Theists truly bother me

[jenifer1972]

Hmmm. Interesting. I am going to suggest that while the human mind is fully CAPABLE of logic, it does require that the user be able to "step outside" of themselves, and look down without emotion at a situation or facts and examine them through neutral "glasses" as opposed to "subjective" glasses. I don't see many people doing this.

 

For example, as a kid, I was emersed in conservative Christian theology by my family, but I was able to step outside of my religious culture in my mind and analyse it objectively, which led to some uncomfortable questions to adults that startled and bothered them. For example, I would ask, well if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel....then how did Cain go elsewhere and find a wife who wasn't his SISTER, like it says in Genesis. That line of questioning :preally bothered the adults teaching this story to me...

[NoIDidn't]

Hmmm. Interesting. I am going to suggest that while the human mind is fully CAPABLE of logic, it does require that the user be able to "step outside" of themselves, and look down without emotion at a situation or facts and examine them through neutral "glasses" as opposed to "subjective" glasses. I don't see many people doing this.

 

For example, as a kid, I was emersed in conservative Christian theology by my family, but I was able to step outside of my religious culture in my mind and analyse it objectively, which led to some uncomfortable questions to adults that startled and bothered them. For example, I would ask, well if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel....then how did Cain go elsewhere and find a wife who wasn't his SISTER, like it says in Genesis. That line of questioning :preally bothered the adults teaching this story to me...

 

 

Actually, Genesis doesn't say he married his sister - you will only find that in the Jehovah Witness version of the Bible. Read it in the KJV and you won't find any reference to him taking a sister and making her his wife.

 

Oh no, not another version of the Bible, right?

 

I don't think your plight with the questions that startled and discomfitted the adults is all that uncommon. I think most kids do it to a degree. The truth is that there isn't a simple answer to the questions, even to non-religious questions (think sex and why they shouldn't practice sexually with their siblings), that will truly satisfy the curiosity of a child.

 

As to the human mind being capable of logic, I agree. And yet, we still rely on hormones and primal attractions to choose mates. Its a bit much to expect us to purely be logical beings.

[jenifer1972]

You misunderstood my question to my parents. Perhaps, (and rereading my post I can see why), I did not word it correctly.

 

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, Abel was killed, and Cain was their main son, where did he get his wife? The Bible says he went to some other land and found a wife, but that doesn't make sense if Adam and Eve were the first humans. Because then any woman Cain could find would have to be a sister. Either that, or there were OTHER humans.... These kind of questions drove my parents nuts!

[Taramere]

The issue of Cain's wife is one that's often brought up in these debates.

 

I don't believe in creationism. I see the bible as an early study into human nature, that uses a series of stories as metaphors to help us understand ourselves...our sunny, happy aspects and our negative, darker aspects. Abel is was the sunny, favoured one of the two brothers. Cain was the more troubled one, and God rejected his gifts as not being good enough. Their story is like an exam topic on a social studies course where students have to demonstrate their knowledge of splitting and object relations theory.

 

To just reject the Bible as drivel is short sighted. For a long long time - before theories had developed to help people understand and change their more destructive behaviours, this was the main source for people who wanted to understand and come to terms with the worst in human nature.

 

The mainstream Christian church view is that mankind as we are today developed by a series of biological processes under the guidance of God, and that God created the soul. How logical that sounds depends on what you interpret God as meaning and what is meant by the soul. I would see the soul as the aspect of us that celebrates life and seeks to bond with other living creatures. God is the best in ourselves, Satan would be the worst. The best is what makes us happy, productive and successful in our relationships with others. It's also that aspect of us that strives to stay positive and hold on, even when the odds seem to be against us.

 

If sitting in a church is the way for a person to find the best, strongest parts of themselves that can bring about positive change, then I think that's a good thing. Other people might derive similar benefits from psychological counselling, or books or people in their support network.

 

I think it's interesting that VS started this thread, and that he's continually dipping in and out before reaching the conclusion over and over again that the creationist versus atheist debate is pointless. Of course it is, and that's the irrationality I mentioned at the start of the thread. Those two sides are never going to agree on anything other than that you either take the religious texts literally or you reject them altogether.

 

Where I really disagree with VS is in the notion he seems to be promoting that a person with a faith is, by virtue of having that faith, bound to never reach the level of happiness they would have without that faith. Trying to apply hard science to the business of understanding happiness and what makes people more or less happy is like trying to set up a computer programme that will create a best selling novel.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Taramere

[VertexSquared]

Where I really disagree with VS is in the notion he seems to be promoting that a person with a faith is, by virtue of having that faith, bound to never reach the level of happiness they would have without that faith. Trying to apply hard science to the business of understanding happiness and what makes people more or less happy is like trying to set up a computer programme that will create a best selling novel.

 

I need not apply hard science to find happiness -- this isn't my argument. I just question if ignorance is really bliss. I feel that the kind of joy we have in our world after we understand it is much higher than the joy we have in ignorance. Perhaps it's my own selfish projection of the type of social change I'd like to see because I feel it's more heavily optimized in a variety of other pragmatic metrics. But, at the same time, I take very heavy offense to those that use faith as a justification to do horrible things and prevent utilitarian happiness in certain situations (e.g. discrimination by faith, or telling a child he/she will go to Hell, which to me is a tragedy). I take offense when people settle for faith at a young age as a valid explanation for things instead of pursuing questions more critically.

 

As a side note, I am already well aware of the futility of Creationist/theist debates, which is why I started this thread. This was actually more of a rant thread than anything else, but it got sidetracked.

[jenifer1972]

Exactly. Most people have fixed delusions when it comes to politics and religion, but it is interesting to discuss nonetheless!

 

I used to think it was the best state of being to be very intelligent, but over the years I have come to doubt my premise on this. Case in point: I think going through the world like Forrest Gump may lead to more happiness. I don't see terribly many brilliant people extremely happy. ie. All my physician colleagues. We are all pissed about so many things that we all see wrong with everything. But that is how we are trained essentially. To determine what is wrong and try to fix it if we can..

 

My intelligence has brought me pain. I saw that Reagan had Alzheimer's when he was still in the thick of his presidency. I used to say, "can't anyone else see that this guy has early dementia?? Holy Cow, he has his finger on the red button." But then, we elected the Village Idiot George Bush after that who had no excuse for his stupidity, so WTF?

 

I could also tell that George was lying through his teeth about WMD's. I'd argue with all my friends, "can't you see by his body language, eye contact, that this is all a bunch of crapola??"

 

And the politicians, news people, CEO's these days. The things they say and do...ie. Palin...Beck..Limbaugh....BP...Drives me almost to drink. I have to turn it off, the stupidity is so maddening. I have to get my news through Jon Stewart and Bill Mayer to make it less infuriating..

 

Anyway, wouldn't give up my IQ, but it is sometimes a double edged sword. You agree or disagree V?

[theBrokenMuse]

As a side note, I am already well aware of the futility of Creationist/theist debates, which is why I started this thread.

Just keep in mind that the debates aren't completely futile if you look at the bigger picture. Sure the participants themselves may not change their minds an inch but there are fence sitters around reading these types of things and if it makes them rethink their position, then you have done something of value.

[Eve]

Personally I think that for many a position whereby a person attributes personal wealth to God can be annoying to others simply because this cannot be replicated by them. I say this because mostly people behave like magpies, taking information from here and there and claiming it as their own. Often much of the stuff being replicated is not really from their true personality at all, it is learned.

 

Speaking in terms of receiving from The Holy Spirit can therefore be a redundant statement to many because they believe that they they can completely sustain themselves. Funnily enough, even people who say they believe in God can be simply replicating others/cultural norms also!

 

This highlights to me that the route of individuals coming to God personally was the correct option for God to take and within all of the religions there is only one that makes the claim that a personal relationship can be had. Hence, I do not get confused by what are essentially markers of faith, what is not of God and what is of God. This can be debated externally to the same over arching conclusions but once experienced the evidence is enough... and continues to grow.

 

Perfect system!.. which is highlighted by the fact that unbelievers are unbelievers and believers are believers. So, in my opinion, there is a limit to what can be replicated in this world and how much a person can educate their mind and this should be the case for God to exist in the first place.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[JamesM]

Vertex, I apologize for not getting back sooner.Last week was one of vacation, and how wrong of me to spend it on LS.

 

In fact, I had a long rebuttal to your last long response to my post all typed out last Tuesday, and somehow it disappeared. My frustration was high but my time was short after that. So it will have to remain lost.

 

But as always, the best rebuttals are the ones that somehow disappeared in cyberspace.

 

BTW, none of my words were intended to degrade you even in the slightest. My apologies to you if you took it as such.

 

And yes, I have heard of your many "evidences" against the idea that there is intelligence design in the world. I have read many pages on talkorigin over the years and have read many rebuttals to their claims also. If I respond again, then I am guessing that this thread will be a debate about evolution more than about theism in general. And I have been down that road many times.

 

Perhaps a slightly different road. Although it will still be technically off topic.

 

Looking back at some of your posts, I can sense why some feel there is no reason to respond as your arguments against theism in general mask over an apparent anger...or did I read that wrong? I got that feeling from the following post....

 

My main gripes against religion:

 

1. When a child has a religion pushed upon him/her, he/she is being stunted from being a skeptical human being who can analyze things critically. I think it's dangerous to jump through formative stages with a mindset of "You don't need to question anything or seek information or analyze evidence critically -- God did it, and anything to the contrary is invalid automatically somehow." I feel this sort of mindset also has far-reaching residual effects where social dysfunctions are concerned.

 

Every parent pushes something on their child. As a child with a well educated father who was a biochemist in a major company, I was never taught to not question what I believed but instead was taught to discover why he was teaching me what he taught me. I know of many parents who teach there children that their is no god and get angry if the child wants to learn about God. This is the same thing you abhor except from the other angle.

 

Social dysfunctions come from poor parenting and not simply what is being taught.

 

2. I need not mention all the countless occurrences of violence, war, rape, slavery, misogyny, discrimination (e.g. homosexuals), and atrocities committed in the name of religion, but I shall mention it anyway. I need not also mention all the monetary costs associated with the negative consequences of religion, but I too will mention it anyway.

 

Actually, you seem to want to give credibility to only the bad things and choose to ignore the many good things.

 

All of the above things have been done in the name of race, religion, gender and simply out of anger. As for discrimination, one only needs to read about William Wilberforce to discover how he pushed for the abolishing of slavery.

 

*Note: Contrary to popular belief, much charity contribution is done by the non-religious even though religion is ever-pervasive. I would also make the argument that religious entities are more self-serving with money than they are selfless.

 

Feel free to make the argument. Is their support for it?

 

 

3. Religion seems to be one of those systems where it is dangerous to be a public figure that speaks out against it. Forget running for President or some other state office or place of authority if you're atheist -- I find it strange that belief in the illogical is almost a prerequisite to being a political figure (or even a Supreme Court Justice).

 

I find it strange that one would call a belief in a God illogical.

 

 

4. I feel like those with religion may be doing themselves a disservice if they feel that this life doesn't matter because there will be an afterlife waiting for them. It may incentivize people not to live their lives to the fullest (I recently had a debate with a Christian who went as far as to say that this life was meaningless and that it was merely a test for the eternal Afterlife).

 

First off, I would agree that this life is meaningless in the sense that "if" (and I say if for you) there is an after life which is eternal. Time here is just a minute compared to what awaits us.

 

However, ironically, most Christians (and probably theists) feel that because an after life awaits us, they most do as much work for their God as possible before they die. Hence, the charitable work.

 

5. In general, I feel that any positive emotional attribute or component of "meaning" can be had under atheism to begin with. I live a very happy, altruistic, loving, satisfying, meaningful life that is not motivated by any fear of the supernatural. I'd argue that my life has these qualities in more profound and stronger ways than it would had I been religious.

 

I don't know you, so I cannot argue one way or another.

 

I do agree that most of the outward emotional benefits can be had by anyone. I do think that Christianity goes much deeper than that. Ask anyone who believes that they are a converted or rather saved Christian. What is the greatest "benefit" of being saved by the grace given by God?

 

But back to your original post...

 

There's just so much evidence and understanding out there and takes a massive dump on theism (especially Creationism) that I just cannot fathom anymore why theists choose to disregard and ignore it.

 

Most theists do not question the evidence. They only question the interpretation of the evidence. And if the evidence is interpreted from a naturalistic view and with no possible inclusion of a God, then how can someone who believes that there is a God and that there is intelligent design behind this world think that the interpretation and understanding is complete?

 

This has nothing to do with disregarding the evidence.

 

Every theist I ever debate seems to be exactly the same. They all seem to possess the same degree of ignorance, the same inclination to misunderstand arguments, and oftentimes they don't even fully know their own material that they supposedly believe in.

 

And a final thought to consider when debating those that disagree with you....always remember (and I say it to myself), when we consider the one we debate as somehow less intelligent or ignorant, then we do ourselves a disservice. Personally, I debate for a few reasons (and I never do it to win) and mainly it is to learn. I try not to feel that I am above the other person even if I "know" I am right, because I realize now that I am middle aged, this person could be someone who teaches me something important in life. And perhaps it may also be possible that I could have an opportunity to get this person to also think a little differently.

 

IMO, arrogance is only one step off from ignorance. (and that was NOT a personal dig at you or anyone.)

 

Now....it may be awhile before I respond....depending on the time.

[TheLoneSock]

Very well said James.

[VertexSquared]

Vertex, I apologize for not getting back sooner.Last week was one of vacation, and how wrong of me to spend it on LS.

 

In fact, I had a long rebuttal to your last long response to my post all typed out last Tuesday, and somehow it disappeared. My frustration was high but my time was short after that. So it will have to remain lost.

 

But as always, the best rebuttals are the ones that somehow disappeared in cyberspace.

 

BTW, none of my words were intended to degrade you even in the slightest. My apologies to you if you took it as such.

 

No worries -- hope your vacation went well!

 

 

Looking back at some of your posts, I can sense why some feel there is no reason to respond as your arguments against theism in general mask over an apparent anger...or did I read that wrong? I got that feeling from the following post....

 

Every parent pushes something on their child. As a child with a well educated father who was a biochemist in a major company, I was never taught to not question what I believed but instead was taught to discover why he was teaching me what he taught me. I know of many parents who teach there children that their is no god and get angry if the child wants to learn about God. This is the same thing you abhor except from the other angle.

 

Social dysfunctions come from poor parenting and not simply what is being taught.

 

Yes, I would agree that I do have an anger towards religion. And yes, parents do push things onto their kids, but I feel that religion is inherently "closed" whereas science is inherently "open." Science is an ever-changing concept. Many religions do not ever change with the times. This, to me, is a fundamental issue. Social dysfunctions do come from poor parenting, but I've seen countless cases where people endure such hardships (socially/emotionally/spiritually/intellectually/etc) because their faith grinds against some current situation in their lives. It's a horrible sort of dissonance that I think can be really unhealthy. I do think that the material being taught is indeed relevant.

 

 

 

Actually, you seem to want to give credibility to only the bad things and choose to ignore the many good things.

 

All of the above things have been done in the name of race, religion, gender and simply out of anger. As for discrimination, one only needs to read about William Wilberforce to discover how he pushed for the abolishing of slavery.

 

I don't deny that religion can be used for good. But I simply think the bad outweigh the good. An insanely high number of moral "issues" in our society today have religious underpinnings. Many historical wars/bloodsheds/discriminations/entitlements had religion as the justifying impetus. For example, I am myself not a homosexual man, but it utterly disgusts me to see people so blatantly discriminate against them because they think it's what God wants.

 

 

Feel free to make the argument. Is their support for it?

 

I'll dig some stuff up when I get a chance.

 

 

 

I find it strange that one would call a belief in a God illogical.

 

What I mean here specifically is that there's nothing about our natural universe today that would end with the logical result "Therefore, God exists." A belief in one God is just as good as a belief in any other God, or any other phenomenon at all, for that matter.

 

 

Most theists do not question the evidence. They only question the interpretation of the evidence. And if the evidence is interpreted from a naturalistic view and with no possible inclusion of a God, then how can someone who believes that there is a God and that there is intelligent design behind this world think that the interpretation and understanding is complete?

 

This has nothing to do with disregarding the evidence.

 

Difference in system. I take evidence and construct an explanation around it based on the very merits of that evidence. I don't hold onto an explanation and warp the evidence around until something fits. That is, quite literally, just making something up. It's like showing that the world is round but having someone try to fit the flatworld theory to the evidence.

 

 

And a final thought to consider when debating those that disagree with you....always remember (and I say it to myself), when we consider the one we debate as somehow less intelligent or ignorant, then we do ourselves a disservice. Personally, I debate for a few reasons (and I never do it to win) and mainly it is to learn. I try not to feel that I am above the other person even if I "know" I am right, because I realize now that I am middle aged, this person could be someone who teaches me something important in life. And perhaps it may also be possible that I could have an opportunity to get this person to also think a little differently.

 

IMO, arrogance is only one step off from ignorance. (and that was NOT a personal dig at you or anyone.)

 

Now....it may be awhile before I respond....depending on the time.

 

Great points -- thanks for the reply.

[TheLoneSock]

I feel that religion is inherently "closed" whereas science is inherently "open." Science is an ever-changing concept. Many religions do not ever change with the times.

 

Sure, science is open... that is, until you disagree with it's logic, then you are considered an imbecile, or 'out of touch' with reality, right? Actually, that's not open at all, is it? It's completely rigid. 600 years ago when scientists told everyone the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, it was considered fact - and anyone who disputed it was considered loony. We see the same pattern today, after many centuries nothing has changed. Anyone with a belief outside of science is still considered 'ignorant'. At least by you.

 

Then there is the assumption religions don't change or evolve. Is that why Christianity has branched out into dozens of different sects over the course of the past millennium? Lutherans believe different things than Baptists; Mormon's believe different things than Catholics. Religion DOES evolve, and is constantly changing. The catalyst for this change is interpretation, just like it is in science. You refuse to agree with that because you dislike religion in general.

 

Science is no different than religion. It is a system of beliefs, nothing more. People who believe in science do so based on faith just the same as religious people do for their God. You look at things and say, "Ok, based on this, this and this, I believe this - and choose not to believe this." When it boils right down to it, that's exactly what it is. That's fine, I respect that - you however do not respect the other end of the spectrum. I think James is right (though he didn't direct this at you), in that you do not debate to learn, you debate in an effort to conquer, to win (whatever it is you're trying to win), or as you would put it 'dismantle' someone's entire belief system.

 

For an atheist who's constant complaint is that you hate when religion is shoved down people's throats, you sure do a pretty good job at trying to shove science down the same way.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TheLoneSock
typo

[VertexSquared]

Sure, science is open... that is, until you disagree with it's logic, then you are considered an imbecile, or 'out of touch' with reality, right? Actually, that's not open at all, is it? It's completely rigid. 600 years ago when scientists told everyone the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, it was considered fact - and anyone who disputed it was considered loony. We see the same pattern today, after many centuries nothing has changed. Anyone with a belief outside of science is still considered 'ignorant'. At least by you.

 

Those are not what we consider facts under the scientific method. Saying the Earth is flat would be a theory. Saying that the Earth was the center of everything was a theory (the Geocentric theory). These are not "facts." Facts are different from theories. I call someone ignorant when they are either unaware of the evidence (and simply base a theory on incomplete notions) or literally ignore the evidence altogether (even if it's contradictory). It is not meant to be antagonistic to call someone ignorant unless it's the latter case. There's never a good reason to simply ignore something. I feel, however, that many theists do this.

 

 

Science is no different than religion. It is a system of beliefs, nothing more. People who believe in science do so based on faith just the same as religious people do for their God. You look at things and say, "Ok, based on this, this and this, I believe this - and choose not to believe this." When it boils right down to it, that's exactly what it is. That's fine, I respect that - you however do not respect the other end of the spectrum. I think James is right (though he didn't direct this at you), in that you do not debate to learn, you debate in an effort to conquer, to win (whatever it is you're trying to win), or as you would put it 'dismantle' someone's entire belief system.

 

Except this is simply not the case. Science is very much different from religion and is not faith-based: It is evidence-based. To say that science changes is not to imply that certain facts change. We can observe gravity in effect and this is a cold, hard fact. Even if the nature of gravity and how it works changes, the Law of Gravity will always be a Law. Theories change. But theories are always the result of cumulative evidence and are the best possible explanation for something. Science isn't "faith" here because we see that it works. We can create new technologies, cure sicknesses, calculate extravagant applications mathematically, learn more about our planet and its history, and so forth. The computer you use, for instance, was not built on faith. It was built on evidence. Making a computer on faith would be putting together whatever parts you wanted and believing that it would function as a computer. Faith is, by definition, something in absence of evidence. Otherwise it isn't technically faith.

 

And, no, my aim is not "to win." My aim is to understand why theists hold the positions they do. The rationale is what often bothers me. JamesM says it is a reinterpretation of the evidence, but in my opinion, I don't feel this to be the case. I don't typically see theists refute the evidence in a new way. I usually see either a blatant disregarding of evidence or a broad-brush "It doesn't matter, God did it" as if that is sufficient justification for a certain phenomenon. To say that facts A, B, and C support theory X is to say something scientific and not based on faith. But I'll usually have a theist say "Well, even if A, B, and C support X and may contradict my faith, F, I believe that F is still right." This, to me, is not a valid reinterpretation.

 

 

For an atheist who's constant complaint is that you hate when religion is shoved down people's throats, you sure do a pretty good job at trying to shove science down the same way.

 

If you want to put it this way, then yes, I do feel like spreading education and free inquiry is important. I feel that spreading something that doesn't justify violence, racism, discrimination, atrocity, etc -- is important. I feel that having a society with more scientists is important.

[TheLoneSock]

Those are not what we consider facts under the scientific method. Saying the Earth is flat would be a theory. Saying that the Earth was the center of everything was a theory (the Geocentric theory). These are not "facts." Facts are different from theories. I call someone ignorant when they are either unaware of the evidence (and simply base a theory on incomplete notions) or literally ignore the evidence altogether (even if it's contradictory). It is not meant to be antagonistic to call someone ignorant unless it's the latter case. There's never a good reason to simply ignore something. I feel, however, that many theists do this.

 

Except this is simply not the case. Science is very much different from religion and is not faith-based: It is evidence-based. To say that science changes is not to imply that certain facts change. We can observe gravity in effect and this is a cold, hard fact. Even if the nature of gravity and how it works changes, the Law of Gravity will always be a Law. Theories change. But theories are always the result of cumulative evidence and are the best possible explanation for something. Science isn't "faith" here because we see that it works. We can create new technologies, cure sicknesses, calculate extravagant applications mathematically, learn more about our planet and its history, and so forth. The computer you use, for instance, was not built on faith. It was built on evidence. Making a computer on faith would be putting together whatever parts you wanted and believing that it would function as a computer. Faith is, by definition, something in absence of evidence. Otherwise it isn't technically faith.

 

And, no, my aim is not "to win." My aim is to understand why theists hold the positions they do. The rationale is what often bothers me. JamesM says it is a reinterpretation of the evidence, but in my opinion, I don't feel this to be the case. I don't typically see theists refute the evidence in a new way. I usually see either a blatant disregarding of evidence or a broad-brush "It doesn't matter, God did it" as if that is sufficient justification for a certain phenomenon. To say that facts A, B, and C support theory X is to say something scientific and not based on faith. But I'll usually have a theist say "Well, even if A, B, and C support X and may contradict my faith, F, I believe that F is still right." This, to me, is not a valid reinterpretation.

 

In other words, you are upset (the title of your thread says you are bothered) that theists do not come to the same conclusion as you after seeing the evidence. Why is this so confusing? I'll use your own example - gravity. I won't dispute that gravity exists. I also won't dispute what creates that gravity - the mass of the earth. I won't even dispute where the earth came from originally - the big bang (theory). However, I will dispute that God not only made all of these things possible, but actually had a hand in it. You do not come to the same conclusion. I look at facts A (gravity), B (mass), and C (the big bang, if you can call it fact yet), and still come to conclusion F (faith). It is all interpretation, and you believe something different than what I believe. You cannot prove me wrong, and I cannot prove you wrong because people will believe what they believe regardless, so to push this idea any further simply becomes semantics.

 

The 'evidence', is not being ignored, it is only being interpreted differently than you. Religion is not a theory, or an incomplete notion. It is fact to those who follow it, and faith is all that's required of it's followers. That's the beauty of it.

 

You seem to think that faith and religion are a burden. Maybe that's how you interpreted it when it was being pressed upon you at a young age. It is not a burden, nor does it enslave people's minds or ideas. It is empowering and uplifting. People are free to come and go from religion when ever they want simply by choosing to believe differently. Christ didn't say 'submit', he said decide. Modern scientists and people like yourself, however, say submit to the irrefutable evidence and come to the same conclusion as us, else you will be labeled ignorant.

 

If you want to put it this way, then yes, I do feel like spreading education and free inquiry is important. I feel that spreading something that doesn't justify violence, racism, discrimination, atrocity, etc -- is important. I feel that having a society with more scientists is important.

 

Just because bad apples have used religion as a front to do their evil deeds does not make religion a sponsor of evil deeds. To come to that conclusion is, in fact, nearly the definition of ignorance.

 

This is like me saying that Dr. Sigmund Rascher's scientific and medical experiments on holocaust victims at Dachau and Auschwitz makes all of science evil. But do I come to that conclusion, and condemn scientific pursuit as a root of evil? No.

 

Let me also remind you that while faith and religion did not create computers, they also did not create the nerve agents Tabun and Serin. They did not create gun powder. They did not create biological warfare. Science did. Yet, I still hold back my condemnation, because I understand and do not let a few bad apples spoil the entire bushel.

[VertexSquared]

As a black woman, certain scientist use their education to justify all of the above against women and blacks. So do I need to say all scientist are responsible for the crimes committed based on this so called truth? No. That's what logical people do. We accept there are butt monkeys in every field, every race, every religion or lack of. It is a sad part of human nature that unfortunately we all have to deal with at some point. To blame one entity over all others is silly.

 

That's just a function of arrogance, which can be said for any individual. But mass-scale discrimination of homosexuality? Wars that get justified by no evidence? Years of slavery? You cannot blame science for any of that because science doesn't make moral calls. However, we CAN blame religion for those things BECAUSE they *were* the causes and still remain justification points.

[VertexSquared]

In other words, you are upset (the title of your thread says you are bothered) that theists do not come to the same conclusion as you after seeing the evidence. Why is this so confusing? I'll use your own example - gravity. I won't dispute that gravity exists. I also won't dispute what creates that gravity - the mass of the earth. I won't even dispute where the earth came from originally - the big bang (theory). However, I will dispute that God not only made all of these things possible, but actually had a hand in it. You do not come to the same conclusion. I look at facts A (gravity), B (mass), and C (the big bang, if you can call it fact yet), and still come to conclusion F (faith). It is all interpretation, and you believe something different than what I believe. You cannot prove me wrong, and I cannot prove you wrong because people will believe what they believe regardless, so to push this idea any further simply becomes semantics.

 

So you believe that the universe is an entirely standalone entity only created by God?

 

I ask you, then, why assume a God? It doesn't get any closer to any sort of conclusion in terms of "having a hand" in things if you assume everything else is naturally caused (such as the formation of the earth, etc). And, for instance, if you are to assume God has always existed, why not assume the universe has always existed, etc?

 

The 'evidence', is not being ignored, it is only being interpreted differently than you. Religion is not a theory, or an incomplete notion. It is fact to those who follow it, and faith is all that's required of it's followers. That's the beauty of it.

 

I'd argue that PLENTY of theists ignore the evidence. In this very thread we have people trying to knock evolution as a fact when this is akin to advocating the Stork theory. There's a difference between alternate interpretations and simply saying "I don't believe in fact X, Y, and Z."

 

You seem to think that faith and religion are a burden. Maybe that's how you interpreted it when it was being pressed upon you at a young age. It is not a burden, nor does it enslave people's minds or ideas. It is empowering and uplifting. People are free to come and go from religion when ever they want simply by choosing to believe differently. Christ didn't say 'submit', he said decide. Modern scientists and people like yourself, however, say submit to the irrefutable evidence and come to the same conclusion as us, else you will be labeled ignorant.

 

The problem is that not everyone uses faith in this way. Some people use it to punish, enslave, keep minds closed, etc. I am not against people using faith for good, obviously, but it's a dangerous tool when people think they can impose harm on others because of an unquestionable faith.

 

Just because bad apples have used religion as a front to do their evil deeds does not make religion a sponsor of evil deeds. To come to that conclusion is, in fact, nearly the definition of ignorance.

 

But faith is a personalized concept, and, as you say, faith is all that is required. If that's all someone needs to justify a misdeed, I'd say that's extremely dangerous.

 

This is like me saying that Dr. Sigmund Rascher's scientific and medical experiments on holocaust victims at Dachau and Auschwitz makes all of science evil. But do I come to that conclusion, and condemn scientific pursuit as a root of evil? No.

 

The thing is that science was not the *cause* of those types of experiments. People who commit those kinds of atrocious acts don't do so *because* they're atheists or scientists, etc. Plenty of people commit atrocities *in the name* of their Deity/God.

 

Let me also remind you that while faith and religion did not create computers, they also did not create the nerve agents Tabun and Serin. They did not create gun powder. They did not create biological warfare. Science did. Yet, I still hold back my condemnation, because I understand and do not let a few bad apples spoil the entire bushel.

 

We can certainly use science to create things that cause great destruction and harm to humans. But I ask you this: When would we ever find ourselves needing to use them?

[TaraMaiden]

I think you're confusing people doing things in the name of religion, and Religion.

 

And slavery didn't originate in the west. the first slave traders of Africans, were - Africans. The first people to use slaves were people of similar cultures and backgrounds.

Slavery originated by conquering and overthrowing communities and nations, and engineered by neighbouring tribes and nations.

Slavery was a way of weakening a society by capturing them and dominating them through submission.

Slavery was never the original fault of white religious people. Originally, slaves were victims of their own fellow countrymen. The same countrymen who saw a way of conquering civilisations, dominating people, taking over their lands AND turning a neat profit as a bonus.

 

Just to clarify.....

[TaraMaiden]

The problem is that not everyone uses faith in this way. Some people use it to punish, enslave, keep minds closed, etc. I am not against people using faith for good, obviously, but it's a dangerous tool when people think they can impose harm on others because of an unquestionable faith.

You make my point.

It's not the religion, it's the religious who are at fault....

 

But faith is a personalized concept, and, as you say, faith is all that is required. If that's all someone needs to justify a misdeed, I'd say that's extremely dangerous.

The faith is not dangerous. The 'faithful' is dangerous.

 

The thing is that science was not the *cause* of those types of experiments. People who commit those kinds of atrocious acts don't do so *because* they're atheists or scientists, etc. Plenty of people commit atrocities *in the name* of their Deity/God.

 

Where is there a difference in misguided fanatical scientists doing things in the name of science, and misguided religious fanatics doing things in the name of religion?

 

We can certainly use science to create things that cause great destruction and harm to humans. But I ask you this: When would we ever find ourselves needing to use them?

 

Are you serious?

ever heard of napalm?

Ever heard of germ warfare?

Ever heard of the atomic bomb?

Ever heard of nuclear weapons?

 

All scientifically created.

all used.

[VertexSquared]

You make my point.

It's not the religion, it's the religious who are at fault....

 

The faith is not dangerous. The 'faithful' is dangerous.

 

Certainly, but I'd rather not give the violent-prone individuals weapons, here.

 

 

Where is there a difference in misguided fanatical scientists doing things in the name of science, and misguided religious fanatics doing things in the name of religion?

 

I can't think of many examples of people deriving their morality from a bloodthirsty need to advance science without some sort of quasireligion involved.

 

Are you serious?

ever heard of napalm?

Ever heard of germ warfare?

Ever heard of the atomic bomb?

Ever heard of nuclear weapons?

 

All scientifically created.

all used.

 

Of course, but the point I was trying to make is that such things would likely not need to be used without religion as the backing justification for their use (say, a war resultant of some religious foundation).

[TheLoneSock]

I ask you, then, why assume a God? It doesn't get any closer to any sort of conclusion in terms of "having a hand" in things if you assume everything else is naturally caused (such as the formation of the earth, etc). And, for instance, if you are to assume God has always existed, why not assume the universe has always existed, etc?

 

I don't have to believe that the universe always existed just because I believe that God existed before it. That is why I believe in creationism, be it directly or indirectly. It doesn't come closer to any sort of conclusion for you. It goes all the way back to the concept of logically, scientifically proving that the divine exists. Grace cannot be measured, and most certainly not with science's playing field. Just because we cannot put divine grace in front of you, using your own barometer, does not mean it isn't there.

 

I'd argue that PLENTY of theists ignore the evidence. In this very thread we have people trying to knock evolution as a fact when this is akin to advocating the Stork theory. There's a difference between alternate interpretations and simply saying "I don't believe in fact X, Y, and Z."

 

You are talking to me right now, not them. And this is not you trying to understand them, as you say you are. This is you still trying to prove them wrong.

 

The problem is that not everyone uses faith in this way. Some people use it to punish, enslave, keep minds closed, etc. I am not against people using faith for good, obviously, but it's a dangerous tool when people think they can impose harm on others because of an unquestionable faith.

 

Some people. Do you throw out the whole bushel of apples because you find a few bad ones? We covered this already. Now you're just going backwards.

 

The thing is that science was not the *cause* of those types of experiments. People who commit those kinds of atrocious acts don't do so *because* they're atheists or scientists, etc. Plenty of people commit atrocities *in the name* of their Deity/God.

 

Scientific pursuit and scientific experiments are the direct cause of their existence. You say that people who commit scientific based, atrocious acts don't do so because they are atheists or scientists; the exact same can be said for religious based, atrocious acts. You excuse science and separate those who would do harm in it's name on the basis that that individual person is making a personal, moral decision. Yet, you can't do the same for religion, because SURELY the people who commit atrocities in the name of their God aren't doing so because of their own personal, moral decisions. Right? This is pure hypocrisy. You clearly have a vendetta against religion. It is blatantly obvious and cheapens the quality of this discussion.

 

We can certainly use science to create things that cause great destruction and harm to humans. But I ask you this: When would we ever find ourselves needing to use them?

 

The question you pose is nothing but a trap - you still cannot get off of the idea that wars are religion based (yeah, they have nothing to do with political and economic goals...). Are you saying that the scientific creation of all these horrible things is justified because war exists? That is no justification at all.

 

This debate is delving further and further into semantics and I find myself getting tired of it. You are clearly not here to learn as you say you are, because while my arguments are meant to make you understand my position and why I think the way I do, your arguments are meant to tell me I'm wrong. This is why people refuse to engage with you. It has nothing to do with you 'dismantling' people's beliefs, as I can quote you saying.

[TaraMaiden]

Certainly, but I'd rather not give the violent-prone individuals weapons, here.

 

So what changes would you bring about to ensure the religious fanatics don't 'have the weapons'?

By the very virtue of the 1st and 2nd Amendment, effectively, your legislation is 'foisted by its own petard'....

 

 

 

 

I can't think of many examples of people deriving their morality from a bloodthirsty need to advance science without some sort of quasireligion involved.

And America got caught up in WW2 and Vietnam, because.....?

The Falkland Islands off the coast of south America, are still British territory, because....?

 

I can think of many.

I really don't think it's a sound logical equation to say that most conflict has a religious basis as its root. Hitler never began his conflict on a religious basis. His quest to create a master race was base on Arian superiority, but this is why he himself decided to not have children. he did not consider himself 'pure' enough.

 

 

 

Of course, but the point I was trying to make is that such things would likely not need to be used without religion as the backing justification for their use (say, a war resultant of some religious foundation).

 

See my comments above.....

[Ronni_W]

The problem is that not everyone uses faith in this way. Some people use it to punish, enslave, keep minds closed, etc.

...

The thing is that science was not the *cause* of those types of experiments. People who commit those kinds of atrocious acts don't do so *because* they're atheists or scientists, etc. Plenty of people commit atrocities *in the name* of their Deity/God.

Vs,

Are you saying that there are no, and have never been any nutjob, greedy, power-hungry, fearful, psychopathic scientists or atheists?

That never have there been atrocities committed in the name of science?

 

And, has it occurred to you that, although you are an atheist, you use (other people's) religion/faith to (try to) punish and humiliate them (through your name-calling and negative labeling) and to (try to) oppress what is in their minds and hearts...which is actually you trying to enslave them to your way of thinking.

 

These types of acts are NOT just restricted to those with Faith!

[NoIDidn't]

This debate is delving further and further into semantics and I find myself getting tired of it. You are clearly not here to learn as you say you are, because while my arguments are meant to make you understand my position and why I think the way I do, your arguments are meant to tell me I'm wrong. [/i]This is why people refuse to engage with you. It has nothing to do with you 'dismantling' people's beliefs, as I can quote you saying.

 

 

....THIS....

 

BTW, TLS, that was a GREAT post that VS basically didn't even try to understand.

[pureinheart]

Exactly. Why would anyone want to talk a person out of his beliefs? If it offers them comfort and peace, then, I'd say it is a good thing. As long as they don't forcefully and aggressively try to push their beliefs down other people's throat, I say more power to them! In fact, there are plenty of times when I wish I had an unfailing creed to help me get through hard times. I have tried many times to adopt a faith but the truth is logic always gets in the way.

 

Anyway, both sides have to respect eachother's stance on the issue. That's what's important. Respect. And acceptance.

 

Very well put Marlena (as usual). This is something I need to work as the tone of a person, whether it be here or talking face to face, if it is obnoxious, that tends to set me off.

 

Those of my faith would cringe at what I am about to say...I don't care if anyone else believes the way I do...since I am not God, their destiny is not in my hands, if I am led to say something I leave it at that and there usually is reason behind it, and there are major results that proceed the words (that lets me know it's God and not me).

 

Marlena, I could care less what you believe or don't believe...I like you for YOU. I know that our beliefs shape us, also life happenings, although I still gravitate to those that are well versed and not unbecoming...that IMO is the biggest seller.

 

In bold is true humility and one of the hardest things to do, although it can be done:)