the Bible

[Al]

I'm sorry, but Hitler claiming to be a Christian isn't the same thing as his actually being one.

And religion isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. Demanding proof is sort of missing the point.

[Senethro]

Quoting Al from 23:43, 9th May 2007
I'm sorry, but Hitler claiming to be a Christian isn't the same thing as his actually being one.

And religion isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. Demanding proof is sort of missing the point.

Will you believe in anything without proof then? Or just commonly held beliefs?

[Gubbins]

Quoting Senethro from 23:45, 9th May 2007
Will you believe in anything without proof then? Or just commonly held beliefs?

Belief in a proven fact ceases to be belief and becomes knowledge.

Personally, I see no reason to believe anything. I am intrigued as to why others do, though.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Frank]

Surely one must actually *believe* in the proof, too?

I mean, you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury that X is the case. But if they don't believe what you hold is actual proof...

You see the problem. As far as one person to the next goes, it seems from my position (and it appears that by some in this thread physicists are awarded a better-than-others outlook on reality, go us!) that it's an extremely lucky/coincidental/brilliant/miraculous/mundane event that anyone is able to relate to anything meaningfully. Let alone get into debates about brown hair and god!

We are, afterall, free to believe as we wish. Reason, however, tells me (at least) that just because *I* believe in God doesn't mean that that belief is going to be of any use. God, effectively, tells me (in my view) he is, but I'm making a (seemingly) conscious decision not to bother imposing it. I certainly try to refrain from invoking God at each point. When it comes to explaining things the scientific and 'reasoned' approach should eventually lead us to God, if He exists and wants us to realise this. (if He doesn't want us to find Him then He's being a cunt, if you ask me! :p )

That is: Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I should suddenly be rejecting other options, or indeed letting Him influence things in ways I'm not happy about. I'm happy to surrender to God's will and care, but frankly (and I'm confident He'd agree, if He doesn't then I and Him have somewhat of a disagreement, roll on judgment day...) I'd much rather try my way. It sort of gives me a bit more autonomy in life, y'know?

Religion, ideally, (if any of it's correct) should fall out as the end product of science. If it doesn't, well, it's unlikely to disaappear, but support for it will probably drop. Folks like Dawkin's (and folks present here) running around yelping that all 'Religion Rapes Babies' or something similarly 'bad/disagreeable' doesn't serve to really do anything. Educate in science, but not to the exclusion of religion. If science excludes religion, it seems to me that that'll become apparent of its own accord, in time. That's one of the reasons, I suspect, that 'sane' (if you'll pardon the sweeping generalisation) religious people I've encountered tend to have alot of 'faith' in science too. Not to the extent that they take it's word above everything and shape their life by it, but that they're open to it, don't see it as a problem and generally try and be nice about it all.

Which in itself allows science to continue down its merry path, and lets the religous side of things take care of itself. If they meet of their own accord, so be it. If one clobbers the other: so be it. But from a human's (or indeed: any sort of general perspective, a rock's, a blade of grass's or a super-intellect's) perspective, I think religion and science (and reason and all learning, really) should be viewed more with a distinct curiousity than as an authority.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Gubbins]

Frank, that's a well-put-together post, so it's time for me to insert another 2p...

Quoting Frank from 00:27, 10th May 2007
I mean, you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury that X is the case. But if they don't believe what you hold is actual proof...

...then surely you haven't proven it beyond all reasonable doubt.

If you want to say something like "the Sun rose in the east this morning", even though it was cloudy, you can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt it did, but there is still a margin of error there, as you did not actually see it. Thus we get into the shaky ground of what is actually "proven", what is "fact" and what is "theory". Either way, you can choose to accept it, or you can choose to deny it. I don't think the word "belief" is particularly appropriate in this context.

A comparative level of uncertainty surrounds recent discoveries that only a few hundred years ago would have you burned at the stake: that the Earth is round, that is goes round the Sun, that it is older than Genesis would have you believe, that the Great Flood never happened and that the Universe has been expanding since its creation. That is the physical evidence (based on our current understanding): you can accept it or deny it.

To deny it presumably means you accept something else, in which case you should have defendable proof, otherwise you merely believe it.

People often put science and religion in comparative terms. It is true that they seek the same things - truth and enlightenment - but they do so by such diametrically opposing principles that you may as well compare chalk and cheese.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[novium]

No, I think you're wrong about hitler. At least from what I remember from my modern history classes. Plus, you know, all the christians and catholics that ended up in the concentration camps.

As to social darwinism...your comments are apropos of nothing. It does not change the fact that it was an example of a non-religious belief that was used to justify horrific things.

My example of the stick was not a reflection of me, nor was it a reflection of 'bad people vs good people'. It was a reference to, oh, all those studies about the inclination towards revenge, even when detrimental, and how revenge is rewarded by pleasure.


Militant atheists, not telling people they're going to hell? sure. Telling them *to* go to hell, all too common. Trying to scare people into agreeing with them? Trying to bully people into acquiescing? you bet! Or are you unfamiliar (despite, I think, using it yourself) with the whole "RELIGION IS EVIL! IT CAUSES EVERYTHING BAD IN THE UNIVERSE! IF WE ALLOW ANY RELIGION TO CONTINUE< EVERYONE IS GOING TO TURN INTO A RAVING LUNATIC AND MAKE THIS HELL ON EARTH" argument?

You've fallen into a logical fallacy with the scientist thing. Some scientists may be atheists. Some atheists may be militant atheists. But not all scientists are militant atheists. It was only the militant atheists to whom I was referring with the whole "unbending world view" thing.

As to dawkins: go to wikipedia, find "criticisms of". I know they exist, you know they exist, I don't feel like repeating them here, especially at 1:30 in the morning. Because, unlike picking apart your logic, that would actually require research and work. And if I was gonna do that, I could be working on my minoan essay.

As to scientology and christianity: do you even know anything about scientology? I'll be charitable and pretend you don't. For if you do, and you'd still make statements like that..... well, i'll be forced to assume that you are seriously out of touch with reality.

Quoting Haunted from 22:45, 9th May 2007

No. Hitler was born into a Catholic family. That is entirely different. As I recall, he wanted to start up some weirdo neo-aryan pagan religion.

Hitler was positively against all the pagan crap that the other members of the third reich were into (Parts of mein kampf were devoted to the ridicule of such things). Hitler was a believer in Christ and tried to use Christ to justify fighting the Jews.

social darwinism used to justify conquering places and subjecting their peoples to horrific things.

Social Darwinism is just thinly veiled racism. The anti-evolutionists love nothing better than to blame eugenics and nazism on evolution.

the hardwired stuff that tells you to beat someone up for taking your favorite stick

Well thats maybe just your particular nature. I never implied that we were all nice. Simply that being nice to others in a cooperative fashion led to better survival. You are still going to get bad people doing bad things.

moral often goes against what we're hardwired for

And I agree to a certain extent. Our modern moral code did not spring up entirely from natural selection, but we base alot of what we think is right and wrong from our instincts.

Militant atheists are fundamentalists.

In some ways I can see the analogy. They say they know whats true, they say everyone else is wrong. Are they going to heaven because they're right? Are you going to burn in eternal hellfire because you don't believe them?
They don't threaten your immortal soul, they do not frighten you into accepting their way.

completely unable to conceive of being wrong

Scientists get it wrong now and then, and most of them are only too happy to be proven wrong. Whether they were wrong or right doesn't matter because they've now learned whats true. I would love nothing better than to have God existence proved to me.

They are completely unable to tolerate other beliefs.

Atheism is as much as belief as bald is a hair colour.

Dawkins twists history, and facts, and theology

I'd love to see examples of this, especially about history and science.

As an aside I don't see the difference between scientology and christainty (apart from of course, their beliefs).

"Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Age"
- Richard Lederer

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

Um...so christianity is basically all one big brain-washing cult founded to make money that is fond of conspiring to do *very* illegal things, like framing people for murder, or murdering people horrifically, that also keeps anyone from talking about it by siccing attack lawyers on anyone who tries to study, report on, or criticize them, founded by a morally bankrupt bad scifi writer who dabbled in "satanism"?

Quoting science is fun from 23:35, 9th May 2007

Honestly there isn't much of a difference between how crazy Scientology is from creationist Christianity but I would argue that there is a difference between it and a liberal interpretation of the bible.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

the way I see it, only agnostics "lack belief", as they embrace the idea of there not being proof either way. Atheists and people of faith must believe that evidence is "proof"

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 01:30, 10th May 2007
No, I think you're wrong about hitler. At least from what I remember from my modern history classes. Plus, you know, all the christians and catholics that ended up in the concentration camps.

Hitler spoke in public numerous times about his belief in Christ.
"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."
- Hitler, at the Reichstag, March 23, 1933.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Hitler, from John Toland's "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography".

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
- Hitler, http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

(EDIT: Found this gem on same website
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Hitler)

He doesn't sound much different to some of the more eccentric evengelists or islamic clerics.

As to social darwinism...your comments are apropos of nothing. It does not change the fact that it was an example of a non-religious belief that was used to justify horrific things.

I have said that religion is not the sole cause of bad things. Social Darwinism is a complete perversion of science.

It was a reference to, oh, all those studies about the inclination towards revenge, even when detrimental, and how revenge is rewarded by pleasure.

This is a good point. Why do we seem to have some horrible sides to our nature? Maybe some every-man-for-himself thinking is still in is. Though I would argue that seeking revenge rarely ends in a reward of pleasure.

Militant atheists, not telling people they're going to hell? sure. Telling them *to* go to hell, all too common. Trying to scare people into agreeing with them? Trying to bully people into acquiescing? you bet! Or are you unfamiliar (despite, I think, using it yourself) with the whole "RELIGION IS EVIL! IT CAUSES EVERYTHING BAD IN THE UNIVERSE! IF WE ALLOW ANY RELIGION TO CONTINUE< EVERYONE IS GOING TO TURN INTO A RAVING LUNATIC AND MAKE THIS HELL ON EARTH" argument?

How many atheists have asked other atheists to kill/die for atheism?

You've fallen into a logical fallacy with the scientist thing. Some scientists may be atheists. Some atheists may be militant atheists. But not all scientists are militant atheists. It was only the militant atheists to whom I was referring with the whole "unbending world view" thing.

Ok, I know there are some scientists who hold religious beliefs. Though you have to admit that the overwhelmingly majority of scientists (and especially in the life sciences) are atheistic or at least agnostic. ANd I'd argue that the majority of them (being good scientists) will have no problem being proved wrong. Each proof leads us closer to the truth.

As to dawkins: go to wikipedia, find "criticisms of". I know they exist, you know they exist, I don't feel like repeating them here, especially at 1:30 in the morning. Because, unlike picking apart your logic, that would actually require research and work. And if I was gonna do that, I could be working on my minoan essay.

Actually, there doesn't appear to be a criticism section on Dawkins there. There is some talk of biologists arguing against his gene-centric selection theory. Even then they are addressed pretty firmly. Some other criticism from philosophers about his confrontational style. Nothing about twisting facts.

As to scientology and christianity: do you even know anything about scientology?

I think we've all seen that South Park.

For if you do, and you'd still make statements like that..... well, i'll be forced to assume that you are seriously out of touch with reality.

They build churches around the world preaching their "truth". As Sen said, apart from the difference between a white bearded old guy and an evil space lord, wheres the difference?

Is one more "correct" than the other?

Hydrogen bombs on space cruisers or talking snakes, living for 900 years and ressurection?

I can pretty confidently lump it all in the same category.

EDIT: For rtard grammar
[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Science is Fun]

Quoting novium from 01:30, 10th May 2007
No, I think you're wrong about hitler. At least from what I remember from my modern history classes. Plus, you know, all the christians and catholics that ended up in the concentration camps.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.[/quote]

because I am sure that would go over well with the school board
Think about while he did target race he more specifically targeted religions other than Christianity

[Science is Fun]

Quoting novium from 01:37, 10th May 2007
Um...so christianity is basically all one big brain-washing cult founded to make money that is fond of conspiring to do *very* illegal things, like framing people for murder, or murdering people horrifically, that also keeps anyone from talking about it by siccing attack lawyers on anyone who tries to study, report on, or criticize them, founded by a morally bankrupt bad scifi writer who dabbled in "satanism"?

Quoting science is fun from 23:35, 9th May 2007

Honestly there isn't much of a difference between how crazy Scientology is from creationist Christianity but I would argue that there is a difference between it and a liberal interpretation of the bible.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

Obviously you haven't had many run ins with the type of Christians you get in the southern United States
because other than the scifi writer thing everything else you said aplys

[Science is Fun]

Quoting Al from 23:43, 9th May 2007
I'm sorry, but Hitler claiming to be a Christian isn't the same thing as his actually being one.

And religion isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. Demanding proof is sort of missing the point.

I agree with you on the first point but why on earth do you believe in Christianity over any other religion if you have no proof either way

[Science is Fun]

I am going to have to take back that second to last statement I made I nearly forgot that one of the leaders of the creation science movement in the southern united states wrote a book that takes place after the apocalypses and chronicles the journeys of non believers left on earth or something like that
so yes they are lead by a creation Science fiction author
by the way this was brought to us by the same man who came up with the dinosaurs lived in the garden of eden and were all vegetarians theory and decided not to pay taxes because god told him not to
(this guy is not some isolated nutso either check out this website http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc
)

[Gubbins]

Quoting novium from 01:40, 10th May 2007
the way I see it, only agnostics "lack belief", as they embrace the idea of there not being proof either way. Atheists and people of faith must believe that evidence is "proof"

If you have compelling evidence for either, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, surely it's less about believing in evidence, and more about taking things on faith?

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[seisachtheia]

but one of the thins about the holocaust was that 'jewishness' was not about religion, it was about "race". 12 million people died in the holocaust. Don't you think that, given the regions the other 6 million were coming from, quite a few of them were going to be christian...*and* catholic? If it were truly about religion, would they have gunned down my (catholic) great-grandfather along with the rest of his family?

Modern history classes = university. The school board has little to say about such things. High school barely gets beyond the 1900 in history. Hell, some of my professors would have loved to make it all about religion. But they didn't. That, more than anything, tells me that it wasn't the case.

Quoting Science is Fun from 04:47, 10th May 2007

Quoting novium from 01:30, 10th May 2007
No, I think you're wrong about hitler. At least from what I remember from my modern history classes. Plus, you know, all the christians and catholics that ended up in the concentration camps.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

because I am sure that would go over well with the school board
Think about while he did target race he more specifically targeted religions other than Christianity[/quote]

[hr]

I can't forget you but I can't remember

[novium]

but that is not *all* of christianity. i think you'd be hard pressed to find any organization as large, single minded, and, well, evil (for lack of a better word) than scientology. It would only be a fair comparison if ALL of christanity worked like scientology.
And I doubt even the most raving lunatics would sic attack lawyers on people for merely talking about their religion. hell, the evidence certainly points to that not being the case. Not to mention old whatshisname going on record about doing it for money. And the 'mystery cult' aspect of it is not present in any form of christanity.

Quoting Science is Fun from 04:49, 10th May 2007

Quoting novium from 01:37, 10th May 2007
Um...so christianity is basically all one big brain-washing cult founded to make money that is fond of conspiring to do *very* illegal things, like framing people for murder, or murdering people horrifically, that also keeps anyone from talking about it by siccing attack lawyers on anyone who tries to study, report on, or criticize them, founded by a morally bankrupt bad scifi writer who dabbled in "satanism"?

Quoting science is fun from 23:35, 9th May 2007

Honestly there isn't much of a difference between how crazy Scientology is from creationist Christianity but I would argue that there is a difference between it and a liberal interpretation of the bible.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

Obviously you haven't had many run ins with the type of Christians you get in the southern United States
because other than the scifi writer thing everything else you said aplys

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[ash-ding]

PEANUTS

[novium]

semantics. Phrase it this way, perhaps. People of faith see god all around them. Atheists see no god all around them (if you'll pardon the painful phrasing of taht sentence). Agnostics say you can't know what you do or don't see is true.

Quoting Gubbins from 09:12, 10th May 2007

Quoting novium from 01:40, 10th May 2007
the way I see it, only agnostics "lack belief", as they embrace the idea of there not being proof either way. Atheists and people of faith must believe that evidence is "proof"

If you have compelling evidence for either, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, surely it's less about believing in evidence, and more about taking things on faith?

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Senethro]

Quoting ash-ding from 11:25, 10th May 2007
PEANUTS

This.

But also...

Quoting novium from 11:24, 10th May 2007
but that is not *all* of christianity. i think you'd be hard pressed to find any organization as large, single minded, and, well, evil (for lack of a better word) than scientology. It would only be a fair comparison if ALL of christanity worked like scientology.
And I doubt even the most raving lunatics would sic attack lawyers on people for merely talking about their religion. hell, the evidence certainly points to that not being the case. Not to mention old whatshisname going on record about doing it for money. And the 'mystery cult' aspect of it is not present in any form of christanity.

Quoting Science is Fun from 04:49, 10th May 2007

Quoting novium from 01:37, 10th May 2007
Um...so christianity is basically all one big brain-washing cult founded to make money that is fond of conspiring to do *very* illegal things, like framing people for murder, or murdering people horrifically, that also keeps anyone from talking about it by siccing attack lawyers on anyone who tries to study, report on, or criticize them, founded by a morally bankrupt bad scifi writer who dabbled in "satanism"?
[quote]Quoting science is fun from 23:35, 9th May 2007

Honestly there isn't much of a difference between how crazy Scientology is from creationist Christianity but I would argue that there is a difference between it and a liberal interpretation of the bible.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

Obviously you haven't had many run ins with the type of Christians you get in the southern United States
because other than the scifi writer thing everything else you said aplys

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.[/quote]

Fine, fine, you're avoiding the point but whatever.

Whats the essential difference between your christianity and any other branch of christianity/any other religion?

Quoting novium from 11:26, 10th May 2007
semantics. Phrase it this way, perhaps. People of faith see god all around them. Atheists see no god all around them (if you'll pardon the painful phrasing of taht sentence). Agnostics say you can't know what you do or don't see is true.

Quoting Gubbins from 09:12, 10th May 2007

Quoting novium from 01:40, 10th May 2007
the way I see it, only agnostics "lack belief", as they embrace the idea of there not being proof either way. Atheists and people of faith must believe that evidence is "proof"

If you have compelling evidence for either, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, surely it's less about believing in evidence, and more about taking things on faith?

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

Your definitions are worse than my theology allegedly is.

Personally, I see an absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.

[Icarus]

Apologies for ripping off Dawkins, but surely everyone is an atheist to some degree? If someone is a Christian it means they believe in their God rather than Zeus, or Thor, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. In other words, everyone is an atheist with regards to the religions they don't follow.

I therefore fail to see why atheists get criticised so much. I don't believe in any gods. This makes me hardly any different to the the most bible-thumping Christian or the most radical Muslim fundamentalist. The reason I don't believe in your Gods is the same reason you don't beleive in Zeus: a religion seems ridiculous unless you're an adherent to it. The only difference between me and a Chrisitan is I reject the notion of any of the thousands of suggested Gods while they retain the belief in one of them.

(edited because I apparently lack the powers of basic grammar)