I understood your point well before you made it, Brass. My comment was made from the perspective of absolute truth. Not relevant truth. I don't expect you to appreciate that, but not all religions lead to God. There is only one true God. The rest are wrong. It's just the way it is.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do you distinguish between the belief in God and the occult?
- Thread starter Brass
- Start date
I understood your point well before you made it, Brass. My comment was made from the perspective of absolute truth. Not relevant truth. I don't expect you to appreciate that, but not all religions lead to God. There is only one true God. The rest are wrong. It's just the way it is.
If that is so, then it is only because of what religion does to the person and to society. Religion is anything but innocuous. Consider how Santorum wishes to shape social policy based on his personal religious beliefs. Consider the church's war on science in the classroom and stem cell research, as well as equal rights. If only religion remained a personal and private matter, then no one would care except for purposes of vigorous academic discussion. Unfortunately, religion is a virus. And while it may not affect my own mind, it can affect my life because of the people who are influenced by it and who influence public policy. I live in Canada. Presently, the religion-friendly Conservative federal government has reduced its scientific research funding and limited its scientists from speaking publicly about their research. Coincidentally, the nation's science minister is a creationist:Quote from Epic:
...modern atheism has become anti-theism. They aren't just non-believers, they have become anti-believers.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...r-set-canadas-scientists-free/article2355740/
This has consequences that reach beyond one's personal beliefs and onto the lives of others, namely me. I don't much care for that kind of seepage.
Quote from bigarrow:
Atheist is simply evidence based thinking, show us god, Christ, holy ghost (whatever the hell that is) leprechauns, angels, aliens, bigfoot, a civilization living in the earths center or Elvis and then we'll talk, OK.
Ironically, the fastest way to prove God to you nonbelievers, is a science book. Specifically, a biology textbook. Get the syllabus for your local single-cell biology 101 class and read it cover to cover. It's a real eye-opener.
Quote from achilles28:
You need to do a little bit of research man. Life didn't go from simple to complex. It went from horrendously complex to universes compounded on universes complex.
lol. speaking of research. if you had done any you would know that darwins work never claimed anything about how life began.
"According to Darwins nativity story, one day, all the functioning organs, enzymes and plasma needed for a complete and working cell came together perfectly and landed inside a gated, semi-permeable cell wall by a sheer stroke of luck"
Quote from achilles28:
Ironically, the fastest way to prove God to you nonbelievers, is a science book. Specifically, a biology textbook. Get the syllabus for your local single-cell biology 101 class and read it cover to cover. It's a real eye-opener.
now thats funny considering that the people who wrote those textbooks and spent their lives in the field are mostly non believers.
I wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence.
Quote from bigarrow:
Quoting statistics is NOT proof of a god let alone proof of a Jesus god.
No proof = atheist.
Next.
There was a lot more to that post than just statistics. Being woefully ignorant of cellular biology doesn't repudiate the existence of God. It just means you're woefully ignorant. The actual proof you're looking for is in the science you desperately cling too, yet you're completely ignorant of. Ironic, isn't it?
Quote from Brass:
If that is so, then it is only because of what religion does to the person and to society. Religion is anything but innocuous. Consider how Santorum wishes to shape social policy based on his personal religious beliefs. Consider the church's war on science in the classroom and stem cell research, as well as equal rights. If only religion remained a personal and private matter, then no one would care except for purposes of vigorous academic discussion. Unfortunately, religion is a virus. And while it may not affect my own mind, it can affect my life because of the people who are influenced by it and who influence public policy. I live in Canada. Presently, the religioun-friendly Conservative federal government has reduced its scientific research funding. Coincidentally, the nation's science minister is a creationist:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece
This has consequences that reach beyond one's personal beliefs and onto the lives of others, namely me. I don't much care for that kind of seepage.
That comes from your perspective as an atheist. You want everyone to believe the same way you do, then they would stop trying to convince you to live the way they live.
From their perspective, they want everyone to believe like they do, because then we wouldn't be forcing God out of their daily lives.
Also, I see no problem with religious people "reducing funding" for science they disagree with. IT IS THEIR TAX MONEY! Atheists are free to donate to whatever research company they wish. But they would run into a significant problem. The vast majority of Americans are theistic. So atheist donations alone won't pay for the research. So what you are essentially saying is that because you value the research, everyone else should be forced to donate to it.
There isn't a war on science in the classroom. Private religious classrooms can teach whatever they wish. What you speak of is happening in PUBLIC schools. IOW, tax payer funded schools. Same argument applies. If they want the religious people to pay for it, then they must at least somewhat accommodate their wishes.
Is religion innocuous? NO But you need to fully consider your own position if you think that atheism ever was innocuous.
Quote from Free Thinker:
now thats funny considering that the people who wrote those textbooks and spent their lives in the field are mostly non believers.
I wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence.
For every atheist doctorate in the biology/chemistry/physics department, there's 2 that believe in God. Really, you're going to argue the existence of God based on what smarter people have to say? Faith plays a huge role to this, on both sides. Life is so complicated, it's impossible it arose by chance. It's never happened in the lab. All the requisite assumptions for it to occur in the wild, have never been witnessed, and chemically impossible. But the atheists still cling to their No God delusion, because like your religious brethren, they have FAITH there is no God. So they explain away using tautological reasoning. Well, yes, technically it was impossible, but maybe the primordial soup back then stabilized dna better than todays seawater, blah blah blah. It's pure grasping at straws with zero evidence, then or now, and people hold it up as "science", because, afterall, there is "No God", right? So it must be scientific.... must be....
I'm not "forcing" anyone to believe anything. I just want them to keep their religious beliefs out of my secular life. Separation of church and state, if you will. I do not wish to live in a theocracy and neither do most thinking people. The church should get out of the way and out of the lives of those who don't want it. Period. The people who choose to believe such stuff should not impose it upon others in secular society. Unless, of course, you want something other than a secular society, in which case may I suggest Iran?Quote from Epic:
That comes from your perspective as an atheist. You want everyone to believe the same way you do, then they would stop trying to convince you to live the way they live.
From their perspective, they want everyone to believe like they do, because then we wouldn't be forcing God out of their daily lives.
Also, I see no problem with religious people "reducing funding" for science they disagree with. IT IS THEIR TAX MONEY! Atheists are free to donate to whatever research company they wish. But they would run into a significant problem. The vast majority of Americans are theistic. So atheist donations alone won't pay for the research. So what you are essentially saying is that because you value the research, everyone else should be forced to donate to it.
Is religion innocuous? NO But you need to fully consider your own position if you think that atheism ever was innocuous.