Silva
Full Member
Oxford university runs courses on Catholic apologism, I don't think that cheapens all their degrees. Of course, 'creationism science' nonsense, but I don't think that takes away from all the other courses.
How is it contradictory ? If you let people decide by themselves, and you teach them how to make decisions based on rationality and proofs, they will more than likely not follow religions. If you teach a child the theory of evolution, he/she will more than likely reject religions that claim that God created people from clay and brought them to Earth from Heaven. If you teach a child that it is okay to answer "I don't know" to some question because science does not have the answers now, he/she will more than likely not try to seek ready-made answers found in religions. Teach children to think rationally and only accept scientific proofs and your religion will naturally become weaker.
As for your argument about minority and majority : The majority believed in geocentrism in the XVIth century despite a minority claiming otherwise, does it mean that they were right ?
I agree with you there. As long as religion is kept in the private sphere, I don't see any problem with it. It does not make it true though. However, it would prevent children from blindly following the beliefs of their elders which would deprive them from their right to develop their own opinions.
Again, it is very recomforting to believe that when you die you'll be reunited with loved one's for an eternity, it does not make it true though. If it can make you happy and reassure you, fine ! No one will oblige you to think otherwise. However, there are people who only accept things that are scientifically proven and so will not make extra assumptions about things they don't know and this is what Abrahamic religions have a problem with.
You can't even differentiatie between strength of relation, and how "good" or "bad" a parent is.
Because good parents have terribly weak relationships with their kids
The point stands and you are still an arrogant and offensive idiot. Your sense of superiority is as huge as it is illfounded.
Speaking of religion, who else has issues with universities such as Liberty teaching creationism and such mythology/pseudo-science under the guise of real science?
Religious folks in this thread - your thoughts too please.
That's the sort of evidence that he deals with. Personal observation. I've lived there, therefore it is as I say. Every post is green smiley worthy.
What's this atheist society that you have lived in anyway?
Do you not think that might have more to do with the fact that third world countries tend to be more religious, and family bonds are more important in third world countries because of the lack of financial and personal security?
No it's not eternity! This life will end.
1- What, people suffering while I'm not? No, it's not!
2- Probably much less then I should be doing.
You however knowthat people close to you will suffer an eternity in hell, yet do nothing about it.
Your last sentence is exactly the phrase many posters on here would describe you with.
Thank you. Just seen your post. I've never given religion the credit for that, let alone saying that it's necessarily or always a good thing.. What you said could very well be a logical explanation, but it could also be something they inherited from their ancestors, even before Islam came along.
Well, as much as I would hate it, if he's done something that breaks that law he should serve whatever punishment there is for breaking it. But if it was for breaking a retarded law e.g. not believing in the judiciary system and they had to go to jail for that, it would be a whole different story.
And that's apparently what you don't agree with. In your eyes they have done something wrong by not believing in your god, am I right?
Yeah, after all, they're only your parents, eh? Not some character from a book.
Seriously, the mind boggles.
That kinda sucks for the women don't you think? Lead a good life and get into heaven only to find yourself as part of some blokes harem.
That wasn't his point, his point was that people should be exposed to all arguments before they get institutionalized. That when parents kids that god definitely exists, someone should also tell them god definitely doesn't exist. Otherwise the kids don't really have a fair chance, if you consider something a fact for longer than you have living memory, it's quite hard for a new idea to come along and have an impact on you. If, however, you're exposed to all the ideas possible, you're more likely to come to your own conclusion, as opposed to just believing something because your parents do.
Teach kids about religion in classes about religion, yeah. Just ensure they know it has no basis in fact and is founded on faith. And is certainly without any scientific merit.
Ok, expand on this then please, because I don't know this either.Are you serious, or just trying to be sarcastic? Because you're completely wrong.
Massive arrogance yet again. I was raised religious as was my wife and I can confirm that you are talking out of your arse. Some of the best parents I know are atheists but by far the worst are religious. However, neither of these facts have much to do with God or religion.
Anyway, let me bring up another question now..
Do you believe that Napoleon Bonaparte existed?
Anyway, let me bring up another question now..
Do you believe that Napoleon Bonaparte existed?
Ok, expand on this then please, because I don't know this either.
How's heaven for the women? Do they get a batallion of hot young stallions aswell?
Also, what happens to infidels according to the Quran? Does every single one of us go to hell?
Thanks for the answers Danny, I won't bother you any longer.
What I hope is that with an increase in critical thinking and reliance on science, people will accept less religions' versions of reality (creationism, hell and heaven,...) and rely more on what is proven scientifically. This will naturally lead to those religions having less influence on people as their gospel will not be as easily accepted. The key here is that anything that is not proven yet by science is unknown to us. We don't need to make up additional theories to explain things which we don't understand yet. Of course this applies to the public sphere : when you are in your house, do whatever you want ! This applies even more to Abrahamic religions which have an imperialist touch to them and stress on the fact that they are the only true words of some God.We're singing from the same hymn sheet (if you pardon the pun ), in terms of children being exposed / told, what to believe & what traditions they must get onboard with, but as you get older you learn to question life in general, & religion is no different, probably more so if i'm being honest if your brought up in a religious environment like i was - i'm Irish afterall... and i was even an alter-boy - a pretty shit one i might add. Brutal to be honest. I think it was the first job i got sacked from, spent most of the time laughing & messing that the Priest wasnt amused whatsoever. Fair enough. He was an even shitter Priest than i was an Alter-boy by all accounts!
I said you were being contradictory (as highlighted) by saying people should have the freedom to believe what they want to, but then you said that you hoped that religion crumbled type of thing. I suppose i was wrong saying that & i apologise. I just seen problematics in the second part of the statement, that kinda irked me that you were on one hand showing acceptance to a persons beliefs, then hoping that world came crashing down on that belief. Didnt think you needed to state the obvious & come out with that. It was nailed on thats how you think & crossed out your respect a persons beliefs line.
Because those civilizations were not as advanced as ours in terms of understanding the world surrounding them. We have made tremendous progress and we have a better view and explanation of many natural phenomena. Our knowledge is far from complete which makes scientific research an exciting domain. Whenever something becomes clearer to us, there is no need anymore to make up beliefs to explain things. As for the things we don't know, some of us accept the fact that "we just don't know yet" and some of us look for "explanations" that are not based on scientific proof which means that there as many "explanations" as people out there to formulate them. No one is pushing you to adhere to any of these schools but in the public sphere we must go with the former alternative. We must be neutral and limit ourselves to what has been proven.I dont see or know, how Religion affects you so personally. Rational logic / thinkin is all & good, but every race of people throughout an eternity has had an inner belief that there's more to the elements all around us, thats what makes the world unique & the most popular subject of discussion too. People use drugs to explore the outter world because they're bored of their environment. Some folk just get involved in religion or support City or Liverpool (twisted fecks).
How can you disprove the existence of God or a persons soul by the way? Surely you have to be dead to conclude that argument, so who knows, its all about faith. You've heard numerous stories about comin back from the dead etc.. Have you also heard the stories about a persons weight always drops by 7 ounces (i think) when they pass away, supposedly the souls weight. I'm no religious nut, but i do find religion fascinating to a certain extent, its alot less taxing than the Thiago "will he or wont he sign" thread thats for sure.. That 70-odd virgins etc.. thingy is very interesting also. Whats not to like about that?!
I'm not bothered at all.. You're welcome.
Yeah but that's just more unsupported meaningless bollox of the sort that has been argued cogently against.I would say that this (a clarity in definition of god) has more probability of happening than getting proof that God did not exist.
Hey Danny, talk to us about "Fitrah" in Islam. What does it mean exactly ?
What I hope is that with an increase in critical thinking and reliance on science, people will accept less religions' versions of reality (creationism, hell and heaven,...) and rely more on what is proven scientifically. This will naturally lead to those religions having less influence on people as their gospel will not be as easily accepted. The key here is that anything that is not proven yet by science is unknown to us. We don't need to make up additional theories to explain things which we don't understand yet. Of course this applies to the public sphere : when you are in your house, do whatever you want ! This applies even more to Abrahamic religions which have an imperialist touch to them and stress on the fact that they are the only true words of some God.
Because those civilizations were not as advanced as ours in terms of understanding the world surrounding them. We have made tremendous progress and we have a better view and explanation of many natural phenomena. Our knowledge is far from complete which makes scientific research an exciting domain. Whenever something becomes clearer to us, there is no need anymore to make up beliefs to explain things. As for the things we don't know, some of us accept the fact that "we just don't know yet" and some of us look for "explanations" that are not based on scientific proof which means that there as many "explanations" as people out there to formulate them. No one is pushing you to adhere to any of these schools but in the public sphere we must go with the former alternative. We must be neutral and limit ourselves to what has been proven.
We are not trying to disprove the existence of God in the same way as we would not try to disprove the existence of fairies. We are trying to limit oursleves to what stems from logical reasoning and scientific proofs. When science does not have the answers, we are satisfied with answering : "We don't know". Other people refuse this answer and choose to believe in supernatural things but then anyone can come up with anything : a God, a fairy, a nuclear cheese, whatever they want ! In this case, they are the ones that need to prove that what they are believing in exists. Otherwise, it has nothing to do in the public scene and should be kept to themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FitraWhat do you mean exactly? Are you talking about the "fitrah" that is related to fasting in Ramadan?
Before throwing accusations, know your religion.As much I don't really have a problem with people asking questions about Islam, I'd really appreciate it if you actually have a point behind your question.. Because if you don't believe in the whole thing, and you're not going anywhere with these questions in term of proving/disproving religions, then I'm not sure it would be worth it, and I don't even think it fits in this thread..
I agree with you. As long as science and belief occupy different territories, there are no issues. Of course, the more rational thing to do is to refrain from formulating beliefs when we reach the boundaries of science and just accept that there are things we don't know yet. However, I don't think that accepting life as it is is an unsatisfactory position. Some people need some fantasy and spiritual aspect in their lifes, others don't. As pointed out earlier, there are societies where atheism is strong and that rank high in terms of social indicators. Just different approaches to life. The common ground being that whenever science has answers it must become the reference.What - are you trying to say man, that Fairies dont exist?
I wouldnt chop a Fairy tree thats for sure. Thats the tree in the middle of a field on its own, that every farmer avoids like the friggin plague. I still get the creeps when i see one. In Ireland - we're steeped in superstition, same as the Banchee myth / story. I guess that comes from the Pagan background, which is ironic that we historically worship, but at the same time believe in a Pagan understanding..
Very well written what you said by the way man. Most folk are all or nothing, but i'm somewhere in between. I believe in God, but trust science equally because science is physical, belief is a spiritual mindset, but i couldnt have one without the other. To me, they co-exist - like family type of thing. I've always embraced both & questioned them also. The day you stop doing that is the day you just accept life as it is & i dont think anyone should settle for that.
Have a listen to this shite man. Dawkins did a radio show type of yoke, on Radio BBC Norn Iron - this is the small-minded crap we're subjected to all the time. I dont think most of these folk can actually spell Sicence. I'm no great fan of the man, but he came across very well & echo'ed my own understandings - well pretty much. Bloody nutjobs in our neck of the woods:
Teach kids about religion in classes about religion, yeah. Just ensure they know it has no basis in fact and is founded on faith. And is certainly without any scientific merit.
Unbelievable. First you bring something up, then when people ask you to clarify it, you accuse them of changing the subject.First, it's not based on just a "personal observation".. Most atheists I know (apart from the people on this board, who are seemingly blinded by their stubbornness and hate) admit that the relations among family members in religious societies are stronger than atheist societies. Second, don't you think that a person who lived in both societies will be in a better position to judge something than a person who only lived in one?
I agree that I haven't given an objective evidence yet to support my claim (although it's not actually "mine"), but let's just agree to disagree now about this issue, because it's very clear that you're deliberately trying to change the subject of the discussion, and I don't want to debate with 10 people about 10 issues at the same time, it's practically impossible.. Besides, this has never been among the main issues we're discussing, and it doesn't have real consequences on the major issues we're discussing, regardless.
Unbelievable. First you bring something up, then when people ask you to clarify it, you accuse them of changing the subject.
You should really stop this 'most atheist I know' shit too. It's a convenient way for you to just assert any old bollocks out of thin air. From everything you've said here, it would seem that not only do you not know very many atheists, it's as if you haven't met a single one. Such is the naivete and misapprehension you're displaying.
Your entire contribution in this thread has been boilerplate, amounting to hesitant, timid deism, and the amazing revelation that non believers can't prove the non existence of god, which most atheists I know will tell you in advance anyway, as most of them did in this very thread.
There's not much to change the subject from. The bollocks about family ties among atheists and believers is one of the rare substantial(if not substantiated) claims that you've made. Which is why everyone is jumping on it.