24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King Ratreligions don't follow the same rules as science. you call it "being built on lies" and yes, a scientific theory built on lies or unproven assumptions is worthless.
I added numbers to refer to your post.... EDIT: but see now that that was quite useless :-)
[b](1) The fact remains that for A LOT of people the belief in a god (either their own or someone elses) has very negative consequence. The OPs harsh criticism against creationism while treating "regular" religions and beliefs as merely misguided and not ...[text shortened]... told and "experienced" (in America I presume) so I can't comment. Please elaborate if you like.[/b]
religions don't work that way. the initial assumptions are not what is important. it is not important for christianity that jesus actually turned water into wine or that god created the world in 6 days. what is important is the philosphy system. do no harm. live a happy life. love one another. religion should establish some basic points in the beginning like the axioms and postulates of math and then insist on the important things that i mentioned. something that matters and enriches the lives of the people that practice it. (and again, i am not claiming a single religion holds the truth)
the supreme being doesn't care that a bunch of hairless apes call it allah or yahve.
"many atheists feel that understanding that there is no god is an enrichment of a previously theistic life. "
if you dismiss god, the most fair stance one should take is agnosticism. one doesn't know if there is a god, and one may not know. atheists do not claim that strings do not exist. they admit the theory is not yet proven, not fully understood, etc. all unconventional science receives the same treatment. "i do not know for sure, let's wait".
only god is put in the "not exists box"
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI dont think John was senile. I think it is that people misunderstand what happens in that end period.
john was senile when he wrote that. explanation given. much more likely than the god of love needing to end the world in pain and destruction.
My interpretation is that in that time the earth will actually be destroyed and that is something that accords well with what science says re something hitting the earth and destroying it. That is not now or in the foreseeable future but probably thousands of years away. According to John in Revelation Christ has to clean up the earth and make it a more enjoyable place to live. At the end of that period when all of mankind has been transformed sin and death will end and so will the earth. God has prepared another place for the righteous to live. This earth is temporary and cannot last forever. I think science agrees with that.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThank you, sonhouse. I am appalled at the figures you quote. Such deluded ignorance in the world's foremost economy is frightening.
As am I. I don't think people outside the US can comprehend how deep this delusion is in US society. I think one poll had it that 43% of the US thinks the Earth is 6000 years old. This goes WAY beyond just a few nutters like RJ screaming from the rooftops. This makes it policy changing scary. I am sure that if nearly half the US is that crazy, then in some ...[text shortened]... rsecution that featured such niceties as burning at the stake of suspected witches and so forth.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Zahlanzireligions don't follow the same rules as science. you call it "being built on lies" and yes, a scientific theory built on lies or unproven assumptions is worthless.
religions don't follow the same rules as science. you call it "being built on lies" and yes, a scientific theory built on lies or unproven assumptions is worthless.
religions don't work that way. the initial assumptions are not what is important. it is not important for christianity that jesus actually turned water into wine or that god created the wor ...[text shortened]... ame treatment. "i do not know for sure, let's wait".
only god is put in the "not exists box"
religions don't work that way. the initial assumptions are not what is important. it is not important for christianity that jesus actually turned water into wine or that god created the world in 6 days. what is important is the philosphy system. do no harm. live a happy life. love one another. religion should establish some basic points in the beginning like the axioms and postulates of math and then insist on the important things that i mentioned. something that matters and enriches the lives of the people that practice it. (and again, i am not claiming a single religion holds the truth)
the supreme being doesn't care that a bunch of hairless apes call it allah or yahve.
If Jesus, God and Allah were merely used as metaphors I would have no problem with religion, unless the religion would make people do bad things of course. However, most if not all religions don't do that. They lie about God being real and Jesus being real. They lie about an afterlife and punishment. Some lie about how it's bad to give blood to your fellow human beings because god said so. They lie about how we were made in the image of god.
They lie about what a supreme being does and doesn't care about.
if you dismiss god, the most fair stance one should take is agnosticism. one doesn't know if there is a god, and one may not know. atheists do not claim that strings do not exist. they admit the theory is not yet proven, not fully understood, etc. all unconventional science receives the same treatment. "i do not know for sure, let's wait".
only god is put in the "not exists box"
There are reasons to assume that "strings" may very well exist. And even if I don't understand those reasons, there are plenty of people who do understand them and I have no reason to distrust them.
With god, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect he may exist. And in the complete absence of any kind of evidence for god, it is absolutely reasonable to assume he doesn't exist. That is why god is put in the not exist box and why telling children he does exist is lying. The same goes for the Yeti, elves and yes... Santa Clause.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Pianoman1Makes you want to think the world would be better off if the US wasn't top dog. Of course the alternatives don't sound a whole lot better but the whole situation sucks for sure.
Thank you, sonhouse. I am appalled at the figures you quote. Such deluded ignorance in the world's foremost economy is frightening.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King Ratit is just a matter of moderation. eat enough salad and it will kill you.
[b]religions don't follow the same rules as science. you call it "being built on lies" and yes, a scientific theory built on lies or unproven assumptions is worthless.
religions don't work that way. the initial assumptions are not what is important. it is not important for christianity that jesus actually turned water into wine or that god created ...[text shortened]... ling children he does exist is lying. The same goes for the Yeti, elves and yes... Santa Clause.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Pianoman1Clearly you do not realise that that in and of itself is proof that your opening assertion that all these people are stupid and ignorant etc etc is wrong. How can so many stupid people contribute to the US being among the most advanced in the world for so many decades?
Thank you, sonhouse. I am appalled at the figures you quote. Such deluded ignorance in the world's foremost economy is frightening.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King Rat"They lie about what a supreme being does and doesn't care about."
[b]religions don't follow the same rules as science. you call it "being built on lies" and yes, a scientific theory built on lies or unproven assumptions is worthless.
religions don't work that way. the initial assumptions are not what is important. it is not important for christianity that jesus actually turned water into wine or that god created ...[text shortened]... ling children he does exist is lying. The same goes for the Yeti, elves and yes... Santa Clause.
as such , the solution is to experience god in your own way.
"And in the complete absence of any kind of evidence for god, it is absolutely reasonable to assume he doesn't exist. "
is the glass half empty or half full. with the same amount of evidence, you choose to assume (a term i can agree on, more acceptable than "know for sure"😉 he doesn't exist and you live your life without. i choose to believe he exists because it makes me happy.
"That is why [...] telling children he does exist is lying".
if that is your only objection, sure why not. i could argue that lying and speaking from ignorance are not equivalent. but its not that important. my concern is to establish that moderate faith is not detrimental to children, to make sure children are thought to question everything and how, and not to damage children into being stuck forever on a certain set of beliefs.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King Ratno. moderation in religion.
???
Moderation?
Are you saying that god exists a little bit?
as far as i am concerned god exists, period.
making a faith powered airplane and jumping off a cliff with it is not moderation.
denying life saving blood transfusions to children (and anyone else really) because god may have said so is not moderation.
killing infidels because gods says so in a passage somewhere in the holy book of choice is not moderation.
believing a 4000 year old text that never claimed to do science instead of soundly proven scientific fact is not moderation.
moderation is celebrating life.
24 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziHey Zahl, is that your photo with the red tie and lots of people in the background, dated march 08? Was on photobucket.
no. moderation in religion.
as far as i am concerned god exists, period.
making a faith powered airplane and jumping off a cliff with it is not moderation.
denying life saving blood transfusions to children (and anyone else really) because god may have said so is not moderation.
killing infidels because gods says so in a passage somewhere in the hol ...[text shortened]... stead of soundly proven scientific fact is not moderation.
moderation is celebrating life.
24 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut if you have been taught from an early age that your god exists and is all powerful and you firmly believe that your god considers exchanging blood to be an abominable act, would it not be reasonable to refuse a blood transfusion for yourself or your children? If you allowed it you might commit yourself or them to an eternity of punishment. That they might die in this life is a small matter because you are considering their fate in the eternal life ever after... If your education had included instilling such a belief with no good evidence.
no. moderation in religion.
as far as i am concerned god exists, period.
making a faith powered airplane and jumping off a cliff with it is not moderation.
denying life saving blood transfusions to children (and anyone else really) because god may have said so is not moderation.
killing infidels because gods says so in a passage somewhere in the hol ...[text shortened]... stead of soundly proven scientific fact is not moderation.
moderation is celebrating life.
Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think.
-- Penguin.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am struggling to see how you see the first sentence as moderation, but not the second. Is it because you think your belief in God is safe from scientific scrutiny?
as far as i am concerned god exists, period.
believing a 4000 year old text that never claimed to do science instead of soundly proven scientific fact is not moderation.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by Rajk999Well, it's puzzling. I think Religion is such a powerful force in the US with its massive evangelical ethos and social program that I can only assume there is a sort of suspension of belief.
Clearly you do not realise that that in and of itself is proof that your opening assertion that all these people are stupid and ignorant etc etc is wrong. How can so many stupid people contribute to the US being among the most advanced in the world for so many decades?