|
atheism just another religion? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Damerchi
i cant stand it when people that rationilze to themselves that they conciously decided the beleif in the religion that has been forced upon them as a kid. |
What are your thoughts on people who chose their faith as adults? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Science contradicts the Bible in many different areas, and if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH, you are at a disadvantage. When the data doesn't match up with the "holy word", your only option is to renounce the bible as false..or reject what all of your senses are telling you. |
You have vastly over-simplified things here. When what the bible tells you doesn't match the data then you need to reevaluate what you believe about what you've read. Maybe you should look further, after-all the Bible is certainly not the be all and end all of religion... hell, it's not even the be all and end all of the one religion that it actually pertains to. If data doesn't match up with a scientific theory is that theory just thrown aside? If you think yes then you need to reexamine Newton's laws, as they do not always match the data. My point is; if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH then you need to consult as many sources as you can... if your quest for TRUTH starts and ends with either the Bible or science or even a contrasting thereof then you're really not pursuing your goal very well. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
It's funny what poorly informed people will do to try and avoid looking like fools. |
you mean like putting someone on ignore in order to disengage from a debate? :stongue: |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
...after-all the Bible is certainly not the be all and end all of religion... hell, it's not even the be all and end all of the one religion that it actually pertains to. |
there's a significant number of theists who'd disagree with you on that point, including religious leaders throughout history.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
If data doesn't match up with a scientific theory is that theory just thrown aside? |
no, it is modified (so long as it has any merit), which would be a part of the scientific method; does the theistic equivalent have an equivalent method for this? if so, how long has it been in practice?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
if your quest for TRUTH starts and ends with either the Bible or science or even a contrasting thereof then you're really not pursuing your goal very well. |
*cough* you sure about that? unless you had some unique interpretation of 'truth' in mind. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
there's a significant number of theists who'd disagree with you on that point, including religious leaders throughout history. |
There are a significant number of people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government... that doesn't give them any credibility. First.. the Bible pertains to Christianity exclusively. Second... the Catholic church recognizes the writings of a great many theologians as being incredibly important works in understanding their own religion... it is a living religion that has evolved through examination and reason. With regard to the protestant christian faiths, given that they owe their very existence to the work of theologians who looked beyond the Bible itself for answers I have a very hard time accepting that they could legitimately argue that the Bible is the be all and end all.
| quote: | | no, it is modified (so long as it has any merit), which would be a part of the scientific method; does the theistic equivalent have an equivalent method for this? if so, how long has it been in practice? |
Most of the major religions (aside from a few radically fundamentalist sects) have gone through changes in belief over the years to reconcile themselves with evidence that seemingly contradicts their beliefs. The Hindu faith has three major anthologies of sacred texts written over more then a thousand years; each of which alters their beliefs to fit with newly acquired knowledge. The belief that the Judeo-Christian creation story was a metaphor rather then fact took hold long before science proved that it could not be as written and nearly all Christian faiths now believe that much of the bible is metaphoric. Religion has to be reconciled with reason and the major faiths do this quite well (hell, the Vatican spends an inordinate amount of time and resources trying to disprove alleged miracles).
| quote: | | *cough* you sure about that? unless you had some unique interpretation of 'truth' in mind. |
Given that science can only ever hope to explain what is measurable by humans then it is limited in it's scope thus cannot be the only tool used to reach any "truth" that cannot be measured... say for example; the origin of the universe. Any quest for truth has to consider all available information. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Given that science can only ever hope to explain what is measurable by humans then it is limited in it's scope thus cannot be the only tool used to reach any "truth" that cannot be measured... say for example; the origin of the universe. Any quest for truth has to consider all available information. |
you left the statement wide open, rather than qualify it only to the truths that cannot be measured, hence my reply.
anyway, i'll reply to the rest of your post if i have anything worthwhile to say or ask once i'm not as drunk as i currently am. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
you left the statement wide open, rather than qualify it only to the truths that cannot be measured, hence my reply. |
I thought it was a given that not everything is measurable therefore if one limits their search to the measurable they are not really pursuing truth, which is why I didn't qualify the word truth. Regardless, I think we understand each other. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think you have it wrong, Lira. Atheism is the antithesis of theism; therefore, it must assert that there is no god by it's very definition. A rejection of theism is not atheism, as it simply means one does not accept theism, which is not the same as stating there is no God. A lack of belief is not atheism either, as it is simply the absence of a position. If you consider yourself an atheist; however, you do not take the positive position that there is no god then you have miscatagorized yourself. |
This concept of atheism is too narrow a description, I reckon. However, if these other instances regarding theism are not to be considered forms of atheism, then what are they? I think the ball is in your court now :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
This concept of atheism is too narrow a description, I reckon. However, if these other instances regarding theism are not to be considered forms of atheism, then what are they? I think the ball is in your court now :p |
I already classified them... do you want me to give each a fancy name? |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I didn't ignore your post and I stand by what I said..strong religious belief is certainly a handicap. Science contradicts the Bible in many different areas, and if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH, you are at a disadvantage. When the data doesn't match up with the "holy word", your only option is to renounce the bible as false..or reject what all of your senses are telling you. That qualifies as a mental handicap in my book..and the huge number of people who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible are the most obviously crippled.
As for me, I'm not a pure athiest. I consider myself agnostic leaning atheist. I don't discount the idea that we might be the creation of a higher power but since it is very unlikely statistically and since there is absolutely zero evidence or reliable historical data on the "proofs" of God's power (miracles, etc), my default position is that he doesn't exist...and the chances of any God resembling the dozens of "holy books" written by mankind is 0.00% IMO, all religion is utter BS, and the fact that billions of people live according to mystical beliefs rather than reason is really holding us back as a civilization. |
Again, more baseless opinions. And you DID still ignore my other post.
If Science tells me something in the bible is impossible, why should I throw the entire book out? I do not live according to fundamentalist Christianity, I don't believe that every single thing in the Bible is literally true. This is something called Biblical inerrancy and some Creationists do hold to it but most thinking persons do not.
And seeing as how some of the greatest innovations and steps forward in science have come from truly devout men, I have to take your "holding back civilization claim" and declare it utterly false. Especially when, for instance, the Pope frequently reads science journals and agrees with Astro Biologists on a regular basis :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Again, more baseless opinions. And you DID still ignore my other post.
If Science tells me something in the bible is impossible, why should I throw the entire book out? I do not live according to fundamentalist Christianity, I don't believe that every single thing in the Bible is literally true. This is something called Biblical inerrancy and some Creationists do hold to it but most thinking persons do not.
And seeing as how some of the greatest innovations and steps forward in science have come from truly devout men, I have to take your "holding back civilization claim" and declare it utterly false. Especially when, for instance, the Pope frequently reads science journals and agrees with Astro Biologists on a regular basis :p |
I think you hit on a very common problem here. Many people who profess to be atheists and voice their grievances with religion do so as blanket statements when they actually only pertain to certain sects or interpretations. This is exacerbated by a confirmation bias through which they view any discrediting of any tenant of any religious sect or order to be a discrediting of all religions. It's painfully evident that most of the people voicing grievances with religion in this thread are really voicing grievances with Islam and Christianity and really just with the fundamentalist sects within each yet they make blanket statements on all religions based on their limited understanding of only a very small group of two religions. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think you hit on a very common problem here. Many people who profess to be atheists and voice their grievances with religion do so as blanket statements when they actually only pertain to certain sects or interpretations. This is exacerbated by a confirmation bias through which they view any discrediting of any tenant of any religious sect or order to be a discrediting of all religions. It's painfully evident that most of the people voicing grievances with religion in this thread are really voicing grievances with Islam and Christianity and really just with the fundamentalist sects within each yet they make blanket statements on all religions based on their limited understanding of only a very small group of two religions. |
Yes I have to agree.
I think people like Lira are a lot more informed, but for the most part atheists liked to target the softer targets like fundamentalists or bible literalists or Islam in general because of the actions of a few fringe sects.
Yes organized religion did bad things in the past, I don't think they should have done those things and I believe the Church nowadays conducts itself much much better and represents the average Christian a lot better. People need to be reminded that while, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church has done some terrible things in the past, it IS a human Church as much as it is a divine one. Bad people abusing power. As humans we aren't gifted with the ability to know what other peoples intentions are, and as a Christian, however naive this position may be, our default position is to assume that people intend well... Sadly this gives the arseholes that want power the chance they need sometimes.
The same can be said about skeptics and atheists, most are good honest people but some took their views too far and did terrible things just because they believed there was no one for them to answer to. IE: Stalin, Mao etc.
Do I think atheists are bad people? No of course not. Nor do I stand on street corners or even reflect privately in regards to "where they are going" afterwards because as a Christian I am only concerned with the well being of others and not the negative consequences that some fundies and literalists love to threaten non-believers/other religious people with. |
|
|
|
|
