, who will that be? Atheists like me, or the Dembski's? I am seriously scared that Dembski thinks he can tolerate the YECs the way Weimar Germany tolerated the Brown Shirts to beat up the Reds. Sometimes I fear that someone will get hurt and for heaven's sake I told DaveScot this.

I would never harm someone to defend my belief but other people are willing to do so to defend theirs.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,17:34   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 28 2006,07:23)
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,22:49)
I'm not a religious fundamentalist by any objective definition.

Five simple questions for you, Skeptic :

1.  Is the Bible wrong about anything?
2.  Was Jesus born of a virgin?
3.  Is faith in Jesus necessary for salvation?
4.  Did Jesus rise from the dead?
5.  Is Jesus going to return sometime in the future?

Answer as clearly and specifically as possible.

Interesting set of questions and I could answer them many different ways depending upon the intent but I'm going to try to answer them in the spirit that I believe you are asking:

1)  I think it would be a virtual impossibility for the Bible to be inerrant; although, I'm not aware of specific instances.  It essentially is a book written by men so for me that eliminates any possibility of perfection.

2) Don't know.  It tests believability and maybe that's the point but I don't really have any opinion one way or the other.  As a side note, I think I heard once of very rare cases of self-fertilization (which would result in a female if I remember correctly).

3) Again, I don't know.  I'd like to think not but I know what is taught.  That's a sticking point for me...

4) Ditto, for Jesus to be the Savior and Christianity to be true then it would have to be so.  So can a human being rise from the dead, not that I know of.  Does this mean Jesus did not?  No.

5) Same thing again, it would have to be true or all else is meaningless.  I remember a lecture on comparitive religion once in which the speaker was offerring the options of accepting Jesus as the son of God or just a really wise teacher.  He laughed and said that the choice didn't actually exist because either Jesus was the son of God or he was a raving lunatic.  I concur completely.

So where does that leave me?  I can accept that from a rational perspective these things defy possibility and they should otherwise there is no requirement for faith.

  
  253 replies since Nov. 26 2006,10:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (9) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]