Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

For it to succeed the 'religious nuts' would have to open their minds and let go of myths created by primitives a few thousand years ago. Cant you see you are out of touch when looking at our museums? They are filled to the brim with evidence contradicting you. It is no less ridiculous than me proclaiming Odin, Willi and We created the world of Ymir's dead body - and all I would have to back me is believing it. Even doing so while standing in the figurative shadows of them dinosaur and hominid bones.
I know you dont need proof as faith has nothing to do with logic. Still, you are portaying yourself as a lunatic if you ignore what has been discovered. In fact, you are harming the cause of the religious with this rigid mindset. Which serves me fine, but not you.

They are not wrong, you know. They only chose differently. They chose to go through with their lifes and have trust in themselves. And you are absolutely not in the position to say otherwise. For you are no closer to the truth than anyone else. Not one bit. Claiming that you are is hybris and arrogance.
Pointing to a book crammed with teachings most people of modern times feel indiffernt about will do you no good. All it proves is that you believe the truth these teachings claim to hold. Thats not enough of a verification. You also want others to give into the thralldom you have been subjected to. Then you go and tell of the horrors awaiting those who decline your loving god. I call that perfidious blackmailing, scare tactics.

So you are saying you play it safe?
And why do you take the risk that Christian faith is possibly false? Buddha's way, for all we know, might be the only path to ever find soul's rest and reach the Nirvana. What about the pantheons of old? Perhaps the ancient gods scorn us right now and we will all suffer greatly for abandoning them.

Its all so random. What I think it comes down to is an individual's make-up; whether one is so needy and dependent to rely on others to tell one is doing OK. Its simply a matter where you seek solace, what religion you choose. Or is it which one is choosen for you?

What gives you the certainty you have made the right decision? Because your religion says so? All the others do the very same. Nothing special there. They all try to bind you by your fears and doubts. And by your hopes. They all prey on weakness, gaining power and influence over you, controlling you. You gave the example, Gnarfflinger. You have been made believe God exists - when every free mind will tell you that is quite unlikely. I wont give myself over to this kind of mass psychosis.

 

I think this is an area where religions, despite their rosy-eyed faithful followers, gain a bad rap.

When political and religious power are concentrated in the same entity, whether person or institution, religion often becomes the vehicle for political initiatives; this is particulary true for older societies such as Middle Age Europe and ancient Egypt.

Imagine your cities were being periodically attacked, for centuries, by your less civil, starving and pox-ridden neighbors. They have different languages and worship various pantheons (which your people consider backward).

Times have been lush and your granaries are full. The winds have blown tales of your neighbors blights and droughts. You know they are going to come soon, plundering your hinterlands. Instead, you decide to take advantage of the situation and seek to bring them under your dominion, feeding them, but demanding their acculturation as well.

You are going to have to stand before your people and incite them to offer a portion of their sons and fathers to the bloody sword.

What do you tell them?
"Our Lord asks us to show these barbaric people the ways of civilized society, indoctrinated them in our Church, and teach them our Lords ways so they may reach His side in Heaven."

Or...

"I want to rule our starving and poxy neighbors so they stop raiding my fields, forests, and villages.


You can see what institution is going to take the blame in this circumstance.


This in no way excuses those rosy-eyed faithful followers for their willful obtuseness in situations where their religious institution has been proven wrong or misguided and then the mass of believers does not call their leaders into account.


And one other thing...

The most important difference is that the Bible is a narrative of stories thousands of years old. A scientific textbook describes the results of uncountable experiments, both ongoing and new, as well as the often repeated and continuously successful milestone experiments of the past.

The results of the use of either should not be included in the same conversation unless the description and prediction of nature somehow prevents entry into heaven.

[ July 12, 2005, 20:14: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

When this person, or the Pope that gave the order to crusade to liberate the Holy Land from those that held it, put their own agenda before the teachings of Jesus Christ they became Renegades. They took the Name of God to justify their vain acts, in direct violation of the ten commandments.

But is Science not based ultimately on certain assumptions? And if these assumptions are incorrect, then parts of the theory would then fall appart. Could these "homonid skeletons" simply be the remains of an extinct primate species which bears striking similarity to humans? This, to my mind, is a viable alternative, that doesn't contradict scripture.

Whether you threaten a peasant (from the time of the Crusades) with damnation or physical harm or death, he is likely to comply out of fear. Just as you are likely to do anything a gun toting maniac tells you to do. You wouldn't challenge him to determine if it was loaded, just as the Peasant didn't challenge the preacher to see if he was really preaching God's will or just using the name of God to achieve his own ends. The responsibility for the deaths is not because of Religion or Science, but upon those who abuse it to their own ends...

Thank you for proving my point. Just as a number of renegades sought to use Religion to bring their people in line to do as they pleased, so too do you use science to try to make me and my kind out to be foolish...

Your interpretation. I offered an alternate interpretation once and was mocked severely for it. You Scientific types can't even open your minds to the possibility that you are wrong, yet criticize me for my "blind faith" while you ignore any testimonial that I give that my faith is anything but blind...

Actually, I find that faith is quite logical. I find it illogical that you would reject it because it is not "Scientifically testable" or "quantifiable" or "directly observable." Newsflash! Not everything meets those criteria!

You are aware that these same charges could be leveled against you as well? I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that he doesn't, so therefore we will both get the answers in the worlds beyond. If you are right, then we will ceace to exist, and thus it really won't matter. If I'm right, then I will be mourning the loss of those brothers and sisters of mine that did not choose wisely.

No, I'm calling you on how confident you really are in this rant you've laid out before us...

Personal Conviction. Again, I can't prove it to you, but I can tell you about it. I can tell how I felt when I was in the ways of sin, and I can tell you how uncomfortable I was when I faced up to those sins, and I can tell you how happy I was when I had forsaken those sins. I can make the claim that others can do as I have done and receive the same results. I can challenge you to do as I have done, and suggest that you pray to God the Father in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ, to see if I am telling the truth. Until you are willing to do these things, it is like proposing a Scientific theory without observation or testing and expecting the scientific community as a whole to accept it blindly...

And are you sure that you haven't given yourself over to another form of Mass psychosis? Do you trade faith for an oppressive Anomy? You deny God's existence with a vigor that matches my own in defending my faith in Him.

It was the best I could come up with at the time. It was meant to call people on their faith in what they're claiming, and to determine how seriously they believe that we are wrong/nuts/stupid/primitive and they're right. Are they willing to risk that they may be wrong and thus accountable for what they say about us before the One that we worship throughout our lives?

Thinking and doing is part and parcel of following a religion. What good is it really to throw on a suit and go to church, sleep through a sermon, and go about your business and not really care about what you do because you assume that you're going to heaven anyway? And if your religion teaches that all other humans are your brothers and sisters, then wouldn't you want them all to have the best chance to return to Heaven with you? That is why I share what I believe...

That is exactly the point I wanted to make. There are those that abuse the Name of God to do as they desire, whether to conquer another land from an "unrighteous" neighbour, or to eliminate rivals by having them branded as heretics and executed. This is the act of man, not Religion.

Denial of God or of Jesus Christ WILL automatically exclude you from Heaven. If Evolution is used to discredit Religion and as an attempt to disprove the existance of God, then those that preach it do so at the jeopardy of their souls.

 

Aha! I mean.. AHA! Could it be that this is the reason why debating things that do not meet these criteria is so infinitely tiresome? (Not that you ever tire, Gnarfflinger, which is absolutely remarkable, honestly.)

We have no real ground for this debate - and we can't show each other the least of things.

Oh, the fun of it!

Science is based on certain assumptions. Like "I assume I can trust my eyes" or "I assume that my theory is correct as long as no one (including me) is able to provide anything that contradicts my theory."

Scientific results and insights are falsifiable and are indeed an invitation to go and try to disprove them.

Your Scripture and its consequences are not falsifiable. It is not really necessary for a belief to be falsifiable (indeed it is the reason for it being called "belief" rather than "theory") - but do you realize where this leads?

Science and Religion are not even comparable!

They have got nothing in common! NOTHING! You see the capitals I used to try to put an emphasis on a simple truism? I was forced to use them against my better judgement because we (the scientific morons) don't get through! Radio Gnarfflinger is not adjusted to our wavelength. We are broadcasting into the void!

You are free to argue why you feel that creationism is important and why it should be included in a given curriculum, of course you are. But you have to take the trouble to find reasons for creationism that are not depending on evolution, because these two are not comparable.

Your argument for creationism is along the lines of "I demand to have creationism included arbitrarily, because it suits my political/personal/religious/social/whatever needs." But do not pretend that a striking argument for creationism is "the inclusion of evolution leads logically to the inclusion of creationism, because both are equivalent with a different view on things."

As an aside, in reference to the people killed because of religion statement you said that "the Peasant didn't challenge the preacher to see if he was really preaching God's will." I take it that this was meant to support your point that truly religious people would never harm anyone - and that the harm done has to be accounted for by other things than religion. Please consider this: religion is about what people think god's will is. We don't know what it really is - hence we have dozens of religions. It is not important what you think about the motives of the preacher in your example. It is important what he himself thought about his motives at the time he committed something you consider to be a crime and to be against god's will. You will find that you and your friend the violent priest are not in accord with respect to what god's will really is. It is not a bug of religion, Gnarfflinger - it is a feature.

 

I've always understood my Christianity as teaching that there is no way that I can judge or determine the eternal fate of anyone.

My Christianity teaches that the most vital element in the salvation of anyone is the love, forgiveness and grace of God.

My Christianity teaches that I'm in no position to judge anyone, except perhaps for someone who claims to hold the same faith as I, and then only to exhort and instruct.

My Christianity teaches acceptance and inclusion, but not exclusion.

I usually let chev handle the details of Catholic Theology, but I had to just post this on behalf of Christians.

 

Well of course not everything meets that criteria. Comments like that will get you dubbed "Master of the Obvious". But that doesn't prove any point either. There are many questions that science does not have an answer to, but to be considered "science" there is a possibility that at some point an answer may be found. Let me illustrate by example:

What about the existence of life outside of our solar system? Due to the current limits of our technology, and the inability to make detailed observations of planets outside of our solar system, the current question of "Does life exist outside of our solar system?" is currently unanswerable by science. Why? Because currently there is no means of proving the existence of life outside our solar system in a manner that is scientifically testable, quantifiable or directly observable. That does not mean that the technology could not become available at some future point.

Prior to around 1000 A.D. no one could "prove" it was possible to make a trans-Altanic crossing because prior to the Vikings, no one had done it, mostly due to the limitations of open-sea navigation at the time.

But the existence of God is totally different. By his very nature, God will never be scientifically testable, quantifiable or directly observable. In fact to be any of these things, God would have to cease to exist. If God could be proven to exist the concept of "faith" would be removed from the equation. There would be no need for "faith" if something is proven. I don't have "faith" in gravity, as it is a known fact. If you don't think that known existence would nullify faith in God, then ask: Why God would not want his existence known if he wants us all to be "saved"?

So let's make a corrolary to Pascal's Wager: If God cannot be proven to exist, then there will always be those who see no point in wasting their time in worship: i.e., they treat God the same way they treat anything else that they do not believe exists - they don't give it a second thought. If God can be proven to exist, then faith would be removed from religion, in which case religion as we know it would end.

 

My name is not Chev nor is my name anything near that and I'm not Catholic. I am Christian though and can say that the only way to get your sins forgiven in Christianity is through Christ, and everyone sins more or less (even Chev though sometimes it might be hard to believe ) so the path to heaven is closed for Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims in Christianity I'm afraid. The thing that I'm more curious about is how the Catholics feel about protestants, can they reach heaven in the eyes of the Catholic Church without accepting the supreme authority of the papal seat and the Catholic Church?

 

Gnarf, I've heard all the arguements (and even fought on your side for a long time). But the arguements you presented were ideas by non-scientific minds expressly designed for other non-scientific minds -- they just simply do not hold up under the scrutiny of an inquisitive mind (they weren't designed to, the arguements were for the faithful flock to ease their minds). Something that I see continually on your part is the staunch refusal to even accept principles and theories that have been accepted by many in your religion (such as Eyring -- Quorum of the Twelve).

Your comments:

This clearly indicates you misunderstand some basic principles in the Mormon church. Denial of Jesus Christ, after you possess a true testimony (important distinction here), will exclude you from heaven. Very few men have had the experiences necessary to obtain a true testimony (it basically takes direct communication with God while being filled with the Holy Ghost -- this is called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost).

In the (religious) history of mankind, only one person has ever been identified as committing blasphamy against the holy ghost -- Cain. Not even Judas is put on this level by the Mormon church.

Even Spencer W. Kimball stated in his last general conference that it was possible to be elevated between levels of the kingdom of heaven (not very likely and definitely very difficult).

Aside: For the non-Mormons out there, the Mormon church believes in three kingdoms of heaven. The lowest is one which comes close to the heaven of many religions. The highest kingdom of heaven is one where the most faithful can become like God (please excuse the simplification, Gnarf).

The Mormon church also states that men and women will be judged according to their ACTS. That is, a person will be judged primarily on how they lived their life. There are certain things which must be accomplished (such as baptism and marriage), but those can be done in the hereafter.

Gnarf, you're preaching the gospel according the Gnarfflinger, not any particular religion and certainly not Mormonism. If you are going to express you're personal beliefs please do not post as if you represent a religion's beliefs.

Aldeth: That's not a corollary, that's the babelfish.

 

Yes, science ist based upon assumptions. But science starts with them. It doesn't stop there.

The simplest explanation of scinece possilbe would be: You take an assumption (often called 'question' or 'problem'). Then you take your time and examine the problem from as much angles as possible. If the problem is solved, you formulate a theory. If not, you either start anew with an different approach. Or you discard the problem because you cannot (yet) solve it.

Religion starts and stops with assumptions. Some guy - take moses or mohammed - comes down from a mountain and says: "God spoke to me. He told me that [insert tenets here] is right! Everything else is wrong!"

And people believed. They knew not. And they didn't ask questions. (Because that would have been rather unhealthy for them. )

It is as simple as that. You can prove scientific results. You cannot do that with beliefs.

 

Yes Morgoroth, the Catholic Church does teach that non-Catholics can go to heaven. It teaches that all professing Christians are somehow "connected" to the Church, whether they realize it or not, and that connection is what can enable their salvation.

I remember a picture from an old catechism that illustrated the concept well. It depicted a large ship which represents the Catholic Church with hundreds of ropes dangling from it into the water, to which people in the water were clinging. The people on the ropes were not Catholic, some not even Christian, but due to basic faith, personal morality or other influences that shaped their lives...they end up going with the big ship anyway.

 

Babelfish? I'm sorry I have no idea what that term means, and it's not in the dictionary that I just checked. Can you help me out here? Any reference to the Tower of Babel in the Bible?

(I'm not trying to be a smartass here - I really have no idea what the term means. )

 

@Aldeth

Babelfish (From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams) : A living fish, which is placed in ear, lives there and translates any form of language.

 

This is off topic, but...

From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The babelfish proved the existance of some greater power but, it was reasoned, that with proof faith was no longer necessary. If faith is not required, then God cannot exist. "And God vanished in a puff of logic."

It's a great series of books (five books in the trilogy), I highly recommend it.

Edit: Douglas Adams got the inspiration of calling it a babelfish because it does the exact opposite of what the tower of babel caused (mixing up the languages).

 

Wow, Adams and I came to a similar conclusion, admittedly through entirely different means. I have never read the books, although I must assume that Adams must have a sense of humor - I mean even with the statement that his "trilogy" consisted of five books.

 

Very interesting... growing up in a fundamentalist church, however, I do think it could be unfortunate. Summer camp for Christ was a yearly event, and while my memories of it are not particularly bad, I do resent having religion hammered into my skull at each and every opportunity. How is pounding a philosophy into a child's head going to do anything but rob them of their chance to come to their own conclusions about life? If the camp is not structured in such a way that the children can question, and even disagree with, what they are told - it is no better, and no different, than religion.

I'm not religious, by the way

 

@ ClarkNova - well, the "robbery" you speak of doesn't seem to have affected your ability to conclude that religion is a buch of nonsense. Although granted, it probably makes it more difficult to come to that conclusion.

And yes, Douglas Adams is a god.

 

I am VERY impressed that we have managed to get the babelfish involved in this debate.