Willravel

Supernatural was a more broad interpretation of superhuman.
In the case of Atheism, it's never.
Alcoholics Anonymous has absolutely no connection to atheism.
Normally I'd tell someone to go fuck themselves for making a bigoted remark like this, but I'll let this slide seeing as you don't seem to comprehend atheism. I'm sure that despite the despicable implication of your statement, it was made from ignorance of how offensive it truly is.
Seeing as atheists are fluid in their interpretation of the universe, there are no real rigid principles to adhere to. As for opposition to secularism, I'll let you wrap your noodle around that.
Atheism is a label for people who are not theists. I am not a theist, thus I am an atheist.
No one is teaching not to believe in god in public schools. The idea is to stay neutral by both not posting in all caps and also by not allowing for any kind of religious representation in a public government funded organization. Seeing as atheism, or the lack of religion, is neutral, it's used. TJust as teachers cannot say "Let us pray", they also cannot say "god is a myth". That would also be religious.

sprocket

Just to nitpick here, but AA most definitely not secular in any way. In fact, just the opposite.

The entire 12 step program is based around surrendering to the fact that you are powerless against alcohol, and the only chance you have to stay sober is in fact asking your higher power (insert god of your choice here) to assist you. A belief in God or higher power is the centerpiece of AA.

A lot of people actually have a big problem with this fact, since AA is often mandatory for people who get a DUI conviction. They see it as state sponsored religion. You cannot complete the 12 step program without accepting a belief in God.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

pan6467

See but your militant beliefs are such that you promote hatred, disrespect and ignorance of others religions.

Like I originally stated, if you have a school that teaches ALL major religions equally and allows questions and thought provoking exchanges, you allow for understanding, acceptance and perhaps respect from each other.

By disregarding it, ignoring it, disallowing it because of YOUR beliefs..... you do not allow the possibility for children to be exposed to other religions, to other beliefs and to have that understanding, acceptance or respect of others beliefs. What is the point of school if not to open children's minds to other's ideas? School is just as important socially as it is educationally.

I would argue that a country that allows open discussion of all religions (while not preaching just one) is one that is more open and accepting of others than ours ever has been.

As for neutral..... I don't see your solution as neutral at all. I see it as divisive , extremist and hate mongering. True neutrality in a school would be educating on ALL religious viewpoints, not "ignoring the question" not as some "compromise" because it isn't a compromise....it is YOU dictating your views and expecting everyone else to accept what you deem as "best for the country"..... again I ask (and you cvhoose to ignore and skip this question every time) What is the difference between YOUR extremism and that of a Christians, Muslims, etc.?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

The_Jazz

Pan, who decides what constitutes a major religion and what doesn't? Who decides what actually constitutes a religion? How do you differentiate between "religion" and "cult"? What if there is no one available to teach the class for a religion that is a minority in one area?

Seems like you could end up having Christianity taught exclusively in some areas of the country to me.

I'm not saying that yours is necessarily a bad idea, just potentially unworkable.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

sprocket

Calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting baseball cards" a hobby.

Also, agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with athiesm or even theism. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

From Wikipedia:
"Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term."

I think atheists, like myself, would say that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god. Atheists generally place a very high value on reason and logic, science, and the scientific method. It is impossible to hold a belief in a god without casting aside your reason or logic, at least temporarily.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

And you're getting these ideas from where? I can't remember promoting hatred or ignorance of religions. As a matter of fact, most atheists just want to go about living our lives without being killed or having to move because we don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.
We do learn about religion, in history class. We don't pray, though. We don't have god taking any kind of administrative role at the school.
Religion has it's own school that can be run by people of that faith. What if a teacher is Christian and asked to teach people how to pray to Allah? That's just asking for serious problems, and it's not like there's a shortage of churches or bible schools.
You can discuss it, sure. Don't make school into a religious institution, though.
If we lived in a theocracy, it'd make sense to have church presence in school. We don't. We allow for church to be free to preach. We don't preach in schools because we're not a theocracy. It has nothing to do with hatred. It's about equality.
You can't be an extremist atheist. There are no atheist bombings. There are no atheist crusades. One can be an extremist while being an atheist, I suppose, but there is no connection between the extremism and the atheism. We have no doctrine to be extreme about. We just don't believe in something.

pig

as a follow up to this discussion, i would also have to ask which part of the current curriculum should be tossed out to allow for a full course in world religion, and at what point should that class be taught? would it also cover world philosophies? how many parents of judeo-christian-islamic students are going to allow their children to learn about the other two sects, much less buddhism, hinduism, wicca, native american spirituality, etc? should students have grade 13 to accomodate all this? i don't think a course in world religion and philosophy is a bad thing; i do question whether or not such a class could be taught, both practically and politically.

i also have to say that nothing currently prevent prayer in public schools. kids can pray whenever they want to, as can teachers and administrators. what is protested against is government/administrator-led prayer. organized prayer in public schools. i don't really see any way around the establishment clause on that one. i personally don't see the problem: we have various religious institutions that can teach their choice of religion, unfettered by government standards. we have religious instruction at home. weekend community groups...why is it so important to have it taught in schools? would this material need to be included on the SAT/ACT? the GRE? i mean, if my kid is studying it, then they would need to be measured on progress, correct?

as far as this goes, i truly don't understand this issue's contentiousness, but i respect the fact that for many people it's a big deal.

as for atheism being a religion, i have toyed with that concept myself. it really breaks down to a semantic argument, and i don't know that i care anymore about it. if the presence of a deity is required for a religion, then i don't see how atheism can be a religion. if you're simply saying that spirituality can form a religion, then some atheists would be 'religious,' and some would not. all christians, jews, muslims, hindus, etc etc etc are religious. i'm not sure i see the value in that view point, but if it works for some, then fine by me.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

pan6467

But you would have people move because you refuse to allow religion to be discussed and taught in school?

.

Ok, but for some religion isn't just history. Knowing the history of each religion can bring forth better understanding and would be part of the "one week" religious class", I proposed. (And yes it maybe actually 2 or 3 week courses).

What part of religion were you taught in school? What part is acceptable to you?

Where have I ever said that I supported in anyway How is a school teaching all major religions as being a theocracy, or putting God in an administrative role at the school?

You are just reaching now Will.

Again, the teacher doesn't tell you who to pray to or that you have to, just allows you the opportunity to if you so desire. Atheists got rid of even "the moment of silence" because it still promoted religion.... even though it promoted no religion and was considered voluntary. I call that extreme.

Yes, it does. I offered a true compromise... a way for children to understand and learn about others beliefs, you aren't even willing to do that. Again it is bow down to YOUR beliefs but don't even try to get someone else's in there.... You are deciding what the compromise or lack thereof will be. To you it is a subject as closed as your mind.

Really, no extremism?

Then what is.... "My beliefs will be taught, there will be no compromise. If the majority vote for it we will strike it down. We determine what can be taught in school. We regulate what can be done on school property (school kids can't gather to say prayer after or before games.... sound familiar?).... We determine what is in the best interest of the country. We determine that our belief in "nothingness" or however you wish to phrase it is far more important than kids learning different cultures, different religions, etc.

That is extreme pushing your beliefs on me is extreme.

I didn't attack you for your belief.... I never even looked in this thread before you took 1 sentence out of a post and made an issue of it.

So who is the extremist?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

Pan, I sense that you are passionate about this subject but you appear to be jumping to conclusions that are not there.

If you read back somewhere either in this thread or in other threads like this, I have always advocated for sociology course that surveys World religions. I think there isn't enough sociology, philosophy and anthropology taught in public schools. As pig points out though, the curriculum would require a severe overhaul to introduce these new subjects. Not only would it require new textbooks, but it would also require new teachers (or new training for existing teachers).

The other question raised is will Christian parents (or parents of any faith) be willing to put up with this? Will they be OK with a) a course that looks at religion in this manner and b) gives equal weight to other religions.

Somehow, I don't think this is what they are looking for.

As for prayer in school, I think you will find that I agree with you that prayer in school is acceptable. I even suggested a multi-denominational prayer room could be built (if the community wishes to fund such a venture). The issue is when you take tax dollars in a public school system and advocate a mandatory prayer (i.e. state run prayer).

I am hardly a fundamentalist about things. I have simple requirements. No state sponsored prayer in schools. And no religious teaching in state run schools. The West prides itself on a plurality of points of view. Why would be turn back the clocks of progress to impose only one?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

"... but of course, religion is poison. It has two great defects: It undermines the race ...(and) retards the progress of the country. Tibet and Mongolia have both been poisoned by it."

-Mao Zedong

I believe extremism in atheism exists when it wants to eradication theism. More commonly, we may see this when the religious find it increasingly difficult to abide by their beliefs. We must strike a balance to allow us all to practice what we believe in, so long as it isn't harmful to others.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

See, with you there is true compromise, I don't see it with others on here.

I don't advocate a mandatory prayer, but I see nothing wrong with "moments of silence."

I can also agree with a multi-religious room where the schools can have books on world religions for students to peruse. And yes, if the majority voted for it then it should be funded through separate funds.

I don't see you and I differing so much that a compromise would not be reached swiftly, in our little perfect world.

BTW, I agree getting Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. parents to compromise also maybe another task.

And that is what I am saying. How is getting schools to allow prayer and the ability to teach world religions, including atheism equally and unbiasedly using leaders from the area churches, synagogues, temples, etc, ... harmful to anyone?

Yet some here, would not want to allow even that.

It's like creationism versus evolution versus whatever else explains our beginnings. Why not allow the sides to be presented in school without bias or judgment and allow the kids to decide for themselves?

Why does it have to be 1 or none?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

The main reason, that I see, for not allowing a religious teacher access to teach a lesson on world religions is their tendency to proselytize. I certainly wouldn't be happy if an attempt was made to draw my children into a religion. This is doubly true when I am in a minority.

I can only imagine the opposite to be true as well.

You would have to be able to hire some very sound teachers to teach a course on world religions. They would have to be very diplomatic and would ultimately be open to slings and arrows from every direction (e.g. Which brand of Christianity are you going to explore?).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Agreed.

See in 4th grade we had a Jewish Rabbi, Catholic priest, and a few Christian denominational church leaders, even had a Buddhist, come to our school. Every Thursday, we would have one of these leaders talk about their religion's holidays, how their religion started, and the very basics of their religions.

It was a half hour to 45 minute "class" and to be quite honest, for me it was very educational and allowed me to talk openly to my parents about religion and to reach the beginnings of my own spirituality.

The students that didn't want to participate got an extra recess that day.

It would be harder today to allow that to happen. But I truly believe we need to do something along those lines before we all get killed in the name of some religion or non religion.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

Pan, my take on why something like that can't happen is simply because Religion has been increasingly politicized.

The evangelicals have pushed very hard to see that their agendas are front and centre. They make no bones that they would like a strong religious element in the classroom.

The thing is, the West is a changing place. Not only are there increasing numbers of those who are in minority religions but those minorities, thanks to the civil rights movement, have realized that they have a voice and a say.

I go back to the idea of a Tyranny of the Majority. Just because a majority wants something does not mean it is the right thing or won't make things difficult for a minority.

The question of trying to strike a balance is important but so is drawing a line in the sand and saying, no.

To my eyes, inviting religion into a public school as part of the curriculum is asking for a large can of worms to be opened. A survey course is even problematic, though not impossible to implement.

I suppose we could go back to a pre-civil rights era and just let the minorities live with what the majority wants but I don't think you would agree that that is necessarily a good thing.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Oh and I agree. I think just by the attitudes shown here by Atheists, any type of a world religion study in school would be impossible to get. The Atheists would have their say, the Radical Christian Right theirs and so on. Everyone would want their views and would want to dispel the views of the others.

Sad really, when you think about it. Life is supposed to be a journey, (whether to another realm, a heaven, another life, or just for your own education in this life) and as a journey, it is easier to travel with many so that when you need help someone is there, when you want to share a smile, a laugh or a cry someone is there.... and yet, people want this journey to be only on their terms and their ways.

So in the end, even though we in someway influence everyone else's life.... we end up very alone because we refuse to allow ourselves to learn from each other, because we work so hard to believe ours is the only way, in religion, politics, you name it.

That made sense as I typed it..... hope it makes sense to those reading it.

BTW, I wouldn't look at it as a tyranny of the majority if all religions were to be taught as equals and those not wishing to participate were not forced to. I would view that community as very progressive and wanting truly the best for their kids. But it won't ever happen so .......

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Infinite_Loser

Ummm... Yeah. That's why the definition says usually.

I'm sure that was your attempt at a joke, but AA stands or American Atheists. How the hell is it that I, a non-atheist, happens to know more about the largest atheist organization in North America than you, the atheist, do. Same goes for sprocket.

I didn't make the statement; You did. I was simply agree'ing with it. Can't get mad over something you said, can you?

I'm pretty sure I've had this conversation before, but nevertheless... I ask because, many times, people love to use fundamentalism as a pejorative term in order to describe a portion of theism whilst ignoring that fundamentalism doesn't refer exclusively to theism. Did you know that we've had-- And are still currently undergoing-- Periods in which you atheistic fundamentalism? Yeah... I'm sure you did

That'd make you something then. You're labeled for what you are, not what you're not.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

Move? You act as if there's not a church on every corner. They are everywhere. Unless you're not Christian (or less than 20% of the population), you're set. If you're not Christian, you're probably living near your mosque/synagogue/etc. anyway.
If it's an elective and it's totally 100% neutral, there is still a very serious chance that you've going to have problems. You know how insane some people get when their kids are exposed to other religions. I mean I'm sure you've heard about the French schools and burkas. And that was in uber-liberal, socialist France, not the United States of Jesus.
I learned about Christianity in Rome, the Dark Ages, Crusades, Diet of Worms, Reformation, settlement of the East Coast of North America, witch trials, the Vatican, etc. I leaned history.
I don't believe there should be publicly accredited private elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, or colleges that are religious. I suspect that you disagree. Knowing about god shouldn't be a part of getting any kind of scholastic diploma. Again, church is there to teach about religion, school is there to teach about everything else.
Would you also want astrology? How about holistic medicine? It's hardly a slippery slope as allowing religion into public schools is leading to the teaching of mythology in science classrooms. That's prevalence makes it a real life concern.
Kids can silently pray at recess or lunch. No one stops them from doing that. Setting aside time for structured learning of facts to have prayer time, which is what it's usually called, is taking away from education to allow for superstition. No one is stopping anyone from doing what they will on their own time, but school is about learning facts.
True compromise? Like having kids learn about how Jesus died on the cross and then letting them go next door to math class? That teaches them that Jesus is just as viable and reliable as math. Besides, atheism isn't even a belief. Atheism is zero sum. It's a lack. A lack of belief is not belief. A lack of belief is not belief.
If schools were taught with my exact philosophy, then the teachers would tell the children that religion is a product of groupthink with the occasional delusion. Is that taught? Absolutely not, because that would be putting church and state together. The middle ground is allowing each child to learn about their god or god in a church, where it belongs.
Who is the extremist? The person who wants my children to learn about Vishnu because they don't get that school is supposed to be neutral.

And the NAACP stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people... do obviously not being white is a religion. Besides, how many AA churches have you driven by? Have you ever had an atheist knock on your door to read from ATHEIOS NECRONOMICON, THE HOLY WORD OF ATHEOS! Do we even have any kind of coherant text or organization? Of course no.
I said that atheists as a whole do not have one solid moral code that they all stick to. Like, oh I dunno, two big tablets? We are all moral, but it's because we are allowed to freely develop morality on our own.

Suggesting atheists are immoral absolutely is bigotry, and you were clear in what you said. I expect an apology, or I expect you to defend every sin that a Christian has ever committed.
There's no such thing as atheistic fundamentalism. It's a contradiction in terms, as I demonstrated.
It's funny a Christian isn't familiar with the word "Gentile". Go ahead. Look it up. Now, look up atheist. Then come back and admit you don't know what "atheist" means.

Infinite_Loser

Okay... Reading posts like this one drive me absolutely insane...

1.) You speak of the scientific method, do you? Well, I've said this over and over and over again in the past, but one more time can't hurt. Did you know that a lack of evidence for existence isn't the same thing as evidence of non-existence (Probably not). A lack of evidence for existence is, simply put, a lack of evidence for existence. If you believe that God doesn't exist because science has never observed him, then you'd also agree with this statement: "Aliens don't exist because we've never seen one."

2.) Anyone with an introductory course in logic would be able to tell you that there's nothing illogical about a belief in God. For as long as you accept that He exists, then any argument you could possibly make about God existence would always-- ALWAYS-- Be true.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ustwo

Mmmmmm does this mean we would have to move teaching about the Greek/Roman gods to this new religion course, or do we just call it mythology if the the religion is pretty much dead?

God I'd have fun with this course if I were teaching it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Infinite_Loser

I'm not Pan, by the way >_>

Well, aside from that little NAACP anecdote not having anything to do with what was being discussed... You're sooo behind the times.

But I didn't say anything. You were the one who said "Atheists have no moral code". I was merely agreeing with your statements. Like I said earlier, you can't get mad at words I didn't say, especially considering you were the ones who said it.

Gentiles refers to people who aren't Jewish. Atheists refer to people who don't believe in the existence of God. What do I win?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Baraka_Guru

I don't know, Ustwo. We teach Latin as a language like any other, not as mythology. And according to what Infinite_Loser just said, it's perfectly fine for me to worship Apollo.

Kewl!



* * * * *

Are we still stuck on "Athiests have no moral code" vs. "Atheists are immoral/ammoral"??

How about "Athiests do not prescribe to a unified or shared moral code"?

Carry on. This is getting good.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Blame my lazy cut and paste ass.
It's a joke. I'd not expect a Christian to say the same as a Bible or a Muslim of the Qur'an.
Atheists have no single set moral code from a book. We're far and away moral, but it comes from a more personal place. It's individualized. Proof? Compare me to Ustwo. Both of us are atheists, obviously. We don't exactly share all the same ideas about things.
I'll take "People who aren't something" for $500, Alex. Atheist is a word for someone who isn't an atheist. Gentile is a word for someone who isn't a Jew.

sprocket

Funny... post like this drive ME insane

1) How can you say its logical to believe that something exists if it has never been observed, and has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever to back up the hypothesis, despite our best efforts to find any? I'll mention the tired old cliche of the flying spaghetti monster. What reason is there to believe in it? Lack of evidence for the existence of something either means we haven't looked for any, or there just isn't any that we can observe with our modern resources. In the either situation, its pretty clear that to believe in your hypothesis, with unwavering devotion, is pretty irrational.

As for your aliens statement.. no I wouldn't agree with it and its consistent with my thoughts on god. We can observe life. Earth is filled to the brim with it. We seem to be getting somewhere in understanding how it all came about. The universe is a ridiculously, absurdly large place, at least from our perspective. Its not unreasonable or illogical to assume that the same processes and conditions that allowed life to begin on this planet, can and quite possibly exist elsewhere in the universe. The fact that life flourishes on this planet is good enough evidence to consider the possibility of life on other planets as well. Anyone who claims to know the nature of life that may possibly exist elsewhere in the universe, either knows something I dont, or is talking nonsense and can safely be ignored .

The religious are the ones making the extraordinary claims.. its up to them to prove their claims. I dont think its reasonable at all to be offended or surprised if some people don't see a reason to entertain the idea, at all.


2) I disagree.

You still have to make the "leap of faith" to accept his existence in the first place. Any way you look at it, a person must consciously decide to accept a belief in god and it isn't rational. Not that I'm judging anyone here... everyone acts irrational, or makes irrational choices from time to time, even if we try not to. Impulses and emotion get the best of any of us.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Infinite_Loser

This is rather simple to explain; If someone accepts basic religious axioms as true, then any argument which follows is also true unless said axioms are falsified (A feat within itself which is nearly impossible). Science can only measure what's known rather than unknown. In a nutshell, science can't prove God's existence nor will science ever be able to prove God's existence, so it's pointless trying to use scientific 'proof' as an arguing point as the concept of God exists outside the scope of science.

Lemme' summarize your argument for you: Life exists on Earth and the universe is large. Therefore life exists on other planets. This is an example of a deductive argument. Given that your premises are true, you assume that your conclusion is true. The problem is that science generally doesn't work too well with deduction (There's no way to test the conclusion based on the premises), as you assume an absolute truth based on a pair of general truths. This isn't to say that your conclusion isn't true (As it very well may be), but the conclusion may very well may be false and the premises do nothing to tell us whether or not the conclusion is, indeed, true. In this respect, your argument is logical but fails to pass the basic tests of scientific reasoning (Induction).

The Bible, for example, says that God exists. If I accept the Bible as true then any argument which says God exists will be logically valid. Hell, the argument "The sky is blue. Therefore God doesn't exist" is also logically valid (Though it's not very sound). Of course, what I've found is that most atheists judge validity by what conclusion is reached rather than how you get there (Which is just mind-boggling, to say the least).

No "Leap of faith" is required. Logic is actually quite simple. You can assume any conclusion you want so long as, when paired with a set of premises, it forms a cohesive argument.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Charlatan

I suppose if you are to read something and take it at face value without trying to reproduce the results... I suppose an argument could be made for making the leap of faith required in using the Bible as your proof of God's existence.

Most Christians I know are not afraid to admit that belief in God absolutely requires faith... in fact they are proud of this stance.

I am curious to understand why that is not the case with you?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

So, logically, it's okay if I worship Apollo?



By the way, how is "The sky is blue. Therefore God doesn't exist" logically valid? "I like apple pie, therefore you don't have a pet salamander." Does that work, too? What if a friend were to give you a pet salamander? Does that mean I'd suddenly hate apple pie?

Infinite_Loser, what you are describing is faith, not logic. What you are saying is that if I accept the existence of the Greek pantheon as true, then any argument denying its existence is false. Where do we draw the line between logic and delusion? Does this mean that Christianity only exists because we believe in it? Does this mean that a great shift into secular beliefs will eventually mean that Jesus will be just as Apollo is now: without any living followers, and therefore without existence? Or does Apollo exist? Does he exist?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

Everyone has a blind faith in something, regardless of what they may say.

Some have blind faith in their religion/spirituality. Some have blind faith in Metaphysics. Some have blind faith in Science.

All can be disavowed and argued by those of differing faiths.

Science is almost daily proven wrong in one way or another.... yet, those who blindly follow Science will say there is the law of averages and it was an anomaly and work to prove how it happened. People of Religion will look to see this as "an act of God", and whatnot. It all boils down to belief.

The simple part is the question: Why not allow people to have their beliefs/faith and let it go?

The answer is the hard part: People want their faith to be the one proven right so they can better come to terms with their faith.

People secure in their faith, from my own experience and speaking personally, don't care what your faith is, just don't shove yours down my throat. It's respect. I don't feel a need to justify my beliefs, they just are, they have come from 30+ years of searching, learning and finding what I believe works best for me and my life. I'm still open and learning but my faith is pretty much unshakable.

The biggest problem is getting one to accept the other's faith and trying to understand each other without trying to prove the other wrong or feel superior. No one's faith is more important than another's outside that person.

My beliefs/faith is not going to matter to 99.9% of the people I meet, because they truly aren't going to care. What they care about is what kind of person I am, how I treat them and so on. The only ones that seem to care are those who may want to share and learn from each other and we are able to work together and learn from each other, and those that want to "prove" my faith wrong so they can build their ego and feel better about theirs, and they don't care to learn, share or help anyone but themselves.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

Science is a continual refinement. You look at a problem, find what you think is the answer, and if it becomes apparent that answer isn't complete you refine that answer. This does not make all 'answers' equally right.

Calling it an act of god is nothing but intellectual laziness. With that logic early man finds a fire started by lighting, says 'its an act of god' and the only way we ever get new fire is to wait for a lighting strike. Human progress comes to a halt.

One does not blindly follow science like one blindly follows a god. You question science, but if you question a god his followers stone you to death.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Leto

This is the entire intent of science, to establish a theory and attempt to disprove it. The scientific method therefore has a built in mechanism of steady improvement of building upon its findings and disprovings. However, I don't think that science was ever meant to disprove God or the existence of gods, mearly to provide a workable paradigm for providing predictable behaviour.

Belief in the scientific method as such a tool does not rule out faith in gods or God.

**edit:
oh yes, this is somewhat along the lines of Ustwo's earlier response...

pan6467

See, there is nothing wrong with Science. The problem lies when the Scientist tries to degrade and bemoan those who have faith in God, Metaphysics etc.

Again, they become as militant about their beliefs as militant religious people. It then becomes a question of blind faith. If you choose to believe Science can answer all questions and there is no God or Metaphysical because it cannot be proven and Science can prove a lot of those beliefs false... then you have a blind faith in Science.

I used this before. Someone jumps out of an airplane and falls 5,000 feet. His chute doesn't open and he hits the Earth but lives.

Now, the Scientist will try to say it's an anomaly and try hard to come up with reasons why the person isn't dead. The religious will say it was an act of God.

The problem is why one must try to prove the other wrong. Why not accept the other's belief and be secure enough in your own that you don't care what the other believes?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Leto

Well, I think that people generally attempt to come up with the simplest reasoning for events (Occam's Razor?) and will automatically gravitate to the view that suits them and their arguements.

I think, however, that eminent scientists such as Einstein were getting close to the the view that belief in the efficacity of a toolset (i.e. a paradigm, a methodology) doesn't mean that one can't have faith in a belief. Go ahead and believe that God created the universe. Maybe at one point in our development of science, we may even be able to demonstrate that.

But there is nothing wrong in believing that science can provide some answers, and will grow to answer more. Increasingly, the religious will be able to devote more of their faith to worship of God, rather than having to explain anomalies as acts of God.

Willravel

Well put, Leto.

Ustwo

They are afraid because the more you explain the less they can say 'act of god' the less important their invisible friends become.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Don't forget the invisible enemies.

Man, it's strange to agree.

pig

additionally, a problem occurs because many religious texts have old scientific theories couched within them. how old is the earth? where did man come from? why do certain things happen? when our newer interpretation and explanations run counter to these theories, then many within the religion feel that the entire religion is under attack. thus sets up the big fight between science and religion.

most atheists i know wouldn't give two shits who prays to what, if they didn't also insist on creationism being sold as 'science,' or noah's ark as being probable (2x2 remember) and so forth. sure, it's religion, it's belief, and most of us don't give a damn if you believe it. but don't try to put it next to f=ma and say that they are equivalent. they're not.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

sprocket

Accepting those basic religious axioms is what requires a leap of faith, and is irrational. Now your taking it even further, and claiming to know the nature of this being called god, and that it exists somehow "outside" of science. You said it best... science can only measure what is actually measurable. Let me take it one step further... science can only measure things that *exist*.

Thats not what my argument said at all. Let me summarize it , more accurately.

Life exists in the universe (here on earth). Therefore, it holds true, that there is a good probability that there is life elsewhere. There is even a probability that a god exists. Its just so small, that its not even worth considering. You might even say there's a probability that I may spontaneously combust here in my chair as I'm typing this... but its so ridiculously infinitesimal, that its not something I should consider.

Thats exactly what I'm questioning... how you get to your conclusions. You just said we judge the conclusions without looking at how you get there, but somehow its logical to accept imaginary premises to arrive at any conclusion you want.

Accepting the bible to be un-erring truth is irrational. It makes many grandiose claims with no evidence *at all*, which can cannot be corroborated. Are you going to tell a scientologist that his beliefs are rational and worthy of consideration? According to their beliefs, there was an alien warlord named Xenu, who enslaved all other the alien races in the galaxy, brought them to earth, dropped them all in volcano's, then used giant "soul catcher" devices to trap their souls as they floated away from their burnt bodies. Then he proceeds to blow them up with nuclear bombs, scattering them all over the earth. Now all the pieces of those alien souls are understandably upset, and living inside all of us, and causing all the pain and suffering in the world. Of course, we cant disprove there is no alien warlord Xenu, but give me a good reason why anyone claiming he exists should be believed?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Infinite_Loser

Pardon me while I go bang my head against a wall...

All axioms are 'irrational' and 'require a leap of faith', as axioms are nothing more than a set of principles which are assumed to be self-evident truths (For example, the axiom "All men are created equally"). They're necessary is order to provide a 'starting point' which you can then use to determine whether or not all other statements are logically derived. I've said this before, but science is built on induction. It can only measure the known; Not the unknown. Put another way, you can't prove that all swans are white but you can prove that some swans aren't white.

I know what your argument said. Re-read what I typed out. You correlate the fact that life exists on Earth and the fact that the universe is large to mean that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Given the premises, you deduce that the conclusion must be true.

In logic you can assume anything you want. When dealing with a conditional, the premises are irrelevent as they don't affect the outcome of the conclusion. They can either be true or false-- It doesn't matter. Only the conclusion need be true. Of course, some arguments will be better than others based on their nature, but you get the point by now (Or, at least, you should).

We're going in a circle here. All things begin with assumptions. Either you accept the Bible to be true or you don't. Whatever you decide, as long as your beliefs are consistent than they're no less logical than someone else who believes differently. Simple.

I'm not a scientologist. However, as long as it adhere's to it's basic religious axioms and is consistent within itself then, hey, it's about a logical argument as will come around

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

The axoims that we can trust our senses are traditionally considered to be reasonable. I see this, therefore it's reasonable absent evidence to the contrary, to consider what you see as real. Not only that, but the scientific method is reasonable by it's very nature, therefore it's reasonable to use the scientific method to provide reliable information. It's those two axoims upon which our entire perceptions are based.
What about Shaniqwa Swain? She's a black swain and proves that some swains aren't white. Booyah? Booyah.
Religious axoims presuppose god. They cannot be used, despite what idiots like Plantinga want, to prove or disprove the existence of god.

pan6467

Speaking of Einstein :

Still a belief. The most intelligent, scientific mind ever, had a belief in a God of his understanding. Kind of sounds..... hmmmmm.... neo paganistic, like a naturalist.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

axioms are not irrational--they simply cannot be demonstrated from within a proof that presupposes them.
they can be demonstrated/subjected to proof--the only problem really is that this sets up the possibility for a regress of proofs.

were that not the case, you could argue that circles are only circles if they wear bunny scuffs when they go to bed and there'd be nothing to be said about it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite