"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary. No, no god needed. "psychological problems" are an opinion. "natural instincts and feelings" -sounds genetic, so what's natural to you won't be the same for everyone.
I see no reason to believe that religion will be gone anytime soon, unless you think humans will all die off soon.
As far as the rest, I feel that you're building up a strawman of what I believe (or more accurately, don't believe) because you have a preconceived notion about what atheism is, and expect everything to fit within that narrow definition. You're trying to get me to agree with you when I clearly don't, and I don't see any benefit to either of us in continuing this.
I seriously doubt that GW Junior wants to take away your citizenship. Do you have a link of a text where GW said that?
What happens with you guys is this: Sure there is some people like David Koresh or the guy of the cult who tried to catch Halleys comet or some wack job somewhere spouting off. This is not a reflection of Christian views which in almost all cases are most happy that you and I and everyone share in civil liberties. Christians could make the same mistake by saying people like Jeffery Dahlmer are reflective of atheists, but mostly we dont because we dont see a lot of cannibal zombie atheists running around. Lets have some harmony but stopping futile stereotyping. Ok?
As you've already seen, it was George H. W. Bush, which is usually in reference of the elder rather than George W. Bush who is the younger. Also, it took place before he was president.
I also was not indicating that all Christians are intolerant or dominionists. I just wanted to show how extreme of a bias against atheism exists in this nation, and how even though not everyone feels as extreme about it as Bush Sr., the majority of people would not be offended by him making such a statement, which is part of the problem.
Also, Jeffrey Dahmer was a member of the Church of Christ. He was not an atheist, and it's been theorized that his religious hatred for homosexuals enabled him to murder gay people and hate himself for being homosexual. Of course, I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer to be a typical Christian, either.
Also, Jeffrey Dahmer was a member of the Church of Christ. He was not an atheist, and it's been theorized that his religious hatred for homosexuals enabled him to murder gay people and hate himself for being homosexual. Of course, I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer to be a typical Christian, either.
Not that it makes any difference but nope Dahlmer was NOT a ChristianJeffery Dahlmers (family) where church going types. If you dont believe me watch the MSNBC interview with Dahlmer from prison where he states that he "was" an evolutionist and an atheist. (In fact he said so in the interview) But like I said, It really isnt relevant.
Not that it makes any difference but nope Dahlmer was NOT a ChristianJeffery Dahlmers (family) where church going types. If you dont believe me watch the MSNBC interview with Dahlmer from prison where he states that he "was" an evolutionist and an atheist. (In fact he said so in the interview) But like I said, It really isnt relevant.
I never saw the MSNBC interview, and maybe he claimed to be an atheist at the time (and only Christian fundamentalists use terms like "evolutionist", so if he did say that he did so as a Christian) but the fact is that he was raised in a strict Christian family and I read that he was baptized in prison by a Church of Christ pastor as well.
Of course, religious or not, what Jeffrey Dahmer had in common with us was the fact that he was a human being. He showed the great evil that any person is capable of in the absence of mental stability. This problem is not limited to people with or without religion, so I agree that it doesn't make any difference. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. are all capable of murder and I don't see religion stopping evil people from doing evil things.
Of course, religious or not, what Jeffrey Dahmer had in common with us was the fact that he was a human being. He showed the great evil that any person is capable of in the absence of mental stability. This problem is not limited to people with or without religion, so I agree that it doesn't make any difference. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. are all capable of murder and I don't see religion stopping evil people from doing evil things.
You MisterP-Mosh, things dont ever get settled or communicated well when we digress into which bad guy fits into which camp. Noteworthy is the fact that in Jesus day, he healed a lunatic who had a legion of devils in him. Now we do not know why they had this fellow in chains, but I suspect it was because he could inflict some harm not a little. Interesting that both camps (Christians and atheists) cite Hitler; in in effort to put him where they think he belonged. It does not work however, on either side of the equation. Thus, Hitler looks more like a politician in his speeches than anything else with respect to atheism and Christianity. Now, I could make the argument that atheism poisons peoples faith enough to disable it, but that would just meet with a chorus of boos.
Back to the points of this thread and that is Dawkins. Richard Dawkins, as part of this book, launched into a verbal tirade against the God of the Old Testament, that was barbaric and full of ignorance. There was nothing "scientific" about it. Now a guy like Richard Dawkins would never do the same against those of the Muslim faith, primarily because he fears them too much. However against those of Christian and Jewish faith, he seems to have no such barrier in his speech. Why? Because he knows and understands that we of that faith (I am a Christian) are people of love and forgiveness. Thus, he unseats his entire diatribe because he knows we are passive loving people. Futhermore, If you know who was the villian Dawkins described, why then are those who believe in him so non-villianous? Thus, Dawkins entire diatribe falls short because he knows we are loving people because of the instruction of you know who. Now if Dawkins wants to really prove himself? I challange Richard Dawkins to say the same thing to those who are of Muslim persuasion to prove that he really feels that about the God of the Old Testament. He will never do it, and this in itself proves Richard Dawkins to be a liar. Now niether I nor the people I mentioned would ever advocate any violence against someone like Richard Dawkins, yet this is primarily the reason in which he seeks to abuse us. In short, Dawkins takes advantage of the love and forgiveness of the God of the Old Testament to abuse him.
Still, shouldn't we have the same liberty to dispell Dawkins diatribe with the same amount of zest that Dawkins has in his emotional diatribe? I think so. Therefore consider this: Dawkins has some screws loose in his head, right out of his own books this is a man who is emotionally unstable. In his book the Blind Watchmaker ;Dawkins actually suggests putting his computer in his outdoor garden to have insects more fairly select on his computer a "evolutionary gene mutation; with the help of the natural environment. This is pretty wack stuff. In addition in the same Chapter 3, Dawkins goes into a state of "exultation" in which he could not eat or sleep because of bugs appearing out of his computer. Does this sound like the mind of an objective scientist? I think not.
Lastly, I find it rather amusing how many atheists of different stripes are so zealous over dispelling the Bible. It's almost as if the evolution movement has but one agenda and that is to displace the Bible. Science,( if it is science, by defintion is supposed to be factually based if it is good science) , doesn't have a need to get all ripped over things if there stuff is true. I seriously doubt that the round earth movement, went into hysterical frenzies (Like Dawkins did) over flat earth people. Truth is truth, proof is proof, it does not need hysterics and theatrics to dispel false precepts. This is why about 99 percent of people of faith, dont even pay regard to atheistic evolution. The "proof" that they have in there faith providing results, is more than sufficient for them to constitute there belief. Nuff said.
I see no reason to believe that religion will be gone anytime soon, unless you think humans will all die off soon.
As far as the rest, I feel that you're building up a strawman of what I believe (or more accurately, don't believe) because you have a preconceived notion about what atheism is, and expect everything to fit within that narrow definition. You're trying to get me to agree with you when I clearly don't, and I don't see any benefit to either of us in continuing this.
I don't know that you haven't said anything that doesn't confirm my "preconceived notions". Yes, we're done.
. . . In short, Dawkins takes advantage of the love and forgiveness of the God of the Old Testament to abuse him. . .
Hey sky,
did you read the book? Does Dawkins discuss his view on love?
did you read the book? Does Dawkins discuss his view on love?
Bolshevik:
I have read "most" of Dawkins book the "The Dawkins Delusion". I have read the entire Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" most of it twice, some of it 3,4,5 times. I have read portions of The Selfish Gene and some other Dawkins rubbish. I have listened to hours of Dawkins speeches on you tube. I have a fairly good handle on Dawkins. Interesting that when Dawkins gets into some stuff, he rants into bio-speak, unlike Behe who communicates to his largely non-biological audience.
I have a 9 page article on his book The Blind Watchmaker, but am working through some statisical calculations before I post it, it may take me a while..............
you said: I hear Sweden is mostly atheistic/agnostic/generally non-believers. Europe apparently is far more secular than the U.S.
I actually am part Swedish. Have relatives there. Sweden, has in part embraced an immoral culture before the US sexual revolution. Does this mean there is a connection between immorality and unbelief? Gee thats a tough one. Of course I think I need to preface the Swede are unbelievers thoughts, NOT all Swedes are unbelievers, you might find some of the stongest believers of Christian faith, in Sweden also.
I actually am part Swedish. Have relatives there. Sweden, has in part embraced an immoral culture before the US sexual revolution. Does this mean there is a connection between immorality and unbelief? Gee thats a tough one. Of course I think I need to preface the Swede are unbelievers thoughts, NOT all Swedes are unbelievers, you might find some of the stongest believers of Christian faith, in Sweden also.
I saw video on eugenics (Homo Sapiens 1900) in which I learned that Sweden was big into genetically purifying its people (in the past). I don't know that Swedes are immoral or not. Apparently they're good at rehabilitating criminals back into society. I got nothing against Swedes. (I married a part-Swede). I know there are believers in Europe, but the trend in Europe seems to be (roughly) away from religion toward atheism. I thought if Europe is headed toward primarily non-religion, the U.S. will be next.
I saw video on eugenics (Homo Sapiens 1900) in which I learned that Sweden was big into genetically purifying its people (in the past). I don't know that Swedes are immoral or not. Apparently they're good at rehabilitating criminals back into society. I got nothing against Swedes. (I married a part-Swede). I know there are believers in Europe, but the trend in Europe seems to be (roughly) away from religion toward atheism. I thought if Europe is headed toward primarily non-religion, the U.S. will be next.
Sweden is a very socialistic country, taxes through the roof. When my grandfather immigrated here in 1917, he left 10 brothers and sisters, many of whom died of diseases and malnutrition.
I think your are correct about the trends tho. I also think that the trend toward athesim is somewhat alarming because it is unlike what was in the past. Some of these atheists seem to be real zealots for propagation of an agenda. (perhaps this might be a excessive reaction to what they call the fundamentalist political movement- but I dont think so) I base this upon what atheists were like say 20 years ago. I knew several who were sort of in the undecided column, who seemed to like to read Darwin and the Bible because they were unconvinced of the Garden of Eden account. Still, it was not uncommon to see some of these people in a church here and there, looking for further answers. (Most people at that time, did not see a need to bash biblical values as a prerequisite for futhering there beliefs) They were always very passive and polite about there thoughts. Of course, some of this I am basing on people like Dawkins and what seems to be a general acceptance by atheists of his ranting diatribe.
I've been reading this discussion but am probably done. From reading some of the latest posts here it looks like the country is full of Bible creation believing Christians(who are moral) and Dawkins following athiests(who aren't moral). Plus, the numbers of amoral athiests are growing and we're all doomed.
??? How does this even approach real life? What about all the evolution accepting Christians/agnostic/others? What about all the self righteous, self serving Christians, like some of us have had personal experiences with?
In real life, who has ever been 'evangelized' by a athiest or agnostic? Have you ever been invited to an athiest group? Reading a much publicized book doesn't count IMO. Dawkins is a writer--controversy sells much better than well reasoned moderate views--outrageous will get you on the talk show circuits and sell books! Probably more Christians are buying his books than athiests or agnostics, because he fuels their righteous zeal. ka-ching!
Where in your city do the athiests groups meet to discuss their athiest ways? I never see adds in the paper's community calendar. Though there are tons of Chrsitian adds, and maybe one Jewish or pagan add once in a while.
Among your co workers, who are you most likely to even Know has strong belief--I work in a huge office, the signs of belief I see are pretty much Chrisitian--bible verse calendars, crosses on cube walls etc.
This discussion is getting too simplistic and black and white to seem real--evil athiests vs good Christians--when we all know people don't fit so nicely into such boxes.
I don't see our country going from Fundamental Christian( which is not the majority faith) straight to athiesim. Mostly I see people who have beliefs of one sort or another, have no interest in organized religion. And no organized religion means no money pouring in to church headquarters to use to persuade others to be like them. Now there's some doom for ya.
Well, a if a religious person wrote a book they'd get the same accusation.
Dawkins is an influencial man. People don't have to buy the book to get the message: Want to be a good scientist? Give up god(s). That's what the best of them do. Sure, there's a few who debatebly ascribe some sort of loyalty to a god, but why make it hard?
I've been reading this discussion but am probably done. From reading some of the latest posts here it looks like the country is full of Bible creation believing Christians(who are moral) and Dawkins following athiests(who aren't moral). Plus, the numbers of amoral athiests are growing and we're all doomed.??? How does this even approach real life? What about all the evolution accepting Christians/agnostic/others? What about all the self righteous, self serving Christians, like some of us have had personal experiences with?
I think you are underestimating the power of the cyclops. The cyclops is capable of destruction not a little. Does one have to be self-serving to be self righteous? Great, than at least I shouldn't be put in that category no?
cyclops: A genus of minute crustaceans with terrestrial life cycles, some species of which act as hosts of Diphyllobothrium and Dracunculus spp. Called also water flea. It is also a one eyed monster.
I thought it provided a useful analogy of the evolutionary life tricycle contraption.
Bramble and Bolshevic, I've enjoyed your posts -- at least parts of them! And you too, Sky
I mentioned earlier that I thought that Dawkins was a powerful voice in the human conversation right now. I think he deserves to be heard. I disagree with him, of course, but he does raise important issues, and a few well-placed pokes-in-the-eye with a sharp stick. He makes money off this book, and enjoys a good deal of notoriety. I think he deserves it. He's smart and eloquent, which is what his job at Oxford requires. And he doesn't just bash "God" and God-believers. He explains science to the common man, in the tradition of Sagan and Stephen Hawking.
As a Christian, I do not feel threatened by the discussion. It's good for all of us. If the thread has run its course, so be it. There's more to discuss!
I think you are underestimating the power of the cyclops. The cyclops is capable of destruction not a little. Does one have to be self-serving to be self righteous? Great, than at least I shouldn't be put in that category no?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Cyclops? You believe athiesim and evolution cause destruction--is that your meaning? I would not agree on that, if it is your meaning.
Self serving, self righteous--I guess you had a much more comfortable time in TWI than I did, not to figure out the type of Christians I was refering to-- the destructive kind, the kind who feel it is their godly business run others lives etc. Trust me, those types put on a good show of righteousness while serving themselves. When I hear self righteous or self serving, my mind goes straight to those types.
Well, a if a religious person wrote a book they'd get the same accusation.
Dawkins is an influencial man. People don't have to buy the book to get the message: Want to be a good scientist? Give up god(s). That's what the best of them do. Sure, there's a few who debatebly ascribe some sort of loyalty to a god, but why make it hard?
That's odd, there have been plenty of scientists that are religious or superstitious at a minimum. I have a friend that has done work for NASA and is a strong Christian. He sees no contradiction in the two.
I might be repeating myself, but Candace Pert says the more scientific research she does, the more she sees there HAS to be some kind of divine source - just that she sees it/God/whatever you want to call it - more from an Easter thought frame of mind than the Western.
Doesn't Stephen Hawking also say that he doesn't know what or who caused the Big Bang and does not rule out divine intervention/divine spark/God/source or whatever you want to call it? :unsure:
I seem to remember reading that, but it was a Playboy magazine interview eons ago when I was a wee widdle college student buying it for my astronomy professor because I really needed a C in that class.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Cyclops? You believe athiesim and evolution cause destruction--is that your meaning? I would not agree on that, if it is your meaning.
After reading Richard Weikerts book, and considering that the "movement" has an agenda, I am uncomfortable with it and the possible outcomes.
Self serving, self righteous--I guess you had a much more comfortable time in TWI than I did, not to figure out the type of Christians I was refering to-- the destructive kind, the kind who feel it is their godly business run others lives etc. Trust me, those types put on a good show of righteousness while serving themselves. When I hear self righteous or self serving, my mind goes straight to those types.
I guess you would never consider me "IN" TWI. I took PFAL, but not as a part of TWI. I was actually attending in High School a "fellowship" of people who were ex-TWI people, who knew Peter Wade real well. I think I only ever attended one twig meeting, so no, I did not have membership. Still, I was deeply impacted by what VPW said, and it took me a while to sort it out.
I don't think he sees God in a personal sense, as in God being a "someone", but , as you say, more allows for that unknowable instant before "the big bang" origins of the universe involving something we can't account for completely.
Doesn't Stephen Hawking also say that he doesn't know what or who caused the Big Bang and does not rule out divine intervention/divine spark/God/source or whatever you want to call it? :unsure:
Quite possible, Belle. It is the honest way to go. We really actually do not know what came before a ..00000etc of a second after the Big Bang. It could have been the collapse of an earlier universe. It could be creation. It could have been a being infinitely larger than we are farted or we could be trapped in the matrix. For me it makes sense that matter may be infinite. I could be wrong and you won't find me forming a religion or movement on that idea, just shrugging my shoulders and guessing.
Great reading your thoughts on these threads, BTW.
The French philosopher Henri Bergsen is someone who's caught my interest and imagination for years. His books "Memory and Matter", The Creative Mind", "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion", and "Time and Free Will" are killers. I've only really studied the first two, but I enjoy the way he thought.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
23
30
Popular Days
Oct 19
23
Oct 16
19
Oct 17
17
Oct 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 22 posts
cman 12 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
anotherDan 30 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
23 posts
Oct 16 2007
19 posts
Oct 17 2007
17 posts
Oct 23 2007
16 posts
Posted Images
Mister P-Mosh
I see no reason to believe that religion will be gone anytime soon, unless you think humans will all die off soon.
As far as the rest, I feel that you're building up a strawman of what I believe (or more accurately, don't believe) because you have a preconceived notion about what atheism is, and expect everything to fit within that narrow definition. You're trying to get me to agree with you when I clearly don't, and I don't see any benefit to either of us in continuing this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
As you've already seen, it was George H. W. Bush, which is usually in reference of the elder rather than George W. Bush who is the younger. Also, it took place before he was president.
I also was not indicating that all Christians are intolerant or dominionists. I just wanted to show how extreme of a bias against atheism exists in this nation, and how even though not everyone feels as extreme about it as Bush Sr., the majority of people would not be offended by him making such a statement, which is part of the problem.
Also, Jeffrey Dahmer was a member of the Church of Christ. He was not an atheist, and it's been theorized that his religious hatred for homosexuals enabled him to murder gay people and hate himself for being homosexual. Of course, I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer to be a typical Christian, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Not that it makes any difference but nope Dahlmer was NOT a ChristianJeffery Dahlmers (family) where church going types. If you dont believe me watch the MSNBC interview with Dahlmer from prison where he states that he "was" an evolutionist and an atheist. (In fact he said so in the interview) But like I said, It really isnt relevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I never saw the MSNBC interview, and maybe he claimed to be an atheist at the time (and only Christian fundamentalists use terms like "evolutionist", so if he did say that he did so as a Christian) but the fact is that he was raised in a strict Christian family and I read that he was baptized in prison by a Church of Christ pastor as well.
Of course, religious or not, what Jeffrey Dahmer had in common with us was the fact that he was a human being. He showed the great evil that any person is capable of in the absence of mental stability. This problem is not limited to people with or without religion, so I agree that it doesn't make any difference. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. are all capable of murder and I don't see religion stopping evil people from doing evil things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
You MisterP-Mosh, things dont ever get settled or communicated well when we digress into which bad guy fits into which camp. Noteworthy is the fact that in Jesus day, he healed a lunatic who had a legion of devils in him. Now we do not know why they had this fellow in chains, but I suspect it was because he could inflict some harm not a little. Interesting that both camps (Christians and atheists) cite Hitler; in in effort to put him where they think he belonged. It does not work however, on either side of the equation. Thus, Hitler looks more like a politician in his speeches than anything else with respect to atheism and Christianity. Now, I could make the argument that atheism poisons peoples faith enough to disable it, but that would just meet with a chorus of boos.
Back to the points of this thread and that is Dawkins. Richard Dawkins, as part of this book, launched into a verbal tirade against the God of the Old Testament, that was barbaric and full of ignorance. There was nothing "scientific" about it. Now a guy like Richard Dawkins would never do the same against those of the Muslim faith, primarily because he fears them too much. However against those of Christian and Jewish faith, he seems to have no such barrier in his speech. Why? Because he knows and understands that we of that faith (I am a Christian) are people of love and forgiveness. Thus, he unseats his entire diatribe because he knows we are passive loving people. Futhermore, If you know who was the villian Dawkins described, why then are those who believe in him so non-villianous? Thus, Dawkins entire diatribe falls short because he knows we are loving people because of the instruction of you know who. Now if Dawkins wants to really prove himself? I challange Richard Dawkins to say the same thing to those who are of Muslim persuasion to prove that he really feels that about the God of the Old Testament. He will never do it, and this in itself proves Richard Dawkins to be a liar. Now niether I nor the people I mentioned would ever advocate any violence against someone like Richard Dawkins, yet this is primarily the reason in which he seeks to abuse us. In short, Dawkins takes advantage of the love and forgiveness of the God of the Old Testament to abuse him.
Still, shouldn't we have the same liberty to dispell Dawkins diatribe with the same amount of zest that Dawkins has in his emotional diatribe? I think so. Therefore consider this: Dawkins has some screws loose in his head, right out of his own books this is a man who is emotionally unstable. In his book the Blind Watchmaker ;Dawkins actually suggests putting his computer in his outdoor garden to have insects more fairly select on his computer a "evolutionary gene mutation; with the help of the natural environment. This is pretty wack stuff. In addition in the same Chapter 3, Dawkins goes into a state of "exultation" in which he could not eat or sleep because of bugs appearing out of his computer. Does this sound like the mind of an objective scientist? I think not.
Lastly, I find it rather amusing how many atheists of different stripes are so zealous over dispelling the Bible. It's almost as if the evolution movement has but one agenda and that is to displace the Bible. Science,( if it is science, by defintion is supposed to be factually based if it is good science) , doesn't have a need to get all ripped over things if there stuff is true. I seriously doubt that the round earth movement, went into hysterical frenzies (Like Dawkins did) over flat earth people. Truth is truth, proof is proof, it does not need hysterics and theatrics to dispel false precepts. This is why about 99 percent of people of faith, dont even pay regard to atheistic evolution. The "proof" that they have in there faith providing results, is more than sufficient for them to constitute there belief. Nuff said.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know that you haven't said anything that doesn't confirm my "preconceived notions". Yes, we're done.
Hey sky,
did you read the book? Does Dawkins discuss his view on love?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bolshevik:
I have read "most" of Dawkins book the "The Dawkins Delusion". I have read the entire Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" most of it twice, some of it 3,4,5 times. I have read portions of The Selfish Gene and some other Dawkins rubbish. I have listened to hours of Dawkins speeches on you tube. I have a fairly good handle on Dawkins. Interesting that when Dawkins gets into some stuff, he rants into bio-speak, unlike Behe who communicates to his largely non-biological audience.
I have a 9 page article on his book The Blind Watchmaker, but am working through some statisical calculations before I post it, it may take me a while..............
you said: I hear Sweden is mostly atheistic/agnostic/generally non-believers. Europe apparently is far more secular than the U.S.
I actually am part Swedish. Have relatives there. Sweden, has in part embraced an immoral culture before the US sexual revolution. Does this mean there is a connection between immorality and unbelief? Gee thats a tough one. Of course I think I need to preface the Swede are unbelievers thoughts, NOT all Swedes are unbelievers, you might find some of the stongest believers of Christian faith, in Sweden also.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I saw video on eugenics (Homo Sapiens 1900) in which I learned that Sweden was big into genetically purifying its people (in the past). I don't know that Swedes are immoral or not. Apparently they're good at rehabilitating criminals back into society. I got nothing against Swedes. (I married a part-Swede). I know there are believers in Europe, but the trend in Europe seems to be (roughly) away from religion toward atheism. I thought if Europe is headed toward primarily non-religion, the U.S. will be next.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Sweden is a very socialistic country, taxes through the roof. When my grandfather immigrated here in 1917, he left 10 brothers and sisters, many of whom died of diseases and malnutrition.
I think your are correct about the trends tho. I also think that the trend toward athesim is somewhat alarming because it is unlike what was in the past. Some of these atheists seem to be real zealots for propagation of an agenda. (perhaps this might be a excessive reaction to what they call the fundamentalist political movement- but I dont think so) I base this upon what atheists were like say 20 years ago. I knew several who were sort of in the undecided column, who seemed to like to read Darwin and the Bible because they were unconvinced of the Garden of Eden account. Still, it was not uncommon to see some of these people in a church here and there, looking for further answers. (Most people at that time, did not see a need to bash biblical values as a prerequisite for futhering there beliefs) They were always very passive and polite about there thoughts. Of course, some of this I am basing on people like Dawkins and what seems to be a general acceptance by atheists of his ranting diatribe.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I've been reading this discussion but am probably done. From reading some of the latest posts here it looks like the country is full of Bible creation believing Christians(who are moral) and Dawkins following athiests(who aren't moral). Plus, the numbers of amoral athiests are growing and we're all doomed.
??? How does this even approach real life? What about all the evolution accepting Christians/agnostic/others? What about all the self righteous, self serving Christians, like some of us have had personal experiences with?
In real life, who has ever been 'evangelized' by a athiest or agnostic? Have you ever been invited to an athiest group? Reading a much publicized book doesn't count IMO. Dawkins is a writer--controversy sells much better than well reasoned moderate views--outrageous will get you on the talk show circuits and sell books! Probably more Christians are buying his books than athiests or agnostics, because he fuels their righteous zeal. ka-ching!
Where in your city do the athiests groups meet to discuss their athiest ways? I never see adds in the paper's community calendar. Though there are tons of Chrsitian adds, and maybe one Jewish or pagan add once in a while.
Among your co workers, who are you most likely to even Know has strong belief--I work in a huge office, the signs of belief I see are pretty much Chrisitian--bible verse calendars, crosses on cube walls etc.
This discussion is getting too simplistic and black and white to seem real--evil athiests vs good Christians--when we all know people don't fit so nicely into such boxes.
I don't see our country going from Fundamental Christian( which is not the majority faith) straight to athiesim. Mostly I see people who have beliefs of one sort or another, have no interest in organized religion. And no organized religion means no money pouring in to church headquarters to use to persuade others to be like them. Now there's some doom for ya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The one thing I took away from twi is that delusions are all that we have. Why does Dawkins want to take that away from people? Money. Yeah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Why can't Dawkins make money by writing and marketing what he wants to write? Nobody's forcing anyone to shell out the bucks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well, a if a religious person wrote a book they'd get the same accusation.
Dawkins is an influencial man. People don't have to buy the book to get the message: Want to be a good scientist? Give up god(s). That's what the best of them do. Sure, there's a few who debatebly ascribe some sort of loyalty to a god, but why make it hard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
I think you are underestimating the power of the cyclops. The cyclops is capable of destruction not a little. Does one have to be self-serving to be self righteous? Great, than at least I shouldn't be put in that category no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
cyclops?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
cyclops: A genus of minute crustaceans with terrestrial life cycles, some species of which act as hosts of Diphyllobothrium and Dracunculus spp. Called also water flea. It is also a one eyed monster.
I thought it provided a useful analogy of the evolutionary life tricycle contraption.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Bramble and Bolshevic, I've enjoyed your posts -- at least parts of them! And you too, Sky
I mentioned earlier that I thought that Dawkins was a powerful voice in the human conversation right now. I think he deserves to be heard. I disagree with him, of course, but he does raise important issues, and a few well-placed pokes-in-the-eye with a sharp stick. He makes money off this book, and enjoys a good deal of notoriety. I think he deserves it. He's smart and eloquent, which is what his job at Oxford requires. And he doesn't just bash "God" and God-believers. He explains science to the common man, in the tradition of Sagan and Stephen Hawking.
As a Christian, I do not feel threatened by the discussion. It's good for all of us. If the thread has run its course, so be it. There's more to discuss!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I'm not sure what you mean here. Cyclops? You believe athiesim and evolution cause destruction--is that your meaning? I would not agree on that, if it is your meaning.
Self serving, self righteous--I guess you had a much more comfortable time in TWI than I did, not to figure out the type of Christians I was refering to-- the destructive kind, the kind who feel it is their godly business run others lives etc. Trust me, those types put on a good show of righteousness while serving themselves. When I hear self righteous or self serving, my mind goes straight to those types.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
That's odd, there have been plenty of scientists that are religious or superstitious at a minimum. I have a friend that has done work for NASA and is a strong Christian. He sees no contradiction in the two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I might be repeating myself, but Candace Pert says the more scientific research she does, the more she sees there HAS to be some kind of divine source - just that she sees it/God/whatever you want to call it - more from an Easter thought frame of mind than the Western.
Doesn't Stephen Hawking also say that he doesn't know what or who caused the Big Bang and does not rule out divine intervention/divine spark/God/source or whatever you want to call it? :unsure:
I seem to remember reading that, but it was a Playboy magazine interview eons ago when I was a wee widdle college student buying it for my astronomy professor because I really needed a C in that class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
After reading Richard Weikerts book, and considering that the "movement" has an agenda, I am uncomfortable with it and the possible outcomes.
I guess you would never consider me "IN" TWI. I took PFAL, but not as a part of TWI. I was actually attending in High School a "fellowship" of people who were ex-TWI people, who knew Peter Wade real well. I think I only ever attended one twig meeting, so no, I did not have membership. Still, I was deeply impacted by what VPW said, and it took me a while to sort it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Belle, THIS ARTICLE contains some interesting information
on Hawkings.
I don't think he sees God in a personal sense, as in God being a "someone", but , as you say, more allows for that unknowable instant before "the big bang" origins of the universe involving something we can't account for completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Quite possible, Belle. It is the honest way to go. We really actually do not know what came before a ..00000etc of a second after the Big Bang. It could have been the collapse of an earlier universe. It could be creation. It could have been a being infinitely larger than we are farted or we could be trapped in the matrix. For me it makes sense that matter may be infinite. I could be wrong and you won't find me forming a religion or movement on that idea, just shrugging my shoulders and guessing.
Great reading your thoughts on these threads, BTW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The French philosopher Henri Bergsen is someone who's caught my interest and imagination for years. His books "Memory and Matter", The Creative Mind", "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion", and "Time and Free Will" are killers. I've only really studied the first two, but I enjoy the way he thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.