Well I have noticed that the percentages of atheists are higher in more well educated countries and that the majority of the more intelligent people are atheists.
Do you have any evidence for this statement?
So what does this tell us? Well god are an invention by man to explain the unexplainable and as societies are developing more and more logical answers the role played by "god" weakens and science take over, but some people, not understanding modern ideas
Ah, poor, simple theist souls and their lack of understanding. I guess science was all a bit too advanced for guys such as Galileo, Newton, Planck and Einstein and that's why they believed in God.
, or just afraid of the scientific answers that tell them that there are no "redemption" still hang on to the "god", So, what scientific answers suggest there is no redemption? others just to have an cause to be superior before others and hurt society "in order to please god" in some way, Some nutters are religious and some aren't. I suspect most of the criminals who hurt society aren't, but that's just my guess.
So yes I’m an atheist and I’m proud of it
I would like to point out a couple of things...
First off, while I can't argue about more intelligent people (probably because intelligence is pretty relative), I can say a few things about the higher educated people:
There was a study in 1998 by the journal Nature and it found that of American scientists who where eminent enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences only ~7% believed in a personal God. And of the less eminent scientists not elected to the Academy they found only 40% believed. The British equivalent, the Fellows of Royal Society, found only around 3.3% believed strongly in a personal God and ~78-79% believed strongly against a personal God ( they had a scale, rather than a yes-no survey, like 1 - 10, 10 being strongly believed, 1 being no belief ). While you can debate their intelligence, you can't argue that these people aren't some of the most educated people in their societies.
I will bring up another thing, this deals more with intelligence -- rather IQ scores, so take it for what it's worth: they found that of 43 studies on the subject of IQ vs religion since 1927, only 4 of them found an inverse relationship ( inverse being higher IQ and higher religiosity ). As said, it's IQ scores, so whatever that means to you.
Your argument about scientists believing in a personal God is bad to begin with, however a few things I would like to note about it:
First and foremost, Einstein most certainly did not believe in a personal God, this is partly confusion on what he's said. He has said that he believes in god ( notice little 'g' ), and by 'god' he means nature, nothing supernatural nor personal about it. I will, in fact, quote him now:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
If you still do not believe me, look for a paper he wrote in 1940 justifying his non-belief in a personal God.
As for Galileo and Newton, consider the times they lived in. They lived before Darwin proposed evolution, but also in a time where going against the church most certainly meant death. In fact, if they were exposed to our science today, I would wonder if their beliefs would change. Also, another thing about the time they lived in: if you wanted to do anything in terms of science, you would have to go to a church in order to pursue them. So it's not that science was too advance for them, it was that science wasn't advanced enough in their time. I don't know what to say about Plank, he's an exception maybe?
Lurk a lot, but it's a pet peeve of mine, I guess, when people try and argue Einstein as theist.
Edit: confounded spelling and to clear one thing up.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
I thought he was a Jew. Did he not help make the Israeli state and after Chaim Weizmann died did Israel not offer him the presidency. Hmm with his actions later in life I seriously doubt he would have helped establish the Isreali state if he was an athiest.
I stated that I've found that in general more educated people tend to be atheists. I also stated education + intelligence are different. By educated I mean Ph.D., M.D., J.D. etc. With the exception of M.D., most people can get Ph.D.'s quite easily. Anyway, being educated doesn't mean you're smart or not, it means you have obtained knowledge.
A person before said intelligent people = atheists. I disagreed and said educated. They are two different things. I find people with advanced degrees, higher levels of education, tend to be atheist.
I am in no way saying education = intelligence, they are two different things. There are people who'll rape me on a test of knowledge, they are more educated than me on teh subject matter, but the table turns when we take a critical thinking test.
I've met uneducated people that are smarter than most of the big wig Ph.D. i've worked with etc. I am not knocking religious people, i'm making a comment. Of course nothing is absolute, but on average, more educated people seem to be atheist at a higher %. But then again educated is independent of intelligence.
Also, Draenor,
They do have decimals in isk and in EVE. I'm about to make a deal so when i finish the deal i'll tell you the exact amount, i think PlanoMM asked for how much isk I have. I also have 2 characters (2 accounts), one market character and one PvP. The market character makes the cash, the PvP loses it when I get owned in PvP.
31,696,648.54 isk
Also Draenor, I did not talk about latent DNA and promethian species or society.
Cryomatrix
hey, Cryo. me comments werent in any way directed at you (you made it clear what you were saying, i even quoted some of your stuff cause i agreed with it). i was referring to the moron that basicly called religious people uninteligent. as if inteligence has anything at all to do with it. pfft.
however, i would like to direct your attention to this portion of scripture in the Bible:
for ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
notice that it says "not many" are called. it doesnt say that none are called, just not many. im glad that im one of the "not many".
so if youre wondering why there are more athiests among educated people, theres your answer.
First off, while I can't argue about more intelligent people (probably because intelligence is pretty relative), I can say a few things about the higher educated people:
There was a study in 1998 by the journal Nature and it found that of American scientists who where eminent enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences only ~7% believed in a personal God. And of the less eminent scientists not elected to the Academy they found only 40% believed. The British equivalent, the Fellows of Royal Society, found only around 3.3% believed strongly in a personal God and ~78-79% believed strongly against a personal God ( they had a scale, rather than a yes-no survey, like 1 - 10, 10 being strongly believed, 1 being no belief ). While you can debate their intelligence, you can't argue that these people aren't some of the most educated people in their societies.
I'd be interested in reading more about these studies. Without knowing how they were conducted, the evidence here does just as much to suggest either a real or a perceived anti-religious prejudice within these scientific circles.
I will bring up another thing, this deals more with intelligence -- rather IQ scores, so take it for what it's worth: they found that of 43 studies on the subject of IQ vs religion since 1927, only 4 of them found an inverse relationship ( inverse being higher IQ and higher religiosity ). As said, it's IQ scores, so whatever that means to you.
Out of interest, you don't say how many found it the other way. Do you have that figure?
Your argument about scientists believing in a personal God is bad to begin with, however a few things I would like to note about it:
First and foremost, Einstein most certainly did not believe in a personal God, this is partly confusion on what he's said. He has said that he believes in god ( notice little 'g' ), and by 'god' he means nature, nothing supernatural nor personal about it. I will, in fact, quote him now:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
If you still do not believe me, look for a paper he wrote in 1940 justifying his non-belief in a personal God.
I'm aware Einstein didn't belive in a personal God and I never claimed otherwise. I got the impression that he believed in some kind of creator though.
As for Galileo and Newton, consider the times they lived in. They lived before Darwin proposed evolution, but also in a time where going against the church most certainly meant death. In fact, if they were exposed to our science today, I would wonder if their beliefs would change. Also, another thing about the time they lived in: if you wanted to do anything in terms of science, you would have to go to a church in order to pursue them. So it's not that science was too advance for them, it was that science wasn't advanced enough in their time. I don't know what to say about Plank, he's an exception maybe?
Agreed, we can't know what they might believe if they were around now. There's no evidence to suggest Newton was only religious to tow the line though. He spent much of his life studying the bible and searching for deeper meanings. Planck an exception? Along with so many exceptions that I don't think it's fair to suggest the word "exception" at all. Faraday, Mendel, Boyle, Kelvin, Joule, Pasteur.... even Lemaitre, who was the guy who propsed the bing bang theory, was a Catholic. I can't see that science has come any closer to providing any evidence against the existence of some kind of god. There are plenty of scientists working today who see studying science as studying God's creation.
Lurk a lot, but it's a pet peeve of mine, I guess, when people try and argue Einstein as theist.
Edit: confounded spelling and to clear one thing up.
I stated that the religious people I know never can really think for themselves unless they read it somewhere. And just so you know,there are not many "wise" and "intellegent " people in your religion and there never was. As you know ML king day is coming up so look up some history of the slaves and you'll see what they did to try to make them christian. It was very "unwise" and their religion is just recovering from it.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
In general EggFtegg and PlanoMM are not seeing where I'm going at all. I'm not saying the seven deadly sins or the 10 commandments are a praise for ignorance. I'm saying they have slight connotations towards ignorance, that, together with other negative factors in life, push you to adopt an ignorant life and believe it is accepted. These other factors include religious and non-religious tradition. However, non-religious tradition is far easier to break away from if proven false or harmful due to there being no real institution to back it up.
Not everyone does believe they're walking on eggshells when parttaking in religious study. I know a theologist (a pastor) that has enough self-esteem to point out flaws in the religious system, share his own views on theological subject matters and maintain his position. However, he has long ago lost any chance of advancing in the religious community. If you are afraid (like most people are) of getting stuck in place and limitting your carreer options and the amount of money you can make for your family, you will think twice about what you say and choose to study/delve into. I do believe this is a slight negative inclination towards ignorance.
The thing I'm most aiming at is that, because of religions, certain thresholds exist where there should be none by logical thought. The thresholds may be minute at most, but they're still tresholds.
To EggFtegg:
I dont see how suggesting there's a danger of any such institutions pushing their ideas on people is promoting ignorance. There's the same danger in schools. Doesn't the use of the word "danger" suggest it might not be something I necessarily approve of?
You see there are different approaches and foundations laid to different institutions. The foundations of educative facilities are in very tangible concepts: To teach people to understand and be able to participate in human society as best they can. Of course there's a danger of someone misusing that power or understanding it incorrectly. But there's always a higher authority, a school board or the government. Now of course those two are not infallible, but they're very tangible and people are capable of changing them, if only so slowly. Religion is self-interpretable and thus the people on top can take any of the statements in the Bible as their goal in life. Combined with the zeal of "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) you've got yourself a slightly less controllable situation. A religious uprising or founding a new movement is looked down upon from the get-go, so that's a tough one to accomplish. Your only real theistic choice is to jump religious communities or churches, which can be difficult when your whole community is the pawn of your current one.
What I'm saying is, the misuse of educational power is much easier to take care of and is looked down upon in the educational community. The misuse of religious power is very hard to define and if the leading group of zealots of a church is doing it, very hard to thwart(except by people leaving the community which has quite a large threshold with religion not being that vital in everyday life).
Then it sounds like your problem is with people who aren't capable of abstract and critical thinking and not the actual religions. What's so wrong with a text that can mean different things to different people? How is that promoting ignorance in any way?
Of course I have a problem with ignorant people, and it appears you do too. This does not, however, change the fact that certain aspects of current society have the tendency to create ignorance. I'm not saying it's only religion, or that religion is even 1/10th of it. I'm just saying religion promotes more ignorance than philosophical views that do not tie you down.
What are you saying here? We shouldn't have laws to protect people from being killed or robbed? There's no point teaching treat your neighbour as yourself types of conduct? We should let people find out for themselves that hurting others is bad? Is trying to prevent murder a restriction to abstract reasoning? Of course we can't expect anyone to act perfectly, why is anyone being misled by having a code of conduct to at least try to live up to?
That was me trying to say that anything can be changed if not deemed practical. The things you mentioned WERE NOT laws. a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? Those are not laws, at least not in my country. Those are rules of conduct set by people onto their peers. If the alternative (cheating as to finally enjoy yourself since your husband has turned into a vegetable or calling your father a shit so you can have child services take you away because of a physically abusive father) outweighs the rule of conduct, you should break it. It's not like the two aforementioned rules are set in stone.
Laws are similar. If a law is bad and has been shown to produce more harm than good, it should be ignored in certain cases or completely replaced/eliminated. The 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins do not have the option for change, only for slight interpretation. This is a limitting factor in one way or another. Some will want to explore the limits (whether it be by coveting your neighbour's wife when you're both in abusive relationships or (unfortunately) exploring what is a "justified" way to kill a person), but for most, it's just something to sit back on and feel comfortable (or ignorant).
Not relevant to what? If God did exist and you could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, would that be irrelevant to your life?
A personal relationship with the creator of the universe. I wish we all could, but it doesn't seem to be happening to people theist, atheist nor agnostic. Well at least it personally hasn't seemed to spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years. If he existed and if he could, it would be relevant. But I just don't know if he does or if he can have a personal relationship with me. You say this is a relevant thing... Why? I see some useless sentiment in the way of practicality.
PlanoMM:
please give examples of traditions that demote critical thinking or promote ignorance.
Will do:
1. Going to Church and being a part of the religious community in certain chores. It might not be much, but you have to spend a bit of time and effort on it. Most people don't like to question small religious chores since it would make going to church and praying that much more meaningless and futile and lead to depression since you can't think of anything else to do with your family since nothing else is put out there... Let alone your community, which will, in certain rural, areas shun you for being different. The fact that such a threshold exists, promotes ignorance.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays is a religious rite that has been instated by the state(here in Finland). It leads to people generally accepting the words of the old testament. These words do have quite a practical use in this case, but they could be reinstated as something not connected with religion. Sabbaticals were not a divine creation. People could have one day off every once in a while just because it's good for them, not because God tells them to. There's a certain restriction there. God tells you to rest on sundays even if you feel like working. If you're a good follower, you shouldn't make him mad. To work on Sundays and to bypass this rule requires a bit of a threshold as well.
2. Oppression of women in Islam. Hmm... How is telling half of your population what they can and cannot do based on religious dogma not promoting ignorance? In the most strict places, telling them they cannot study and that their only job is to please their hubbies. The oppression of women is often justified with quotes from the Qu'ran
3. How is circumcision not just someone instating faith over your corporeal form? We are religion, and we have the right to chop the skin off your willy. Otherwise you will not be a part of us and we may have to hurt you or convert you or depress you by telling you're not getting into heaven so your existence is futile. It's oftentimes unhygienic as well, and there's always the risk of infection even in the most medically advanced countries. That skin is there for a reason. And this is a religious rite.
4. Soo. If you're part of certain religions, your first job is to convert as many people as possible. This will make God happy and you seem a whole lot cooler in his eyes. Conversion has been going on forever and look what great accomplishments it's achieved, bloodshed and gaps between people in different religious communities. Bloodshed and the inability of different religious groups to coexist can't be a declaration to ignorance, can it?
I do not quite know where you come up with your findings but I am a RN and work in a very large and Major Hospital in Ohio and we have many doctors here at the Hospital and the vast Majority do believe that there is a God.
Originally posted by Cryomatrix
PlanoMM,
Shut yer mouth lol.
I stated that I've found that in general more educated people tend to be atheists. I also stated education + intelligence are different. By educated I mean Ph.D., M.D., J.D. etc. With the exception of M.D., most people can get Ph.D.'s quite easily. Anyway, being educated doesn't mean you're smart or not, it means you have obtained knowledge.
A person before said intelligent people = atheists. I disagreed and said educated. They are two different things. I find people with advanced degrees, higher levels of education, tend to be atheist.
I am in no way saying education = intelligence, they are two different things. There are people who'll rape me on a test of knowledge, they are more educated than me on teh subject matter, but the table turns when we take a critical thinking test.
I've met uneducated people that are smarter than most of the big wig Ph.D. i've worked with etc. I am not knocking religious people, i'm making a comment. Of course nothing is absolute, but on average, more educated people seem to be atheist at a higher %. But then again educated is independent of intelligence.
Also, Draenor,
They do have decimals in isk and in EVE. I'm about to make a deal so when i finish the deal i'll tell you the exact amount, i think PlanoMM asked for how much isk I have. I also have 2 characters (2 accounts), one market character and one PvP. The market character makes the cash, the PvP loses it when I get owned in PvP.
31,696,648.54 isk
Also Draenor, I did not talk about latent DNA and promethian species or society.
I'm not saying that what I've stated is truth. It's what I've noticed. I also work in Boston, it's a different place than the rest of America. The culture is more akin to the culture of large cities where you almost get laughed at for being religious. Growing up in Boston, I thought nobody cared about religion.
Overall, I could be wrong, but it's just what i noticed. Once again more educated doesn't mean superior. it just means they have tattooed some knowledge into their head, if they don't know how to think about it properly than they are useless.
Overall, I'm pro-religion, i just look at things realistically too. I also just ate like 80% of a cookie crisp cereal box in one sitting .
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
well I'm in Tennessee and it's pretty much the opposite for me so I guess that explains it. Here most people are religous and do get different treatment for being Athiest or unsure about what you believe. That also might explain why the intelegent people here are mostly athiest. Not the educated.
Also:bravo on eating that much cookie crisp. I'm about to bake cookies.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
I will bring up another thing, this deals more with intelligence -- rather IQ scores, so take it for what it's worth: they found that of 43 studies on the subject of IQ vs religion since 1927, only 4 of them found an inverse relationship ( inverse being higher IQ and higher religiosity ). As said, it's IQ scores, so whatever that means to you. Out of interest, you don't say how many found it the other way. Do you have that figure?
Your argument about scientists believing in a personal God is bad to begin with, however a few things I would like to note about it:
First and foremost, Einstein most certainly did not believe in a personal God, this is partly confusion on what he's said. He has said that he believes in god ( notice little 'g' ), and by 'god' he means nature, nothing supernatural nor personal about it. I will, in fact, quote him now:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
If you still do not believe me, look for a paper he wrote in 1940 justifying his non-belief in a personal God.
I'm aware Einstein didn't belive in a personal God and I never claimed otherwise. I got the impression that he believed in some kind of creator though.
On the subject of the IQ test, I think that's a mis-wording on my part. I really should have said: the study found that all but four of the 43 studies found an inverse relationship ( higher IQ with lower religiosity )...ha-ha, sorry was typing that post while trying to figure out how much stupider I was after watching Snakes on a Plane, apparently just enough to make bad sentences! ;b
I think you threw me off there with Einstein, usually a God with an uppercase 'G' denotes a personal God, whereas a lowercase 'g' does not, but that's just semantics! I disagree with him believing in a creator, because when he said god he meant nature and the thing about nature is there is nothing supernatural about it, meaning he couldn't believe in a creator, which I think is a major point of confusion still...but semantics ( then again, semantics can be very important! ) again! I think this is really supported by the second part of the quote I provided. But it can probably be debated all day and night for the rest of our lives with no clear winner.
I disagree with science not providing evidence against the theory of God, from a heliocentric solar system ( as well as Earth not being the center of the universe ), to evolution, to the big bang, all seem to work against the proposed 'truths' of the Bible or any of the other thousands of religions and as science progresses and the more we find out about the world and universe around us, the more reason there will be to abandon religion...to the point that the only way to believe is the notion that you can never disprove it, but that just is not a very strong reason to believe!
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
In general EggFtegg and PlanoMM are not seeing where I'm going at all.
we both see it, we just dont agree with you. is it really that hard to believe that someone might see the same things you see and not think they mean the same as they do to you? you do realize that we have our own minds and ideals, we might just have our own conclusions as well, eh? whos right? does it matter? personally, i find your way of thinking illogical. first off, i dont play Christian so i can look "cooler" in His eyes. two, you are applying a human trait to a religious backdrop and saying that its religion doing it. the trait would and is still there without the religion. is it that hard to understand?
I'm not saying the seven deadly sins or the 10 commandments are a praise for ignorance. I'm saying they have slight connotations towards ignorance, that, together with other negative factors in life, push you to adopt an ignorant life and believe it is accepted. These other factors include religious and non-religious tradition. However, non-religious tradition is far easier to break away from if proven false or harmful due to there being no real institution to back it up.
the sins (things God hates) and 10 commandments are laws, nothing less nothing more. they dont promote ignorance anymore than the bill of rights, or the ammendments. they are statements. in fact, its ironic that you would say that they promote ignorance, since they are actually vital info about God and what He likes and dislikes. that, to me anyway, would seem kinda the opposite of ignorance. that would be considered "knowledge" by those that didnt know it.
Not everyone does believe they're walking on eggshells when parttaking in religious study. I know a theologist (a pastor) that has enough self-esteem to point out flaws in the religious system, share his own views on theological subject matters and maintain his position. However, he has long ago lost any chance of advancing in the religious community.
whoa, good thing i dont care to be a pastor or religious figure, eh? and again, i study what is written, i dont prescribe to what a man, pastor, teacher, or theologian says a scripture means. its in black and white (and sometimes red), i can read for meself, and understand simple concepts. and most of it is simple.
If you are afraid (like most people are) of getting stuck in place and limitting your carreer options and the amount of money you can make for your family, you will think twice about what you say and choose to study/delve into. I do believe this is a slight negative inclination towards ignorance.
and again, its a human trait, the government can just as easily put the same restrictions on you. if you are afraid to stand for truth, its speaks more about your character than it does the religion.
The thing I'm most aiming at is that, because of religions, certain thresholds exist where there should be none by logical thought. The thresholds may be minute at most, but they're still tresholds.
To EggFtegg:
I dont see how suggesting there's a danger of any such institutions pushing their ideas on people is promoting ignorance. There's the same danger in schools. Doesn't the use of the word "danger" suggest it might not be something I necessarily approve of?
You see there are different approaches and foundations laid to different institutions. The foundations of educative facilities are in very tangible concepts: To teach people to understand and be able to participate in human society as best they can. Of course there's a danger of someone misusing that power or understanding it incorrectly. But there's always a higher authority, a school board or the government. Now of course those two are not infallible, but they're very tangible and people are capable of changing them, if only so slowly. Religion is self-interpretable and thus the people on top can take any of the statements in the Bible as their goal in life. Combined with the zeal of "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
in no way promotes ignorance.
you've got yourself a slightly less controllable situation. A religious uprising or founding a new movement is looked down upon from the get-go, so that's a tough one to accomplish. Your only real theistic choice is to jump religious communities or churches, which can be difficult when your whole community is the pawn of your current one.
What I'm saying is, the misuse of educational power is much easier to take care of and is looked down upon in the educational community. The misuse of religious power is very hard to define and if the leading group of zealots of a church is doing it, very hard to thwart(except by people leaving the community which has quite a large threshold with religion not being that vital in everyday life).
Then it sounds like your problem is with people who aren't capable of abstract and critical thinking and not the actual religions. What's so wrong with a text that can mean different things to different people? How is that promoting ignorance in any way?
Of course I have a problem with ignorant people, and it appears you do too. This does not, however, change the fact that certain aspects of current society have the tendency to create ignorance. I'm not saying it's only religion, or that religion is even 1/10th of it. I'm just saying religion promotes more ignorance than philosophical views that do not tie you down.
because they can be changed on a whim, that in and of itself promotes ignorance.
What are you saying here? We shouldn't have laws to protect people from being killed or robbed? There's no point teaching treat your neighbour as yourself types of conduct? We should let people find out for themselves that hurting others is bad? Is trying to prevent murder a restriction to abstract reasoning? Of course we can't expect anyone to act perfectly, why is anyone being misled by having a code of conduct to at least try to live up to?
That was me trying to say that anything can be changed if not deemed practical. The things you mentioned WERE NOT laws. a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? Those are not laws, at least not in my country. Those are rules of conduct set by people onto their peers. If the alternative (cheating as to finally enjoy yourself since your husband has turned into a vegetable or calling your father a shit so you can have child services take you away because of a physically abusive father) outweighs the rule of conduct, you should break it. It's not like the two aforementioned rules are set in stone.
Laws are similar. If a law is bad and has been shown to produce more harm than good, it should be ignored in certain cases or completely replaced/eliminated. The 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins do not have the option for change, only for slight interpretation. This is a limitting factor in one way or another. Some will want to explore the limits (whether it be by coveting your neighbour's wife when you're both in abusive relationships or (unfortunately) exploring what is a "justified" way to kill a person), but for most, it's just something to sit back on and feel comfortable (or ignorant).
Not relevant to what? If God did exist and you could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, would that be irrelevant to your life?
A personal relationship with the creator of the universe. I wish we all could, but it doesn't seem to be happening to people theist, atheist nor agnostic. Well at least it personally hasn't seemed to spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years. If he existed and if he could, it would be relevant. But I just don't know if he does or if he can have a personal relationship with me. You say this is a relevant thing... Why? I see some useless sentiment in the way of practicality.
if you had a personal relationship with Him youd understand. and there are more people that have had a personal experience than what you realize apparently. saying that He hasnt spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years isnt fair. athiesm has been around just as long, the lack of wisdom could just as easily be blamed on that. and He could and would have a personal relationship with you if you would let Him. believe me, He wants to, its you that doesnt want to.
PlanoMM:
please give examples of traditions that demote critical thinking or promote ignorance.
Will do:
1. Going to Church and being a part of the religious community in certain chores. It might not be much, but you have to spend a bit of time and effort on it. Most people don't like to question small religious chores since it would make going to church and praying that much more meaningless and futile and lead to depression since you can't think of anything else to do with your family since nothing else is put out there... Let alone your community, which will, in certain rural, areas shun you for being different. The fact that such a threshold exists, promotes ignorance.
i disagree. being a member of a church is no different than being a member of a social club as far as the membership itself goes. does being a member of a bingo group promote ignorance? if so, then i will agree that being a member of a church does. and the "small religious chores" are only chores to those that dont want to do them. to someone that enjoys being with Him its not a chore to pray, or being in service, or even paying tithes. the fact that you refer to these things that we "religious" people enjoy doing, chores tells me that youre the one in ignorance. no offence is intended by that statement, its just a fact that if you knew what i knew, then you wouldnt hate doing them.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays is a religious rite that has been instated by the state(here in Finland). It leads to people generally accepting the words of the old testament. These words do have quite a practical use in this case, but they could be reinstated as something not connected with religion. Sabbaticals were not a divine creation. People could have one day off every once in a while just because it's good for them, not because God tells them to. There's a certain restriction there. God tells you to rest on sundays even if you feel like working. If you're a good follower, you shouldn't make him mad. To work on Sundays and to bypass this rule requires a bit of a threshold as well.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays leads to happier people that are actually well rested and ready to go back to work after the weekend. most of the people that enjoy their weekends off have no idea that its even an old testament thing at all. the ignorance is in the human part of it, not the religious part. they accept it and enjoy it because it means not working. its the same with washing your hands, its a law in the old testament. but because its got practical use in our society, its still quite accepted. most of the laws of the old testament had practical use and still do. if someone were to follow some of the laws of the old testament, that seems to me that that would be more like knowledge, not ignorance. btw, obeying the laws of God is not ignorant.
2. Oppression of women in Islam. Hmm... How is telling half of your population what they can and cannot do based on religious dogma not promoting ignorance? In the most strict places, telling them they cannot study and that their only job is to please their hubbies. The oppression of women is often justified with quotes from the Qu'ran
i dont know enough about islam to comment on this. but yes, i would have to agree that it does seem to be that way.
3. How is circumcision not just someone instating faith over your corporeal form? We are religion, and we have the right to chop the skin off your willy. Otherwise you will not be a part of us and we may have to hurt you or convert you or depress you by telling you're not getting into heaven so your existence is futile. It's oftentimes unhygienic as well, and there's always the risk of infection even in the most medically advanced countries. That skin is there for a reason. And this is a religious rite.
and what, exactly, does this have to do with ignorance? so what, circumcision isnt needed for a normal healthy life. how does that mean that anyone that goes along with it is ignorance of something? what are they ignorant of? lol, im circumcised, and im pretty sure that im leading a normal healthy life. dont see the relavence of this.
4. Soo. If you're part of certain religions, your first job is to convert as many people as possible. This will make God happy and you seem a whole lot cooler in his eyes. Conversion has been going on forever and look what great accomplishments it's achieved, bloodshed and gaps between people in different religious communities. Bloodshed and the inability of different religious groups to coexist can't be a declaration to ignorance, can it?
that is a pretty strong generalization there, pal. as has already been pointed out, people start wars and bloodshed using the pretense of religion as a front. its not the religion, its the people. if the religion wasnt there, the bloodshed would carry on under a different name. and no, to your last statement, it cant. again, it would still exist without the religion. its human, friend, plain and simple.
lastly, to me and im sure to alot of other christian and religious people on this forum, you and the other athiest/agnostics seem to be trying very hard to "convert" us to your way of thinking. you can say that youre not, but if thats true, then you must really just enjoy trying to squash other peoples hopes and dreams. so either way, you come out of this looking like a recruiter or an asshole. which one is up to you. me personally, i would love to convince you all of Gods existance, if that makes me a "recruiter", cool. then maybe im alittle "cooler in Gods eyes", lol.
I disagree with science not providing evidence against the theory of God, from a heliocentric solar system ( as well as Earth not being the center of the universe ), to evolution, to the big bang, all seem to work against the proposed 'truths' of the Bible or any of the other thousands of religions and as science progresses and the more we find out about the world and universe around us, the more reason there will be to abandon religion...to the point that the only way to believe is the notion that you can never disprove it, but that just is not a very strong reason to believe!
lets examine that, shall we?
1. heliocentric solar system. there are no passages in the Bible that state contrary to a heliocentric solar system at all. it was a common "scientific" thinking that the earth was at the center of the solar system, not a Biblical thinking. theres nothing at all in the Bible that even suggests this.
2. Evolution. there are so many holes in the theory of evolution that i personally cant even believe that its considered a feasible excuse for an explanation. adaptation is a proven fact of nature. and that is also backed up by the Bible.
3. Big bang theory. another theory that even in scientific circles isnt considered feasible. but there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.
4. you didnt mention it, but im sure you would have. the earth is round, not flat. the book of psalms specifically states that He sits upon the circle of the earth. if that isnt a declaration of the spherical nature of the earth, i dont know what is. and that, me friend, was written thousands of years before it was proven. your "scientists" believed that the earth was flat. it had nothing to do with Bible.
In general EggFtegg and PlanoMM are not seeing where I'm going at all.
we both see it, we just dont agree with you. is it really that hard to believe that someone might see the same things you see and not think they mean the same as they do to you? you do realize that we have our own minds and ideals, we might just have our own conclusions as well, eh? whos right? does it matter? personally, i find your way of thinking illogical. first off, i dont play Christian so i can look "cooler" in His eyes. two, you are applying a human trait to a religious backdrop and saying that its religion doing it. the trait would and is still there without the religion. is it that hard to understand?
I'm not saying the seven deadly sins or the 10 commandments are a praise for ignorance. I'm saying they have slight connotations towards ignorance, that, together with other negative factors in life, push you to adopt an ignorant life and believe it is accepted. These other factors include religious and non-religious tradition. However, non-religious tradition is far easier to break away from if proven false or harmful due to there being no real institution to back it up.
the sins (things God hates) and 10 commandments are laws, nothing less nothing more. they dont promote ignorance anymore than the bill of rights, or the ammendments. they are statements. in fact, its ironic that you would say that they promote ignorance, since they are actually vital info about God and what He likes and dislikes. that, to me anyway, would seem kinda the opposite of ignorance. that would be considered "knowledge" by those that didnt know it.
Not everyone does believe they're walking on eggshells when parttaking in religious study. I know a theologist (a pastor) that has enough self-esteem to point out flaws in the religious system, share his own views on theological subject matters and maintain his position. However, he has long ago lost any chance of advancing in the religious community.
whoa, good thing i dont care to be a pastor or religious figure, eh? and again, i study what is written, i dont prescribe to what a man, pastor, teacher, or theologian says a scripture means. its in black and white (and sometimes red), i can read for meself, and understand simple concepts. and most of it is simple.
If you are afraid (like most people are) of getting stuck in place and limitting your carreer options and the amount of money you can make for your family, you will think twice about what you say and choose to study/delve into. I do believe this is a slight negative inclination towards ignorance.
and again, its a human trait, the government can just as easily put the same restrictions on you. if you are afraid to stand for truth, its speaks more about your character than it does the religion.
The thing I'm most aiming at is that, because of religions, certain thresholds exist where there should be none by logical thought. The thresholds may be minute at most, but they're still tresholds.
To EggFtegg:
I dont see how suggesting there's a danger of any such institutions pushing their ideas on people is promoting ignorance. There's the same danger in schools. Doesn't the use of the word "danger" suggest it might not be something I necessarily approve of?
You see there are different approaches and foundations laid to different institutions. The foundations of educative facilities are in very tangible concepts: To teach people to understand and be able to participate in human society as best they can. Of course there's a danger of someone misusing that power or understanding it incorrectly. But there's always a higher authority, a school board or the government. Now of course those two are not infallible, but they're very tangible and people are capable of changing them, if only so slowly. Religion is self-interpretable and thus the people on top can take any of the statements in the Bible as their goal in life. Combined with the zeal of "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
in no way promotes ignorance.
you've got yourself a slightly less controllable situation. A religious uprising or founding a new movement is looked down upon from the get-go, so that's a tough one to accomplish. Your only real theistic choice is to jump religious communities or churches, which can be difficult when your whole community is the pawn of your current one.
What I'm saying is, the misuse of educational power is much easier to take care of and is looked down upon in the educational community. The misuse of religious power is very hard to define and if the leading group of zealots of a church is doing it, very hard to thwart(except by people leaving the community which has quite a large threshold with religion not being that vital in everyday life).
Then it sounds like your problem is with people who aren't capable of abstract and critical thinking and not the actual religions. What's so wrong with a text that can mean different things to different people? How is that promoting ignorance in any way?
Of course I have a problem with ignorant people, and it appears you do too. This does not, however, change the fact that certain aspects of current society have the tendency to create ignorance. I'm not saying it's only religion, or that religion is even 1/10th of it. I'm just saying religion promotes more ignorance than philosophical views that do not tie you down.
because they can be changed on a whim, that in and of itself promotes ignorance.
What are you saying here? We shouldn't have laws to protect people from being killed or robbed? There's no point teaching treat your neighbour as yourself types of conduct? We should let people find out for themselves that hurting others is bad? Is trying to prevent murder a restriction to abstract reasoning? Of course we can't expect anyone to act perfectly, why is anyone being misled by having a code of conduct to at least try to live up to?
That was me trying to say that anything can be changed if not deemed practical. The things you mentioned WERE NOT laws. a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? Those are not laws, at least not in my country. Those are rules of conduct set by people onto their peers. If the alternative (cheating as to finally enjoy yourself since your husband has turned into a vegetable or calling your father a shit so you can have child services take you away because of a physically abusive father) outweighs the rule of conduct, you should break it. It's not like the two aforementioned rules are set in stone.
Laws are similar. If a law is bad and has been shown to produce more harm than good, it should be ignored in certain cases or completely replaced/eliminated. The 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins do not have the option for change, only for slight interpretation. This is a limitting factor in one way or another. Some will want to explore the limits (whether it be by coveting your neighbour's wife when you're both in abusive relationships or (unfortunately) exploring what is a "justified" way to kill a person), but for most, it's just something to sit back on and feel comfortable (or ignorant).
Not relevant to what? If God did exist and you could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, would that be irrelevant to your life?
A personal relationship with the creator of the universe. I wish we all could, but it doesn't seem to be happening to people theist, atheist nor agnostic. Well at least it personally hasn't seemed to spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years. If he existed and if he could, it would be relevant. But I just don't know if he does or if he can have a personal relationship with me. You say this is a relevant thing... Why? I see some useless sentiment in the way of practicality.
if you had a personal relationship with Him youd understand. and there are more people that have had a personal experience than what you realize apparently. saying that He hasnt spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years isnt fair. athiesm has been around just as long, the lack of wisdom could just as easily be blamed on that. and He could and would have a personal relationship with you if you would let Him. believe me, He wants to, its you that doesnt want to.
PlanoMM:
please give examples of traditions that demote critical thinking or promote ignorance.
Will do:
1. Going to Church and being a part of the religious community in certain chores. It might not be much, but you have to spend a bit of time and effort on it. Most people don't like to question small religious chores since it would make going to church and praying that much more meaningless and futile and lead to depression since you can't think of anything else to do with your family since nothing else is put out there... Let alone your community, which will, in certain rural, areas shun you for being different. The fact that such a threshold exists, promotes ignorance.
i disagree. being a member of a church is no different than being a member of a social club as far as the membership itself goes. does being a member of a bingo group promote ignorance? if so, then i will agree that being a member of a church does. and the "small religious chores" are only chores to those that dont want to do them. to someone that enjoys being with Him its not a chore to pray, or being in service, or even paying tithes. the fact that you refer to these things that we "religious" people enjoy doing, chores tells me that youre the one in ignorance. no offence is intended by that statement, its just a fact that if you knew what i knew, then you wouldnt hate doing them.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays is a religious rite that has been instated by the state(here in Finland). It leads to people generally accepting the words of the old testament. These words do have quite a practical use in this case, but they could be reinstated as something not connected with religion. Sabbaticals were not a divine creation. People could have one day off every once in a while just because it's good for them, not because God tells them to. There's a certain restriction there. God tells you to rest on sundays even if you feel like working. If you're a good follower, you shouldn't make him mad. To work on Sundays and to bypass this rule requires a bit of a threshold as well.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays leads to happier people that are actually well rested and ready to go back to work after the weekend. most of the people that enjoy their weekends off have no idea that its even an old testament thing at all. the ignorance is in the human part of it, not the religious part. they accept it and enjoy it because it means not working. its the same with washing your hands, its a law in the old testament. but because its got practical use in our society, its still quite accepted. most of the laws of the old testament had practical use and still do. if someone were to follow some of the laws of the old testament, that seems to me that that would be more like knowledge, not ignorance. btw, obeying the laws of God is not ignorant.
2. Oppression of women in Islam. Hmm... How is telling half of your population what they can and cannot do based on religious dogma not promoting ignorance? In the most strict places, telling them they cannot study and that their only job is to please their hubbies. The oppression of women is often justified with quotes from the Qu'ran
i dont know enough about islam to comment on this. but yes, i would have to agree that it does seem to be that way.
3. How is circumcision not just someone instating faith over your corporeal form? We are religion, and we have the right to chop the skin off your willy. Otherwise you will not be a part of us and we may have to hurt you or convert you or depress you by telling you're not getting into heaven so your existence is futile. It's oftentimes unhygienic as well, and there's always the risk of infection even in the most medically advanced countries. That skin is there for a reason. And this is a religious rite.
and what, exactly, does this have to do with ignorance? so what, circumcision isnt needed for a normal healthy life. how does that mean that anyone that goes along with it is ignorance of something? what are they ignorant of? lol, im circumcised, and im pretty sure that im leading a normal healthy life. dont see the relavence of this.
4. Soo. If you're part of certain religions, your first job is to convert as many people as possible. This will make God happy and you seem a whole lot cooler in his eyes. Conversion has been going on forever and look what great accomplishments it's achieved, bloodshed and gaps between people in different religious communities. Bloodshed and the inability of different religious groups to coexist can't be a declaration to ignorance, can it?
that is a pretty strong generalization there, pal. as has already been pointed out, people start wars and bloodshed using the pretense of religion as a front. its not the religion, its the people. if the religion wasnt there, the bloodshed would carry on under a different name. and no, to your last statement, it cant. again, it would still exist without the religion. its human, friend, plain and simple.
lastly, to me and im sure to alot of other christian and religious people on this forum, you and the other athiest/agnostics seem to be trying very hard to "convert" us to your way of thinking. you can say that youre not, but if thats true, then you must really just enjoy trying to squash other peoples hopes and dreams. so either way, you come out of this looking like a recruiter or an asshole. which one is up to you. me personally, i would love to convince you all of Gods existance, if that makes me a "recruiter", cool. then maybe im alittle "cooler in Gods eyes", lol.
Now that is a very dandy objection and I do agree that the old testement is great for guid lines. The only problem I see is that your making look like the religuos people try to convert people in nice ways. While it is true that some athiests try to convert people like religous people try to convert athiests. Now this may make me sound like a dick,but the reason I am an athiest is because I don't see how a god would want his children to do some of the things they do. This may sound mean,but ever since I converted to athiesim it seems like every person is saying(in what seems to be a threatening matter)I'm going to go straight to hell and theres nothing I can do about it. And it is just the people,but didn't the people make up the religion? You have to remember that the dicks through historty always say they do it in the name of god. Even today you might have watched a movie where it invovled desrimination that a religion was a part of and not relize it. Doesn't that mean that that the people are using the religion in a dangerous way? People even did acts of racism and said it was in the name of god. And I beleive that if these people did it for god then that is the way their religion should be.
P.S.seriously-PlanoMM,that was some very good work you did there on that post.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
1. heliocentric solar system. there are no passages in the Bible that state contrary to a heliocentric solar system at all. it was a common "scientific" thinking that the earth was at the center of the solar system, not a Biblical thinking. theres nothing at all in the Bible that even suggests this.
2. Evolution. there are so many holes in the theory of evolution that i personally cant even believe that its considered a feasible excuse for an explanation. adaptation is a proven fact of nature. and that is also backed up by the Bible.
3. Big bang theory. another theory that even in scientific circles isnt considered feasible. but there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.
4. you didnt mention it, but im sure you would have. the earth is round, not flat. the book of psalms specifically states that He sits upon the circle of the earth. if that isnt a declaration of the spherical nature of the earth, i dont know what is. and that, me friend, was written thousands of years before it was proven. your "scientists" believed that the earth was flat. it had nothing to do with Bible.
Well, that was not a very thorough examination, now was it?
1. I argued heliocentric solar system, because the notion of heliocentric argues against the Earth being the center of the universe, as such it means that the Earth is not the most important thing, and perhaps we aren't anything more than a planet orbiting some humdrum star. This was certainly against the ideas of the church, where everything there was and will be was created for us, as we are the most important. Why did Copernicus wait 'till he died to release his papers? Because if he did, the church would have executed him for hearsay. Now that it's established scientific fact that the Earth is orbiting the sun, which is in the corner of the galaxy, not even the center, and this galaxy is just another of an estimated 100 billion galaxies, the church has re-examined their position and adapted in order to keep the masses in check.
2. Evolution is the single most complete and stable theory for explaining how we arrived from single celled organisms. Why are you so concerned with the gaps within it? These gaps will shrink as science advances, and you know it. But what's worse is when there is a gap, you default it to a God, which is a gross mistake. In fact, it should default to an "I don't know", and then use this "I don't know" to further motivate you to learn about it. There are many fossils out there that clearly show an evolution from one species to another ( of course, I would assume you would argue if there was a gap, and if that gap is filled, you would argue there are now two more gaps, no? ), but there isn't for every species, nor will there ever be. It is very illogical to assume the need every step in the evolution; it's the same reasoning as why you do not need every frame in a cinematic record for a murderer. It's just not possible. However to deny the evidence of evolution is nothing but willful ignorance, and encouraging others to do partake in willful ignorance should be criminal. I, at the same time, am - by no means - an expert on evolutionary biology ( I'm more interested in astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology ;b ). If you really want to examine it, I suggest you read books on evolution, take a class, or find a very involved evolutionary biologist and question him. You will get much more from that then you ever will from me.
3. The Big Bang may not be totally accepted, but it is the theory with the most evidence supporting it. From the universe expanding from a singularity, to the cosmic background radiation that we can measure from seconds after the Big Bang. I, however, disagree with the notion of the Big Bang not going against the Bible...the Bible disagrees with the Big Bang, because the Big Bang does not require a supernatural being, you could try to say that maybe the Big Bang was a result of God, but that's different from the very beginning of Genesis. Until there is a more probable theory, that the evidence supports, the Big Bang is the best we've got.
4. I didn't mention it, because the Earth is flat! Those images of the Earth you see that are round are false! I am going to be the one to establish the International Flat Earth Society, and we will fight feverishly to have the Flat Earth theory taught next to the Round Earth Theory that is unjustly taught unopposed in our schools, how disgusting! At the same time, you're forgetting that it was not until recently ( recently being relative here ) that scientists were a separate entity from the church. Before, if you wanted to study anything, you were required to join a monastery and become a monk, where there you could be approved to look into the workings of 'God'. Then as the church was systematically removed as the main source of power and government, science was able to work without the need of the church and eventually has and will continue to evolve beyond the need for a God. The only way to stop this is to stop science, and trust me, there are people out there working very hard to do so. So you see, before we scientists were able to study through universities with no ties to religion, the only option was to work through the church, which is why every really old theory is attributed to religion, more specifically Christianity because it held power and still does.
Even this wall of text was not a very thorough examination of what's out there, if you are truly interested in confirming your beliefs or having them changed, I really suggest you get some books or sign up for some classes. I will leave you with a funny little paradox, not meant to be an argument, just some food:
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
I think you threw me off there with Einstein, usually a God with an uppercase 'G' denotes a personal God, whereas a lowercase 'g' does not, but that's just semantics! I disagree with him believing in a creator, because when he said god he meant nature and the thing about nature is there is nothing supernatural about it, meaning he couldn't believe in a creator, which I think is a major point of confusion still...but semantics ( then again, semantics can be very important! ) again! I think this is really supported by the second part of the quote I provided. But it can probably be debated all day and night for the rest of our lives with no clear winner.
I disagree with science not providing evidence against the theory of God, from a heliocentric solar system ( as well as Earth not being the center of the universe ), to evolution, to the big bang, all seem to work against the proposed 'truths' of the Bible or any of the other thousands of religions and as science progresses and the more we find out about the world and universe around us, the more reason there will be to abandon religion...to the point that the only way to believe is the notion that you can never disprove it, but that just is not a very strong reason to believe!
I'm not quite sure you're representing Einstein's beliefs so well by saying when he said god he meant nature. We're going off on a tangent here, and we don't have the man here to question about his beliefs, which may like many of us have changed throughout his life, but to throw in another Einstein quote:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Which suggests a belief of intelligent design behind the universe to me. Here's another couple of Einstein quotes which seem relevant to this discussion:
"Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot"
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hence we see theists being behind the three theories/discoveries you quote and no evidence to suggest there is no God.
I could also point out that by your reasoning, should a particular scientific theory be disproved, we should all abandon science.
Ok. Not gonna reply to all the points since most of them were the same old, "no it isn't", instead of what I was looking for: "It's no more a threshold than this or that".
the sins (things God hates) and 10 commandments are laws, nothing less nothing more. they dont promote ignorance anymore than the bill of rights, or the ammendments.
I just stated how religious systems are not like governements due to their unmalleable nature. It's set in stone, the government is the will of the people (or at least it's supposed to be) at one moment in time. Or actually I used the educational system example. The systems we humans implement in "democratic" societies are currently ones open to change. I know many americans might not think so with the ridiculous two party populistic system, but you can change things.
whoa, good thing i dont care to be a pastor or religious figure, eh? and again, i study what is written, i dont prescribe to what a man, pastor, teacher, or theologian says a scripture means. its in black and white (and sometimes red), i can read for meself, and understand simple concepts. and most of it is simple.
But don't you see these are the people that lead religious movements? The ones that do walk on eggshells to further their carreer. The people that cannot show criticism and cannot delve into anything but "good" knowledge. No matter how many people say they only believe in their personal faith, that faith has come from somewhere, and that's a religious institution (whether it be filtered through your family or friends).
and again, its a human trait, the government can just as easily put the same restrictions on you. if you are afraid to stand for truth, its speaks more about your character than it does the religion.
I'm not in full accordance with this having seen the pastor in question work and having observed the actions of leading figures of religions all around the world. It doesn't seem like many people are standing for the truth in religion.
in no way promotes ignorance.
Everyone else is lacking something which you can deliver? Not a slight bit of condescendence in there? Condescendence is the ugly cousin of ignorance.
i disagree. being a member of a church is no different than being a member of a social club as far as the membership itself goes. does being a member of a bingo group promote ignorance? if so, then i will agree that being a member of a church does. and the "small religious chores" are only chores to those that dont want to do them. to someone that enjoys being with Him its not a chore to pray, or being in service, or even paying tithes. the fact that you refer to these things that we "religious" people enjoy doing, chores tells me that youre the one in ignorance. no offence is intended by that statement, its just a fact that if you knew what i knew, then you wouldnt hate doing them.
Yes it is. You don't "believe" in a social club. In a social club you can think what you like without feeling it's wrong and feeling you're not a part of the group. A social club can be rearranged if it's not working. In religion there are thresholds where there don't need to be any. Do you honestly believe religion can expand to everyone feeling like they are doing every single thing in their life for some creator nobody's ever proven to have met? This seems to be your ideal world. Do you honestly think this will not sew seeds of doubt into at least one human mind? Also. It's not only His word that can be a fully euphoric sensation. You can do sports, perform household or community rituals, without it being tied to religion. You can even have euphoric mass psychosis sessions without religion being involved... Only it's HONEST when everyone knows what's happening.
Circumcision is a threshold to cross. A cross you bear for the rest of your life. It is dedication to religion. It's a constant reminder of your religion. Once you convert, you get circumcised. The threshold for converting back increases slightly when your dedication can be seen from a corporeal sacrifice. Also you probably don't want to have done something as silly as chopping the skin off your willy for no reason whatsoever.
that is a pretty strong generalization there, pal. as has already been pointed out, people start wars and bloodshed using the pretense of religion as a front. its not the religion, its the people. if the religion wasnt there, the bloodshed would carry on under a different name. and no, to your last statement, it cant. again, it would still exist without the religion. its human, friend, plain and simple.
You're making it seem like this has actually been pointed out as absolute truth yet again. The fact of the matter is, a lot of blood has been spilled using religion as a pretense, and it can be in no way proven that without religion things would have been better or worse. The 2nd world war could be considered a religious war. The Jewish people have made themselves quite easy to dislike due to the fact that they more or less stick with their own and have traditions that differ from those of others. The national movement that sprouted out of blaming a small religious community conquered Germany and then numerous other countries. This is what religion is all about, a community. Religion creates a bond that should exist, people should be part of a community, but the price you pay and the tresholds you cross may take you too far away from people who are not in your religious community. Fundamentally religion does not promote the understanding of other religions, but the conversion, condescendence or downright antagonism towards them.
you both have points.....religion has been around since the start of cicilization.But thats the thing.Every era will have it's own religions-in each group of religions some die out and some survive by being modified. The way a religion survives is from the irational people in there willing to KILL for it.That is the peice of religion that makes me sick. You can't deny that the only reason your christain is because there where people who thought they saw a burning cross and began killing god knows how many people.of course with the beginning of the religions coming with that countless religions are now gone and I can only think of one religion alive left. And The religion voodoo has been scared so much that people even burned the worshipers in South America.
P.S. I suppose,but I usually respect the ability to believe the way you want
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by Spy_HIppo now don't say we should abandon science.There has to be religuos things disproven and no one abandoned them. P.S.I want spagetti now
actually, isnt that what athiest means? abandoning religion?
Nice try. It means, literally, non-religious or non-belief in a deity. Not anti- just non-
Certainly an interesting topic. I will reply to some of the things I read. First niether creationism or evolutionism is a science. Anyone who approaches the subject makes a descision before they even start looking at the evidence. That's not science. Second in order to claim to be a antheist you also have to claim to posses all knowledge. We don't even know what is going on in the house next to us let alone the entire universe. Any honest person would have to admit to the possibility that God could exsist outside your knowledge. The last thing is concerning the laws of God. The laws of God are not laws in the sense of committing a crime and maybe getting away with it. They are laws like the law of gravitiy, you only illistrate it. For example, thou shalt not commit adultury. You will not have a successful marraige if you are commiting adultry. "breaking" any of the laws will result in the destruction of your soul (intelect, will, and emotions).
First of all you don't need "all knowledge" to be athiest. It's as simple as being religous-go with what you feel is right. Second,If the breaking of these laws results to the destruction of the soul,like a sort of punishment of breaking a real law,then all of our souls are crushed into tiny peices. And third,evolution is technically a peice of both:science and history. We also have evidence to prove pieces of both-evolution and creation.The people of the bible are true as any history book can point out,and the weopons used by nomadic people are still around. So both have evidence to go off of.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
you both have points.....religion has been around since the start of cicilization.But thats the thing.Every era will have it's own religions-in each group of religions some die out and some survive by being modified. The way a religion survives is from the irational people in there willing to KILL for it.That is the peice of religion that makes me sick. You can't deny that the only reason your christain is because there where people who thought they saw a burning cross and began killing god knows how many people.of course with the beginning of the religions coming with that countless religions are now gone and I can only think of one religion alive left. And The religion voodoo has been scared so much that people even burned the worshipers in South America. P.S. I suppose,but I usually respect the ability to believe the way you want
Hippo, I just feel I ought to point out that it seems your view of religion is built up from various out of context, weird tit-bits and wild assumptions and much of what you say about religions just comes across as nonsense. To be honest, if that was all I knew of religion, I wouldn't believe any of it either and think anyone who did must be crazy. I don't mean to put you off joining in these discussions, but I'd recommend you should learn up on a subject before you try to knock it.
Edit: I did like your example about someone blind from birth. That's probably a better example of what I was trying to say than the ones I used. Imagine trying to explain sight to someone who'd never experienced it. Why should they even believe that sight exists when if they have never experienced it they can't really understand what sight really is? Just because the majority say they experience it, when you have no proof and can't get any other than people telling you of their experience of sight, there's no reason to believe in it.
Comments
I would like to point out a couple of things...
First off, while I can't argue about more intelligent people (probably because intelligence is pretty relative), I can say a few things about the higher educated people:
There was a study in 1998 by the journal Nature and it found that of American scientists who where eminent enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences only ~7% believed in a personal God. And of the less eminent scientists not elected to the Academy they found only 40% believed. The British equivalent, the Fellows of Royal Society, found only around 3.3% believed strongly in a personal God and ~78-79% believed strongly against a personal God ( they had a scale, rather than a yes-no survey, like 1 - 10, 10 being strongly believed, 1 being no belief ). While you can debate their intelligence, you can't argue that these people aren't some of the most educated people in their societies.
I will bring up another thing, this deals more with intelligence -- rather IQ scores, so take it for what it's worth: they found that of 43 studies on the subject of IQ vs religion since 1927, only 4 of them found an inverse relationship ( inverse being higher IQ and higher religiosity ). As said, it's IQ scores, so whatever that means to you.
Your argument about scientists believing in a personal God is bad to begin with, however a few things I would like to note about it:
First and foremost, Einstein most certainly did not believe in a personal God, this is partly confusion on what he's said. He has said that he believes in god ( notice little 'g' ), and by 'god' he means nature, nothing supernatural nor personal about it. I will, in fact, quote him now: If you still do not believe me, look for a paper he wrote in 1940 justifying his non-belief in a personal God.
As for Galileo and Newton, consider the times they lived in. They lived before Darwin proposed evolution, but also in a time where going against the church most certainly meant death. In fact, if they were exposed to our science today, I would wonder if their beliefs would change. Also, another thing about the time they lived in: if you wanted to do anything in terms of science, you would have to go to a church in order to pursue them. So it's not that science was too advance for them, it was that science wasn't advanced enough in their time. I don't know what to say about Plank, he's an exception maybe?
Lurk a lot, but it's a pet peeve of mine, I guess, when people try and argue Einstein as theist.
Edit: confounded spelling and to clear one thing up.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
however, i would like to direct your attention to this portion of scripture in the Bible:
for ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
notice that it says "not many" are called. it doesnt say that none are called, just not many. im glad that im one of the "not many".
so if youre wondering why there are more athiests among educated people, theres your answer.
______________________________
I stated that the religious people I know never can really think for themselves unless they read it somewhere. And just so you know,there are not many "wise" and "intellegent " people in your religion and there never was. As you know ML king day is coming up so look up some history of the slaves and you'll see what they did to try to make them christian. It was very "unwise" and their religion is just recovering from it.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Not everyone does believe they're walking on eggshells when parttaking in religious study. I know a theologist (a pastor) that has enough self-esteem to point out flaws in the religious system, share his own views on theological subject matters and maintain his position. However, he has long ago lost any chance of advancing in the religious community. If you are afraid (like most people are) of getting stuck in place and limitting your carreer options and the amount of money you can make for your family, you will think twice about what you say and choose to study/delve into. I do believe this is a slight negative inclination towards ignorance.
The thing I'm most aiming at is that, because of religions, certain thresholds exist where there should be none by logical thought. The thresholds may be minute at most, but they're still tresholds.
To EggFtegg:
I dont see how suggesting there's a danger of any such institutions pushing their ideas on people is promoting ignorance. There's the same danger in schools. Doesn't the use of the word "danger" suggest it might not be something I necessarily approve of?
You see there are different approaches and foundations laid to different institutions. The foundations of educative facilities are in very tangible concepts: To teach people to understand and be able to participate in human society as best they can. Of course there's a danger of someone misusing that power or understanding it incorrectly. But there's always a higher authority, a school board or the government. Now of course those two are not infallible, but they're very tangible and people are capable of changing them, if only so slowly. Religion is self-interpretable and thus the people on top can take any of the statements in the Bible as their goal in life. Combined with the zeal of "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) you've got yourself a slightly less controllable situation. A religious uprising or founding a new movement is looked down upon from the get-go, so that's a tough one to accomplish. Your only real theistic choice is to jump religious communities or churches, which can be difficult when your whole community is the pawn of your current one.
What I'm saying is, the misuse of educational power is much easier to take care of and is looked down upon in the educational community. The misuse of religious power is very hard to define and if the leading group of zealots of a church is doing it, very hard to thwart(except by people leaving the community which has quite a large threshold with religion not being that vital in everyday life).
Then it sounds like your problem is with people who aren't capable of abstract and critical thinking and not the actual religions. What's so wrong with a text that can mean different things to different people? How is that promoting ignorance in any way?
Of course I have a problem with ignorant people, and it appears you do too. This does not, however, change the fact that certain aspects of current society have the tendency to create ignorance. I'm not saying it's only religion, or that religion is even 1/10th of it. I'm just saying religion promotes more ignorance than philosophical views that do not tie you down.
What are you saying here? We shouldn't have laws to protect people from being killed or robbed? There's no point teaching treat your neighbour as yourself types of conduct? We should let people find out for themselves that hurting others is bad? Is trying to prevent murder a restriction to abstract reasoning? Of course we can't expect anyone to act perfectly, why is anyone being misled by having a code of conduct to at least try to live up to?
That was me trying to say that anything can be changed if not deemed practical. The things you mentioned WERE NOT laws. a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? Those are not laws, at least not in my country. Those are rules of conduct set by people onto their peers. If the alternative (cheating as to finally enjoy yourself since your husband has turned into a vegetable or calling your father a shit so you can have child services take you away because of a physically abusive father) outweighs the rule of conduct, you should break it. It's not like the two aforementioned rules are set in stone.
Laws are similar. If a law is bad and has been shown to produce more harm than good, it should be ignored in certain cases or completely replaced/eliminated. The 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins do not have the option for change, only for slight interpretation. This is a limitting factor in one way or another. Some will want to explore the limits (whether it be by coveting your neighbour's wife when you're both in abusive relationships or (unfortunately) exploring what is a "justified" way to kill a person), but for most, it's just something to sit back on and feel comfortable (or ignorant).
Not relevant to what? If God did exist and you could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, would that be irrelevant to your life?
A personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
PlanoMM:
please give examples of traditions that demote critical thinking or promote ignorance.
Will do:
1. Going to Church and being a part of the religious community in certain chores. It might not be much, but you have to spend a bit of time and effort on it. Most people don't like to question small religious chores since it would make going to church and praying that much more meaningless and futile and lead to depression since you can't think of anything else to do with your family since nothing else is put out there... Let alone your community, which will, in certain rural, areas shun you for being different. The fact that such a threshold exists, promotes ignorance.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays is a religious rite that has been instated by the state(here in Finland). It leads to people generally accepting the words of the old testament. These words do have quite a practical use in this case, but they could be reinstated as something not connected with religion. Sabbaticals were not a divine creation. People could have one day off every once in a while just because it's good for them, not because God tells them to. There's a certain restriction there. God tells you to rest on sundays even if you feel like working. If you're a good follower, you shouldn't make him mad. To work on Sundays and to bypass this rule requires a bit of a threshold as well.
2. Oppression of women in Islam. Hmm... How is telling half of your population what they can and cannot do based on religious dogma not promoting ignorance? In the most strict places, telling them they cannot study and that their only job is to please their hubbies. The oppression of women is often justified with quotes from the Qu'ran
3. How is circumcision not just someone instating faith over your corporeal form? We are religion, and we have the right to chop the skin off your willy. Otherwise you will not be a part of us and we may have to hurt you or convert you or depress you by telling you're not getting into heaven so your existence is futile. It's oftentimes unhygienic as well, and there's always the risk of infection even in the most medically advanced countries. That skin is there for a reason. And this is a religious rite.
4. Soo. If you're part of certain religions, your first job is to convert as many people as possible. This will make God happy and you seem a whole lot cooler in his eyes. Conversion has been going on forever and look what great accomplishments it's achieved, bloodshed and gaps between people in different religious communities. Bloodshed and the inability of different religious groups to coexist can't be a declaration to ignorance, can it?
I'm not saying that what I've stated is truth. It's what I've noticed. I also work in Boston, it's a different place than the rest of America. The culture is more akin to the culture of large cities where you almost get laughed at for being religious. Growing up in Boston, I thought nobody cared about religion.
Overall, I could be wrong, but it's just what i noticed. Once again more educated doesn't mean superior. it just means they have tattooed some knowledge into their head, if they don't know how to think about it properly than they are useless.
Overall, I'm pro-religion, i just look at things realistically too. I also just ate like 80% of a cookie crisp cereal box in one sitting
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
well I'm in Tennessee and it's pretty much the opposite for me so I guess that explains it. Here most people are religous and do get different treatment for being Athiest or unsure about what you believe. That also might explain why the intelegent people here are mostly athiest. Not the educated.
Also:bravo on eating that much cookie crisp. I'm about to bake cookies.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
If you still do not believe me, look for a paper he wrote in 1940 justifying his non-belief in a personal God.
I'm aware Einstein didn't belive in a personal God and I never claimed otherwise. I got the impression that he believed in some kind of creator though.
On the subject of the IQ test, I think that's a mis-wording on my part. I really should have said: the study found that all but four of the 43 studies found an inverse relationship ( higher IQ with lower religiosity )...ha-ha, sorry was typing that post while trying to figure out how much stupider I was after watching Snakes on a Plane, apparently just enough to make bad sentences! ;b
I think you threw me off there with Einstein, usually a God with an uppercase 'G' denotes a personal God, whereas a lowercase 'g' does not, but that's just semantics! I disagree with him believing in a creator, because when he said god he meant nature and the thing about nature is there is nothing supernatural about it, meaning he couldn't believe in a creator, which I think is a major point of confusion still...but semantics ( then again, semantics can be very important! ) again! I think this is really supported by the second part of the quote I provided. But it can probably be debated all day and night for the rest of our lives with no clear winner.
I disagree with science not providing evidence against the theory of God, from a heliocentric solar system ( as well as Earth not being the center of the universe ), to evolution, to the big bang, all seem to work against the proposed 'truths' of the Bible or any of the other thousands of religions and as science progresses and the more we find out about the world and universe around us, the more reason there will be to abandon religion...to the point that the only way to believe is the notion that you can never disprove it, but that just is not a very strong reason to believe!
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
______________________________
1. heliocentric solar system. there are no passages in the Bible that state contrary to a heliocentric solar system at all. it was a common "scientific" thinking that the earth was at the center of the solar system, not a Biblical thinking. theres nothing at all in the Bible that even suggests this.
2. Evolution. there are so many holes in the theory of evolution that i personally cant even believe that its considered a feasible excuse for an explanation. adaptation is a proven fact of nature. and that is also backed up by the Bible.
3. Big bang theory. another theory that even in scientific circles isnt considered feasible. but there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.
4. you didnt mention it, but im sure you would have. the earth is round, not flat. the book of psalms specifically states that He sits upon the circle of the earth. if that isnt a declaration of the spherical nature of the earth, i dont know what is. and that, me friend, was written thousands of years before it was proven. your "scientists" believed that the earth was flat. it had nothing to do with Bible.
______________________________
Originally posted by Babbuun
I wish we all could, but it doesn't seem to be happening to people theist, atheist nor agnostic. Well at least it personally hasn't seemed to spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years. If he existed and if he could, it would be relevant. But I just don't know if he does or if he can have a personal relationship with me. You say this is a relevant thing... Why? I see some useless sentiment in the way of practicality.
and there are more people that have had a personal experience than what you realize apparently. saying that He hasnt spread too much wisdom around during the last 2000 years isnt fair. athiesm has been around just as long, the lack of wisdom could just as easily be blamed on that. and He could and would have a personal relationship with you if you would let Him. believe me, He wants to, its you that doesnt want to.
In general EggFtegg and PlanoMM are not seeing where I'm going at all.
we both see it, we just dont agree with you. is it really that hard to believe that someone might see the same things you see and not think they mean the same as they do to you? you do realize that we have our own minds and ideals, we might just have our own conclusions as well, eh? whos right? does it matter? personally, i find your way of thinking illogical. first off, i dont play Christian so i can look "cooler" in His eyes. two, you are applying a human trait to a religious backdrop and saying that its religion doing it. the trait would and is still there without the religion. is it that hard to understand?
I'm not saying the seven deadly sins or the 10 commandments are a praise for ignorance. I'm saying they have slight connotations towards ignorance, that, together with other negative factors in life, push you to adopt an ignorant life and believe it is accepted. These other factors include religious and non-religious tradition. However, non-religious tradition is far easier to break away from if proven false or harmful due to there being no real institution to back it up.
the sins (things God hates) and 10 commandments are laws, nothing less nothing more. they dont promote ignorance anymore than the bill of rights, or the ammendments. they are statements. in fact, its ironic that you would say that they promote ignorance, since they are actually vital info about God and what He likes and dislikes. that, to me anyway, would seem kinda the opposite of ignorance. that would be considered "knowledge" by those that didnt know it.
Not everyone does believe they're walking on eggshells when parttaking in religious study. I know a theologist (a pastor) that has enough self-esteem to point out flaws in the religious system, share his own views on theological subject matters and maintain his position. However, he has long ago lost any chance of advancing in the religious community.
whoa, good thing i dont care to be a pastor or religious figure, eh? and again, i study what is written, i dont prescribe to what a man, pastor, teacher, or theologian says a scripture means. its in black and white (and sometimes red), i can read for meself, and understand simple concepts. and most of it is simple.
If you are afraid (like most people are) of getting stuck in place and limitting your carreer options and the amount of money you can make for your family, you will think twice about what you say and choose to study/delve into. I do believe this is a slight negative inclination towards ignorance.
and again, its a human trait, the government can just as easily put the same restrictions on you. if you are afraid to stand for truth, its speaks more about your character than it does the religion.
The thing I'm most aiming at is that, because of religions, certain thresholds exist where there should be none by logical thought. The thresholds may be minute at most, but they're still tresholds.
To EggFtegg:
I dont see how suggesting there's a danger of any such institutions pushing their ideas on people is promoting ignorance. There's the same danger in schools. Doesn't the use of the word "danger" suggest it might not be something I necessarily approve of?
You see there are different approaches and foundations laid to different institutions. The foundations of educative facilities are in very tangible concepts: To teach people to understand and be able to participate in human society as best they can. Of course there's a danger of someone misusing that power or understanding it incorrectly. But there's always a higher authority, a school board or the government. Now of course those two are not infallible, but they're very tangible and people are capable of changing them, if only so slowly. Religion is self-interpretable and thus the people on top can take any of the statements in the Bible as their goal in life. Combined with the zeal of "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
in no way promotes ignorance.
you've got yourself a slightly less controllable situation. A religious uprising or founding a new movement is looked down upon from the get-go, so that's a tough one to accomplish. Your only real theistic choice is to jump religious communities or churches, which can be difficult when your whole community is the pawn of your current one.
What I'm saying is, the misuse of educational power is much easier to take care of and is looked down upon in the educational community. The misuse of religious power is very hard to define and if the leading group of zealots of a church is doing it, very hard to thwart(except by people leaving the community which has quite a large threshold with religion not being that vital in everyday life).
Then it sounds like your problem is with people who aren't capable of abstract and critical thinking and not the actual religions. What's so wrong with a text that can mean different things to different people? How is that promoting ignorance in any way?
Of course I have a problem with ignorant people, and it appears you do too. This does not, however, change the fact that certain aspects of current society have the tendency to create ignorance. I'm not saying it's only religion, or that religion is even 1/10th of it. I'm just saying religion promotes more ignorance than philosophical views that do not tie you down.
because they can be changed on a whim, that in and of itself promotes ignorance.
What are you saying here? We shouldn't have laws to protect people from being killed or robbed? There's no point teaching treat your neighbour as yourself types of conduct? We should let people find out for themselves that hurting others is bad? Is trying to prevent murder a restriction to abstract reasoning? Of course we can't expect anyone to act perfectly, why is anyone being misled by having a code of conduct to at least try to live up to?
That was me trying to say that anything can be changed if not deemed practical. The things you mentioned WERE NOT laws. a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? Those are not laws, at least not in my country. Those are rules of conduct set by people onto their peers. If the alternative (cheating as to finally enjoy yourself since your husband has turned into a vegetable or calling your father a shit so you can have child services take you away because of a physically abusive father) outweighs the rule of conduct, you should break it. It's not like the two aforementioned rules are set in stone.
Laws are similar. If a law is bad and has been shown to produce more harm than good, it should be ignored in certain cases or completely replaced/eliminated. The 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins do not have the option for change, only for slight interpretation. This is a limitting factor in one way or another. Some will want to explore the limits (whether it be by coveting your neighbour's wife when you're both in abusive relationships or (unfortunately) exploring what is a "justified" way to kill a person), but for most, it's just something to sit back on and feel comfortable (or ignorant).
Not relevant to what? If God did exist and you could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, would that be irrelevant to your life?
A personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
if you had a personal relationship with Him youd understand.
PlanoMM:
please give examples of traditions that demote critical thinking or promote ignorance.
Will do:
1. Going to Church and being a part of the religious community in certain chores. It might not be much, but you have to spend a bit of time and effort on it. Most people don't like to question small religious chores since it would make going to church and praying that much more meaningless and futile and lead to depression since you can't think of anything else to do with your family since nothing else is put out there... Let alone your community, which will, in certain rural, areas shun you for being different. The fact that such a threshold exists, promotes ignorance.
i disagree. being a member of a church is no different than being a member of a social club as far as the membership itself goes. does being a member of a bingo group promote ignorance? if so, then i will agree that being a member of a church does. and the "small religious chores" are only chores to those that dont want to do them. to someone that enjoys being with Him its not a chore to pray, or being in service, or even paying tithes. the fact that you refer to these things that we "religious" people enjoy doing, chores tells me that youre the one in ignorance. no offence is intended by that statement, its just a fact that if you knew what i knew, then you wouldnt hate doing them.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays is a religious rite that has been instated by the state(here in Finland). It leads to people generally accepting the words of the old testament. These words do have quite a practical use in this case, but they could be reinstated as something not connected with religion. Sabbaticals were not a divine creation. People could have one day off every once in a while just because it's good for them, not because God tells them to. There's a certain restriction there. God tells you to rest on sundays even if you feel like working. If you're a good follower, you shouldn't make him mad. To work on Sundays and to bypass this rule requires a bit of a threshold as well.
Not working or getting double pay on sundays leads to happier people that are actually well rested and ready to go back to work after the weekend. most of the people that enjoy their weekends off have no idea that its even an old testament thing at all. the ignorance is in the human part of it, not the religious part. they accept it and enjoy it because it means not working. its the same with washing your hands, its a law in the old testament. but because its got practical use in our society, its still quite accepted. most of the laws of the old testament had practical use and still do. if someone were to follow some of the laws of the old testament, that seems to me that that would be more like knowledge, not ignorance. btw, obeying the laws of God is not ignorant.
2. Oppression of women in Islam. Hmm... How is telling half of your population what they can and cannot do based on religious dogma not promoting ignorance? In the most strict places, telling them they cannot study and that their only job is to please their hubbies. The oppression of women is often justified with quotes from the Qu'ran
i dont know enough about islam to comment on this. but yes, i would have to agree that it does seem to be that way.
3. How is circumcision not just someone instating faith over your corporeal form? We are religion, and we have the right to chop the skin off your willy. Otherwise you will not be a part of us and we may have to hurt you or convert you or depress you by telling you're not getting into heaven so your existence is futile. It's oftentimes unhygienic as well, and there's always the risk of infection even in the most medically advanced countries. That skin is there for a reason. And this is a religious rite.
and what, exactly, does this have to do with ignorance? so what, circumcision isnt needed for a normal healthy life. how does that mean that anyone that goes along with it is ignorance of something? what are they ignorant of? lol, im circumcised, and im pretty sure that im leading a normal healthy life. dont see the relavence of this.
4. Soo. If you're part of certain religions, your first job is to convert as many people as possible. This will make God happy and you seem a whole lot cooler in his eyes. Conversion has been going on forever and look what great accomplishments it's achieved, bloodshed and gaps between people in different religious communities. Bloodshed and the inability of different religious groups to coexist can't be a declaration to ignorance, can it?
that is a pretty strong generalization there, pal. as has already been pointed out, people start wars and bloodshed using the pretense of religion as a front. its not the religion, its the people. if the religion wasnt there, the bloodshed would carry on under a different name. and no, to your last statement, it cant. again, it would still exist without the religion. its human, friend, plain and simple.
lastly, to me and im sure to alot of other christian and religious people on this forum, you and the other athiest/agnostics seem to be trying very hard to "convert" us to your way of thinking. you can say that youre not, but if thats true, then you must really just enjoy trying to squash other peoples hopes and dreams. so either way, you come out of this looking like a recruiter or an asshole. which one is up to you. me personally, i would love to convince you all of Gods existance, if that makes me a "recruiter", cool. then maybe im alittle "cooler in Gods eyes", lol.
Now that is a very dandy objection and I do agree that the old testement is great for guid lines. The only problem I see is that your making look like the religuos people try to convert people in nice ways. While it is true that some athiests try to convert people like religous people try to convert athiests. Now this may make me sound like a dick,but the reason I am an athiest is because I don't see how a god would want his children to do some of the things they do. This may sound mean,but ever since I converted to athiesim it seems like every person is saying(in what seems to be a threatening matter)I'm going to go straight to hell and theres nothing I can do about it. And it is just the people,but didn't the people make up the religion? You have to remember that the dicks through historty always say they do it in the name of god. Even today you might have watched a movie where it invovled desrimination that a religion was a part of and not relize it. Doesn't that mean that that the people are using the religion in a dangerous way? People even did acts of racism and said it was in the name of god. And I beleive that if these people did it for god then that is the way their religion should be.
P.S.seriously-PlanoMM,that was some very good work you did there on that post.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
No, the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, trees, a mountain and a midget and thus laid the foundation of the world as we know it today.
edit
hey, where did all my wacky stars go?
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Well, that was not a very thorough examination, now was it?
1. I argued heliocentric solar system, because the notion of heliocentric argues against the Earth being the center of the universe, as such it means that the Earth is not the most important thing, and perhaps we aren't anything more than a planet orbiting some humdrum star. This was certainly against the ideas of the church, where everything there was and will be was created for us, as we are the most important. Why did Copernicus wait 'till he died to release his papers? Because if he did, the church would have executed him for hearsay. Now that it's established scientific fact that the Earth is orbiting the sun, which is in the corner of the galaxy, not even the center, and this galaxy is just another of an estimated 100 billion galaxies, the church has re-examined their position and adapted in order to keep the masses in check.
2. Evolution is the single most complete and stable theory for explaining how we arrived from single celled organisms. Why are you so concerned with the gaps within it? These gaps will shrink as science advances, and you know it. But what's worse is when there is a gap, you default it to a God, which is a gross mistake. In fact, it should default to an "I don't know", and then use this "I don't know" to further motivate you to learn about it. There are many fossils out there that clearly show an evolution from one species to another ( of course, I would assume you would argue if there was a gap, and if that gap is filled, you would argue there are now two more gaps, no? ), but there isn't for every species, nor will there ever be. It is very illogical to assume the need every step in the evolution; it's the same reasoning as why you do not need every frame in a cinematic record for a murderer. It's just not possible. However to deny the evidence of evolution is nothing but willful ignorance, and encouraging others to do partake in willful ignorance should be criminal. I, at the same time, am - by no means - an expert on evolutionary biology ( I'm more interested in astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology ;b ). If you really want to examine it, I suggest you read books on evolution, take a class, or find a very involved evolutionary biologist and question him. You will get much more from that then you ever will from me.
3. The Big Bang may not be totally accepted, but it is the theory with the most evidence supporting it. From the universe expanding from a singularity, to the cosmic background radiation that we can measure from seconds after the Big Bang. I, however, disagree with the notion of the Big Bang not going against the Bible...the Bible disagrees with the Big Bang, because the Big Bang does not require a supernatural being, you could try to say that maybe the Big Bang was a result of God, but that's different from the very beginning of Genesis. Until there is a more probable theory, that the evidence supports, the Big Bang is the best we've got.
4. I didn't mention it, because the Earth is flat! Those images of the Earth you see that are round are false! I am going to be the one to establish the International Flat Earth Society, and we will fight feverishly to have the Flat Earth theory taught next to the Round Earth Theory that is unjustly taught unopposed in our schools, how disgusting! At the same time, you're forgetting that it was not until recently ( recently being relative here ) that scientists were a separate entity from the church. Before, if you wanted to study anything, you were required to join a monastery and become a monk, where there you could be approved to look into the workings of 'God'. Then as the church was systematically removed as the main source of power and government, science was able to work without the need of the church and eventually has and will continue to evolve beyond the need for a God. The only way to stop this is to stop science, and trust me, there are people out there working very hard to do so. So you see, before we scientists were able to study through universities with no ties to religion, the only option was to work through the church, which is why every really old theory is attributed to religion, more specifically Christianity because it held power and still does.
Even this wall of text was not a very thorough examination of what's out there, if you are truly interested in confirming your beliefs or having them changed, I really suggest you get some books or sign up for some classes. I will leave you with a funny little paradox, not meant to be an argument, just some food:
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
I'm not quite sure you're representing Einstein's beliefs so well by saying when he said god he meant nature. We're going off on a tangent here, and we don't have the man here to question about his beliefs, which may like many of us have changed throughout his life, but to throw in another Einstein quote:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Which suggests a belief of intelligent design behind the universe to me. Here's another couple of Einstein quotes which seem relevant to this discussion:
"Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot"
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hence we see theists being behind the three theories/discoveries you quote and no evidence to suggest there is no God.
I could also point out that by your reasoning, should a particular scientific theory be disproved, we should all abandon science.
now don't say we should abandon science.There has to be religuos things disproven and no one abandoned them.
P.S.I want spagetti now
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
the sins (things God hates) and 10 commandments are laws, nothing less nothing more. they dont promote ignorance anymore than the bill of rights, or the ammendments.
I just stated how religious systems are not like governements due to their unmalleable nature. It's set in stone, the government is the will of the people (or at least it's supposed to be) at one moment in time. Or actually I used the educational system example. The systems we humans implement in "democratic" societies are currently ones open to change. I know many americans might not think so with the ridiculous two party populistic system, but you can change things.
whoa, good thing i dont care to be a pastor or religious figure, eh? and again, i study what is written, i dont prescribe to what a man, pastor, teacher, or theologian says a scripture means. its in black and white (and sometimes red), i can read for meself, and understand simple concepts. and most of it is simple.
But don't you see these are the people that lead religious movements? The ones that do walk on eggshells to further their carreer. The people that cannot show criticism and cannot delve into anything but "good" knowledge. No matter how many people say they only believe in their personal faith, that faith has come from somewhere, and that's a religious institution (whether it be filtered through your family or friends).
and again, its a human trait, the government can just as easily put the same restrictions on you. if you are afraid to stand for truth, its speaks more about your character than it does the religion.
I'm not in full accordance with this having seen the pastor in question work and having observed the actions of leading figures of religions all around the world. It doesn't seem like many people are standing for the truth in religion.
in no way promotes ignorance.
Everyone else is lacking something which you can deliver? Not a slight bit of condescendence in there? Condescendence is the ugly cousin of ignorance.
i disagree. being a member of a church is no different than being a member of a social club as far as the membership itself goes. does being a member of a bingo group promote ignorance? if so, then i will agree that being a member of a church does. and the "small religious chores" are only chores to those that dont want to do them. to someone that enjoys being with Him its not a chore to pray, or being in service, or even paying tithes. the fact that you refer to these things that we "religious" people enjoy doing, chores tells me that youre the one in ignorance. no offence is intended by that statement, its just a fact that if you knew what i knew, then you wouldnt hate doing them.
Yes it is. You don't "believe" in a social club. In a social club you can think what you like without feeling it's wrong and feeling you're not a part of the group. A social club can be rearranged if it's not working. In religion there are thresholds where there don't need to be any. Do you honestly believe religion can expand to everyone feeling like they are doing every single thing in their life for some creator nobody's ever proven to have met? This seems to be your ideal world. Do you honestly think this will not sew seeds of doubt into at least one human mind? Also. It's not only His word that can be a fully euphoric sensation. You can do sports, perform household or community rituals, without it being tied to religion. You can even have euphoric mass psychosis sessions without religion being involved... Only it's HONEST when everyone knows what's happening.
Circumcision is a threshold to cross. A cross you bear for the rest of your life. It is dedication to religion. It's a constant reminder of your religion. Once you convert, you get circumcised. The threshold for converting back increases slightly when your dedication can be seen from a corporeal sacrifice. Also you probably don't want to have done something as silly as chopping the skin off your willy for no reason whatsoever.
that is a pretty strong generalization there, pal. as has already been pointed out, people start wars and bloodshed using the pretense of religion as a front. its not the religion, its the people. if the religion wasnt there, the bloodshed would carry on under a different name. and no, to your last statement, it cant. again, it would still exist without the religion. its human, friend, plain and simple.
You're making it seem like this has actually been pointed out as absolute truth yet again. The fact of the matter is, a lot of blood has been spilled using religion as a pretense, and it can be in no way proven that without religion things would have been better or worse. The 2nd world war could be considered a religious war. The Jewish people have made themselves quite easy to dislike due to the fact that they more or less stick with their own and have traditions that differ from those of others. The national movement that sprouted out of blaming a small religious community conquered Germany and then numerous other countries. This is what religion is all about, a community. Religion creates a bond that should exist, people should be part of a community, but the price you pay and the tresholds you cross may take you too far away from people who are not in your religious community. Fundamentally religion does not promote the understanding of other religions, but the conversion, condescendence or downright antagonism towards them.
______________________________
you both have points.....religion has been around since the start of cicilization.But thats the thing.Every era will have it's own religions-in each group of religions some die out and some survive by being modified. The way a religion survives is from the irational people in there willing to KILL for it.That is the peice of religion that makes me sick. You can't deny that the only reason your christain is because there where people who thought they saw a burning cross and began killing god knows how many people.of course with the beginning of the religions coming with that countless religions are now gone and I can only think of one religion alive left. And The religion voodoo has been scared so much that people even burned the worshipers in South America.
P.S. I suppose,but I usually respect the ability to believe the way you want
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Nice try. It means, literally, non-religious or non-belief in a deity. Not anti- just non-
First of all you don't need "all knowledge" to be athiest. It's as simple as being religous-go with what you feel is right. Second,If the breaking of these laws results to the destruction of the soul,like a sort of punishment of breaking a real law,then all of our souls are crushed into tiny peices. And third,evolution is technically a peice of both:science and history. We also have evidence to prove pieces of both-evolution and creation.The people of the bible are true as any history book can point out,and the weopons used by nomadic people are still around. So both have evidence to go off of.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Hippo, I just feel I ought to point out that it seems your view of religion is built up from various out of context, weird tit-bits and wild assumptions and much of what you say about religions just comes across as nonsense. To be honest, if that was all I knew of religion, I wouldn't believe any of it either and think anyone who did must be crazy. I don't mean to put you off joining in these discussions, but I'd recommend you should learn up on a subject before you try to knock it.
Edit: I did like your example about someone blind from birth. That's probably a better example of what I was trying to say than the ones I used. Imagine trying to explain sight to someone who'd never experienced it. Why should they even believe that sight exists when if they have never experienced it they can't really understand what sight really is? Just because the majority say they experience it, when you have no proof and can't get any other than people telling you of their experience of sight, there's no reason to believe in it.