|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted September 16, 2012 05:06 PM |
|
|
I am not looking at this from an utilitiarian's point of view - don't get me wrong. I'm not obsessed in looking for "usefulness" in everything. That thing is pretty absurd to me.
My point is that convincing a non-radical, non-indoctrinated religious person that his beliefs are farce changes absolutely nothing. As opposed to changing his opinions on pretty much anything else in his life. He might cease to pray, go to church and accept he'll vanish on death - but that's about it. Not worth to publish a big book on it. There are literally millions of bad habits/philosophy going around which could use some useful insight - like nationalism, for instance - combating that could actually give us visible effects. Fighting down the basics of religion, in a way Dawkins does, is a waste of time and potential.
Hence, I believe the whole "militant atheism" (or theism, I'm not biased) is pointless by default, because it only gives a virtual pat in the back for those already sharing the viewpoint.
Debating on religion is not philosophy, too. It puts away attention from humane parts of ethic to (usually) astral/outworld beings that by default are not comprehensible and often beyond logic. It's not quantifiable by any means, and imho it works best simply left alone, assuming its "users" are mature, not indoctrinated, and not radical.
Regarding anti-Islamic nature of this thread: has anyone here read Quran? I have.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 05:24 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 17:36, 16 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
And the point of such "voicing" is?
In the case of islam, the point is to create public awareness, so that people stop respecting it as a respectable religion.
Quote:
Your killing example is completely off - obviously, preaching happens with mutual consent, killing does not. Except euthanasia, which you excluded from the equation yourself.
Not really. My example is based on belief. If A believes killing saves B and B believes what A says, there is your mutual consensus.
Euthanasia is excluded because the one that wants to die has a medical reason to do so, not a fictive one.
Also, euthanaisa is banned across european countries. Simply letting go is not the thing that religion allows, but that is another issue.
Quote:
Truth, and especially "scientific truth" has absolutely nothing to do with morals/ethic, and by large mean, religion.
Yes, but some religious view displace scientific truth, creationism for example. In this case, preaching that religion is counterproductive. Science does not tamper with religion, but religion does tamper with science. Scientific truth is bot belief and thus to be regarded as just another truth. Its the only verifiable truth.
Quote:
I was merely asking whether you really don't see any difference between theist and atheist preaching.
Yes. One is active, the other is reactive, eventhough I disagree that there is a thing such as atheist preaching.
Quote:
It's like making a commercial that you don't need to buy a bicycle instead of a commercial about buying one. What's the point?
Except that bicycle is invisible and atheists are "Campaigning" against selling invisible bikes...
But then, you are right.
Quote:
No, just pointless. There are hundreds of research fields that could use a scientific mind. And all of that potential is wasted on bashing someone's beliefs... what's the use?
To make people stop believeing in invisible space ghosts and teaching people that evolution is not a fairy tale. Teaching people, that is the point.
But forget that, there is no real point here. Its results are in vain.
One cannot expect humans to be rational and choose the most rational decision. Emotion all the way...
Quote:
Okay, let's say you convinced Elodin there's no God. And?
Look at the bigger picture, we would have one person less who would be willing to vote for prolife, anti gayrights and support science in schools.
Quote:
What did that accomplish? What has changed in his life (or your life, for the matter)?
Nothing. It's pointless, that's all.
It made somebody get free from dogmatic religion.
Quote:
Why do you care, exactly?
Its because of those people that are the majority. In a democracy, a majority decides who governs.
I dont expect to be happy to be living in a community that decides whats best for me based on lies.
Quote:
Do you consider they have a "right" to hate gay people, out of free speech? Or do you agree that their hatred is pointless?
Hatred is a pointless emotiom. In fact, all emotions are pointless.
Indeed, their hatred is pointless.
Quote:
By the way, schizophrenia is a mental condition, religion isn't. Another comparison that's completely off.
One "sees" an imaginary being, the other "feels" an imaginary being.
But whatever.
Quote:
There is nothing to discuss with you anyway, because you're just going around on pointless hatred.
If that is your opinion, so be it. Dont expect me to convince you otherwise.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 05:30 PM |
|
|
Well religion is far closer to philosophy than science and many of the world's greatest philosophers have tackled the subject of God or gods.
Your argument also presumes people like Dawkins write to convince believers to abandon their religion. I'm not sure that's the case. I'd be more inclined to believe some of the vitriol is completely contrived, because it helps sell books. In that sense they're not so much "militant" (an adjective I find endlessly amusing) as "capitalist". It's also possible they simply don't have very much tact.
More to the point, I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who criticize Dawkins for being this or that haven't actually read any of his books. I have. True, they are a hair too close to sensationalist (particularly the later ones) but nevertheless I've also learned a lot from reading them. Not just about where I think he's right, but also where I think he's wrong.
In the end I find it hard to criticize anyone who puts a lot of thought into something and then tries to share those thoughts with the rest of humanity - no matter his or her motivations. Probably most of the people who read Dawkins are already inclined to agree with him, and that's sad, I think. Still I'd wager that more atheists have read the Bible than theists who've read anything by Dawkins. That's just a guess, though.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:02, 16 Sep 2012.
|
Well, i've read Dawkins' too. I find his books easy to read, rational, and well written but i really prefer to read more about his books on evolution, the god delusion was not as efficient as i expected and for a much more detailed and philosophically technical approach i suggest The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt:
http://wikisend.com/download/734468/Everitt - The Non-Existence of God.pdf
i think Dawkins became the man he is today by getting fed up trying to convince extremists that evolution is not "just a theory" and the world is not 6000 years old and so on. i think the amount of denial of reason he witnessed in those debates as a biologist made him say: ok, no more mr. nice guy!
P.S.
I too read Quran and most of the Bible (skipped some parts of the Old Testament) and i agree with Thomas Paine on that, the more you read them the easier you realize they are works of man. Of course Bible doesnt claim to be the word of God right from his mouth anyway.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 06:45 PM |
|
|
@Seraphim
I'll respond only to a few of your comments - too much quoting for my taste.
Quote:
To make people stop believeing in invisible space ghosts and teaching people that evolution is not a fairy tale. Teaching people, that is the point.
But forget that, there is no real point here. Its results are in vain.
One cannot expect humans to be rational and choose the most rational decision. Emotion all the way...
Being a theist has nothing to do with accepting evolution or not.
Also, there are atheists who deny evolution (in favor of different theories).
You can't expect humans to be rational 100% of the time. We're not robots. Such sensations as sentiment, nostalgia, yearning and fear ultimately make us incapable of being rational at every aspect. I think you're trying to aim for inhuman perfection in one aspect, denying the fact we're incapable at it at almost every other.
Quote:
Look at the bigger picture, we would have one person less who would be willing to vote for prolife, anti gayrights and support science in schools.
I'm not sure that Elodin is against science in schools.
As for the rest, I would say it's a big stretch to assume that all his opinions originate from religion and would simply vanish in case of no religion.
There's plenty of anti-gay atheists, for instance.
You're looking for the source of their bias in entirely wrong place.
Lack of empathy causes that, not religion.
Quote:
It made somebody get free from dogmatic religion.
And what difference does that make? Other that he's now incapable of restraining his fear of death/oblivion and having nothing to resort to under heavy depression?
Your "freedom" is empty and depressing for a person incapable of accepting it.
That's why I think you lack empathy. You may live with it, but forcing it into a human with different understanding of death may take his ambition away and push him into nihilism, which is counter-productive.
If you were empathic, you'd be able to understand those who need religion to overcome their fears. And much more than that.
Quote:
Its because of those people that are the majority. In a democracy, a majority decides who governs.
I dont expect to be happy to be living in a community that decides whats best for me based on lies.
There isn't a single dogmatic law in Poorland, a country that's majorly catholic. I can only assume that in your country, which is iirc much more atheistic than mine, it's the same.
The only thing that "governing" people can impose on you is the law. If there's no law that specifies you need to do anything tied to religion, your argument is empty.
Quote:
Hatred is a pointless emotiom. In fact, all emotions are pointless.
Indeed, their hatred is pointless.
Why do you hate religions, then? By your own definition, you're doing pointless stuff.
Quote:
One "sees" an imaginary being, the other "feels" an imaginary being.But whatever.
Anyone that "feels" an imaginary being has a mental condition.
However, believing in a presence of a supernatural force is tied closely to human nature and is not a mental condition at all.
@ Cor
Quote:
In the end I find it hard to criticize anyone who puts a lot of thought into something and then tries to share those thoughts with the rest of humanity - no matter his or her motivations.
Well, motivations are important to me.
As I said above, I believe that people who are atheists are capable of being atheists.
They don't need any comfort about life, or death. They take it as it is.
It takes empathy - as an atheist - to understand those who are incapable of such viewpoint.
Forcefully ripping their religion apart, often by zero-tact, demagogic arguments - they are doing nothing but pleasing their insulted ego (or intelligence, as they claim). See Seraphim. He gains nothing by his angry argumentation and it does not help anybody. The theist his reasoning could "cure" would probably be left clueless, with their moral system dismantled, hardly a positive effect.
This is closely tied to the fact that humans in majority can't stand difference and always try to ridicule or destroy it somewhat, instead of accepting our differences.
You are entirely different Cor, as an atheist, you're very respectable and tactful in your thoughts.
@artu
Quote:
Well, i've read Dawkins' too. I find his books easy to read, rational, and well written
They lack tact. The reasons, I mentioned above.
You gain nothing by dismantling one's viewpoint if he's not willing to do it itself. In many ways, it's just cruel. Like saying "big deal, you're still going to die of cancer" to a kid with cancer who got "A+" mark in school.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 07:54 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:01, 16 Sep 2012.
|
|
I fully agree that trying to "convert" (to atheism) a level-headed religious person who just follows his faith without preaching it uncalled-for or in any way trying to spread it (peacefully or forcefully) is unnecessary and to a degree even abusive. It's not very easy to find such people though, at least among the followers of the Western religions (including Islam) - every follower is also a potential preacher and is very likely to try to convert you at some point. There are reasons for this of course - for example the said person may believe that he/she's helping you save your soul this way - but that doesn't change the fact that they are trying to mess with your mind, understandings, beliefs, etc. There are tons (quite literally) of religious books on the market. It's only natural that some people from the opposite end of the spectrum start to feel irritated by all this propaganda and decide to express their own views in a similar way.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 08:05 PM |
|
|
Are we sure they try to convert because it may help you, or it's about help themselves by aiming at a bigger reward in the end? Also let's not forget that christianity works a bit different than the design Elodin tries to depict-you sin, you are no more christian-: there is absolution through death and confession, which implies even a "bad" christian remains a christian if he chooses this way, all sins, poof, gone, how convenient...
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 08:08 PM |
|
|
I agree with Zenofex. I kinda wish both sides would simply respect each other and give up on preaching attempts - and especially the aggressive rhetoric over the Internet.
Personally, I don't know anyone who has changed his mind due to atheistic/theistic preaching. Most people spontaneously decided religion just isn't for them/is great for them - that's what I call a natural decision, and that's how IMHO it should be.
Going back to Muslims, I'm surprised that there's not much attempt in showing the fanatics a different side of Quran. The Islamic holy book has a lot of verses that can be used to ease up the tension between them and "western world".
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 08:57 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 21:00, 16 Sep 2012.
|
I'm not sure what is so bad about preaching. it can probably get annoying if the person does it constantly, but it has nothing to do with religion.
Quote:
"Indoctrination" doesn't work against adult, reasonable people that can tell right from wrong.
oh really? and maybe you just showed how powerful indoctrination is?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 09:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
oh really? and maybe you just showed how powerful indoctrination is?
Nope, I do not follow any doctrine, thus, I cannot be called "indoctrinated".
Unless you had something else in mind.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 09:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
for example the said person may believe that he/she's helping you save your soul this way - but that doesn't change the fact that they are trying to mess with your mind, understandings, beliefs, etc.
Yes a person "may" do this but they also may do this for "any" reason. By far, most times in my long life; the conversion-efforts have been concerned with converting "my money to their money" for whatever purpose, cause, gadget, cure, country etc.
Don't forget "everyone" some folks/friends are just "sharing their gold" (no matter what's defined) and are not on some evil mission. The worst encounter I ever endured was AmWay.<L>
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 10:00 PM |
|
|
|
There came a time in 18th century that the cosmology of abrahamic religions were no longer compatible with our level of knowledge. Still, that wasn't a very big issue because for most people religion isn't there to make a cosmological explanation of the universe, it's there for their everyday needs. Today however, we are moving into an age in which religions are no longer compatible with our modern ethics, yet for most people they are not easy to replace with something new. All religions evolved in times where every civilization thought they were the only true civilization and their community was the only one whose ways were right. Just up to two hunderd years ago, this was the norm. Cultural relativity is a very new concept for humanity, therefore the ancient religions lack it. Through this perspective, it is quite useless to say "let everyone believe what they want and be done with it" because it is an issue of our times, it is zeitgeist. In a world that's getting smaller with such a speed (just think of what the internet was 10 years ago, no youtube, no facebook, then go back 20 years) religions will keep creating problems. It is certain at some point, they will turn into dead religions like shamanism or greek mythology, but until then all societies will have some compatibility issues. The amount of debate and discussion over religous topics almost everywhere around (news bulletins, internet forums, academia, even people's daily chat) indicates that these religions are in a fight for survival in modern times: They no longer fit into sociological embodiment of culture like a glove.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 10:01 PM |
|
|
|
... hence the "for example" part. Different people will have different reasons, ultimately however the aim is to make the other individual change his mind and start believing in what you believe (or more broadly - in what your religion teaches). Not everyone will have a problem with that but preaching religion to an atheist is usually just as bad an idea as making anti-religious public claims. Discussion is another matter but in my experience it takes a special pair of atheist - religious person to have a fruitful conversation without mutual misunderstanding and underestimation of the other side, not to mention the casual flame war which is the most common result.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 10:56 PM |
|
|
@artu
I don't know where do you get your info.
Going by, heck, wikipedia even:
"According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious."
Assuming wikipedia's crap factor, an error margin of 100% can be included. That's still not even remotely close to what you're describing here. Sorry to burst your bubble and all 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 11:07 PM |
|
|
|
What i meant wasn't most of the population are turning into atheists. I know the statistics too. Although they don't mean much because they also include agricultural areas and uneducated masses. We are in the beginning of a change, it will start in richer countries' upper middle class and it will spread. Actually it did start, rougly speaking, that 10% was 0.1 percent a few centuries ago. This of course is an interpretation of what i observe, i can not guarantee results
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 11:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
oh really? and maybe you just showed how powerful indoctrination is?
Nope, I do not follow any doctrine, thus, I cannot be called "indoctrinated".
Unless you had something else in mind.
you say that as if people always chose to be indoctrinated. but what if the goal is to change people without them even noticing? for example over a long period of time, so that the gradual change is almost unperceptible?
then if you think it can't happen to you, you will not protect yourself...
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2012 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What i meant wasn't most of the population are turning into atheists. I know the statistics too. Although they don't mean much because they also include agricultural areas and uneducated masses. We are in the beginning of a change, it will start in richer countries' upper middle class and it will spread. Actually it did start, rougly speaking, that 10% was 0.1 percent a few centuries ago. This of course is an interpretation of what i observe, i can not guarantee results
Well, the guy that first said "God is dead" is long gone, and God/gods are still around. It's not really so easy. The idea of religions vanishing is absurd - yes, they will go down for a good while, but we shouldn't count on human nature changing that much.
I'd say, what we're seeing now is the amount of theists normalizing - to the natural levels. That's because there's no longer peer pressure. People don't need to hide atheism, and are no longer aggressively indoctrinated as kids (in civilized countries). They can freely pick whether they want to believe or not. I expect this trend to stabilize in the next XXX years.
Also, keep in mind that events like wars, economical crisis or globabl disasters always result in number of theists increasing - again, because of human nature.
Then, there's Islam. Which seems to be expanding rather than declining.
By the way, we should drop the religion subject and go back to Muslims. This isn't exactly the thread for us to go on about religions.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 12:59 AM |
|
|
i agree that some people will always seek for some form of spiritualism, still i personally think the abrahamic religions dont have much more centuries left.
back to islam, things may normalize with islam if islamic countries actually produce some sort of bourgeoisie, middle-class that is deeply in trade and connection with the rest of the world. still, not as advanced or far from being ingenuinely democratic comparing to the rest of europe, turkey is a good example of that. there are some districts in istanbul you can easily think similar to Paris or New York in terms of life style, yet there are also poorer districts which are much more similar to a typical middle-east town, where woman don't go out alone at night and so on. Theologically speaking, islam is a hard religion to adapt to any sort of modernity (because of reasons i wrote earlier on this thread), sociologically speaking, history has shown us when conditions get wealthier no society stick to their dogma from agricultural times 100%.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 02:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Regarding anti-Islamic nature of this thread: has anyone here read Quran? I have.
Extensively. Which is why the extremist nut jobs make me wince every single time. And although I have crap for memorizing verses from anything, I do remember basically every over-arching theme. To clarify for certain individuals:
Theme one that people do not seem to understand: The only time the Quran allows violence against another human being is when they offer violence first, and then you can only meet their level of aggression. Also, something on that line of reasoning; The word "Jihad" does not exist in the entirety of the Quran, and if you look up its original definition it means something like, "To battle one's inner demons" or "A holy battle of self-discovery," not an actual war. To wrap this theme up; A good Muslim, according to their holy book, is peaceful, and only ever commits violence in self-defense.
Theme two that people do not seem to understand: Muslim women are not forced to wear a headdress, they are only to be clothed in all places but the bedroom. The Burka (Spelling?) is meant to be an object of shame for both men and women, to denote an unfaithful spouse.
Theme three that people do not seem to understand: A good Muslim will take care of any who ask for it, as long as it is within the Muslim's means. Their laws of courtesy are extensive, and ensure that even if one is an "Infidel" they will come to no harm within a Muslim country and especially not in a Muslim home. A Muslim also does not have to rabidly convert any infidel they find, in fact it is forbidden to try and force someone that does not believe to believe against their will. A Muslim is to answer all questions of his faith, and can debate with an infidel, but no more. In other words, the good Muslim is the perfect host to whoever comes under his or her roof.
Theme four that people do not seem to understand: The Muslim courts are not allowed in a land that rejects them. Also, unless a law directly and obviously breaks a law in the Quran a person of the Muslim faith must follow the laws of the land, regardless of what they may be. While he is a guest, a Muslim may only take what is offered or what he can purchase, nothing more.So they have to be the perfect guests as well.
So why oh why do people see the Islamic faith in such a negative light? If you have been reading my posts at all, you would see that I have pointed out that there are people who will twist *anything* to try and gain power. To see what some people believe sickens me, as the Muslim faith is meant to be about courtesy, kindness and respect. I mean for snow sake guys. For snow sake. [/rant]
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 02:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. Just cause you say it so ten times doesn't make it so.
The US Supreme Court ruled atheism is a religion and atheists certainly make dogmatic statements of faith. You have to have faith to say, "God does not exist" because you have NO proof whatsoever that God does not exist. If you don't believe God exists the only rational thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists." If you say "God does not exist" you are expressing a religious conviction because you have no proof that he does not in fact exist. But I'm not mad at you for having faith in your religious dogma.
Quote:
2- i didn't say Stalin or Mao didn't kill, i said it had no contextual link to atheism directly. but it seems you ignore logic on purpose.atheism itself isn't an ideology, an atheist can be a marxist, liberal, nihilist, monarchy supporter.... so on.
Dude, their stated goal was to destroy [theistic] religion and indoctrinate children into atheism. Atheism is in world wide decline for many reason, including the collapse of the atheistic form of government known as communism.
Again, I realize most atheists find what they did to be repugnant. I am talking about militant atheists and how they are just as divisive as militant Islamists.
Quote:
3- Just the concept of Hell for non-believers is violent enough if you are a believer.
So the concept of a judicial system is "violent?" Riiiiiiight. We will all face the divine judicial system and answer for our "crimes."
Quote:
4- You seem to ignore reason to justify your religion which is quite typical. Since religion itself is not rational it can only be defended rationally to a point.
False, I do not ignore reason, though I think many atheists do. Especially die hard "religion haters" (anti-theists.) I'm also not sure where I've been trying to "justify" my religion. I frankly could care less what you think of my religion and judging from your comments you don't know much about what I believe.
Quote:
Elodin just has to jump into every thread each time an atheist voices his/her opinion and he has toexplain troll us atheists that we are religious and that Stalin killed people because he did not believe in god...
That is false. You slandered ALL RELIGIONS. You simply can't resist insulting all religions in virtually every thread. And I responded to your slander. Below is what you said on page 1.
Quote:
Islam, as any other religion, is the religion of anything but peace and tolerance but that is beside the point.
Anyone who says all religion are religions of "anything but peace and tolerance" is frankly either a bold faced liar or utterly ignorant of most religions as there is no rational reason to make such a statement.
Sadly many atheists quite enjoy perpetually making false statements about religion (Dawkins and the late Hitchens enjoyed this immensely) and then they accuse others of derailing the thread when they respond to the falsehoods told about theistic religion. Militant atheists are quite damaging to the reputation of atheists in general and are one reason atheists are looked upon so poorly by the majority of people.
It is quite funny mow militant atheists such as Dawkins accuse religious people of trying to ram religion down everyone's throat, yet the hate group Freedom from Religion (which Dawkins is a member of) evangelizes their faith with posters on buses, billboards at the Democrat and Republican conventions, ect.
I have no problems with atheists or Muslims. I have problems with militant atheists and militant Muslims who think everyone must convert to atheism/Islam or die/be taxed/be second rate citizens or is mentally impaired.
Quote:
Burning a flag should be punished.
I'd say burning a flag is a renunciation of citizenship. The person should not be punished, but should be taken to a deportation center until he can be deported. After a trial that established he in fact burned the flag.
Quote:
Yes, but some religious view displace scientific truth, creationism for example. In this case, preaching that religion is counterproductive. Science does not tamper with religion, but religion does tamper with science. Scientific truth is bot belief and thus to be regarded as just another truth. Its the only verifiable truth.
Science is an imperfect tool. An imperfect tool where imperfect conclusions are arrived at by imperfect people making imperfect measurements with imperfect instruments. Science is good but we must always bear in mind what it is and not make a religion out of it.
I am in no way opposed to teaching science in schools. I AM opposed to teaching only one viewpoint on things that are contested. That is not education.
I am not a young earth creationist. I see no conflict with what the Bible teaches and evolution, as I have stated in other threads. Indeed, evolution (but evolution with a bit of divine guidance) was put forward by Christians long before Darwin's arrival.
I'll just link to an article about Augustine's ideas on evolution.
Clicky
Again, science is good, just don't make a religion of it. There are things once "scientifically proven" that are no longer considered true.
Quote:
Hatred is a pointless emotiom. In fact, all emotions are pointless.
Hatred is certainly self destructive, as well as destructive to society. But people have a right to their emotions. I disagree strongly that all emotions are pointless.
Quote:
One "sees" an imaginary being, the other "feels" an imaginary being.
It is quite impossible for you to know that someone can't feel God.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
