Atheist Arrogance?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT
 

afroebob:

Lol Pot:
[quote="afroebob" post="528.401935.17066988"]Both propositions are indeed possible however because the former has no evidence for its claim therefore the latter is most likely correct.

Well, your statement of their being no evidence isn't quite true. If you said no proof, yes your 100% correct, there is no proof. Evidence, there is some depending on how you look at it. It is already been established that Jesus was a real person according to most historians, even ones who don't believe in God. What isn't established is whether or not he actually did all the miracles he is said to do. However, there where a lot of people who claimed to have seen these miracles and what not, so if you consider what would I guess be an eyewitness testimony as evidence than yes, there is some evidence. However, don't take this as me saying there is a STRONG amount of evidence, eyewitness testemonies can be wrong, they can be tricked, etc. etc. I guess what I am saying is there is evidence, its just how strong that evidence is extremely debatable.

The fact that Jesus was a guy who existed according to historians does not provide even a mote of evidence towards their being a god. Why would someone claiming they are god and claiming to be doing miracles even be considered to be considered evidence?

Arakasi:

The fact that Jesus was a guy who existed according to historians does not provide even a mote of evidence towards their being a god. Why would someone claiming they are god and claiming to be doing miracles even be considered to be considered evidence?

You either misread or simply didn't understand what I said, so I will try to restate it.

There where very very VERY many people who made claims of witnessing the miracles that supposedly occurred by the hands of Jesus during the time he was alive. This is called an eye-witness testimony. That is, by the definition of the word, evidence. It is not definitive evidence, it is not even strong evidence in very many cases, and many times it is just barely evidence, but it IS evidence none the less. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether there is evidence or if there is not. I am trying to make this as clear as possible. I am not talking about how strong the evidence is. I am not saying what I believe is right or what anyone else believes is wrong. I am just saying that, while nowhere near definitive, there as, by the most basic definition, evidence.

And NO, evidence does NOT equal proof, and it does NOT make something true. That is nowhere near what I am saying. There is evidence that Obama is a Muslim. He probably isn't. There is evidence that evolution is real. It probably is. There is evidence that the Illuminati is real. It probably isn't. There is evidence that we can support life on Mars. We probably can. There was evidence that the atomic bomb would destroy the atmosphere. It did not. There was evidence that smoking can kill you. It does.

Evidence can be big, it can be small. It can lead to the truth or it could lead to something completely false. That is what the word means.

Abomination:

The Nazi party wasn't a religion, the Huns and Mongols weren't either.

The Japanese during World War II WERE a religion - the Emperor was considered to be divine.

North Korea is a theocratic form of ancestor worship.

If the requirement for something to be a religion is that they worship a divine or supernatural being then Buddhism isn't a religion and neither is Confucianism.

The Maoist ideology of China during the Cultural Revolution demanded that people conform to a set standard of belief. Religion was stamped out because it competed, not because it was considered a foolish notion.

Religion requires faith, it requires an ideal or following that you believe despite not having actual evidence to back it up. Mao is great and wonderful, you will say this, you will revere him as the father of China - failure to do so will result in punishment. You will revere no other gods or idols above him, he is the only one worthy of your praise in such a manner. This is dogmatic.

You are right that a religion needs not worship a deity to qualify as a religion. You know what it does need though? Communal, social spirituality. You know what calling Mao the father of China doesn't have? Spirituality. Now take all your things that you think are or are not religions and put them against the litmus "Is this organized social spirituality?" Then you will know things that are right.

afroebob:

And NO, evidence does NOT equal proof, and it does NOT make something true. That is nowhere near what I am saying. There is evidence that Obama is a Muslim. He probably isn't. There is evidence that evolution is real. It probably is. There is evidence that the Illuminati is real. It probably isn't. There is evidence that we can support life on Mars. We probably can. There was evidence that the atomic bomb would destroy the atmosphere. It did not. There was evidence that smoking can kill you. It does.

Evidence can be big, it can be small. It can lead to the truth or it could lead to something completely false. That is what the word means.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

tstorm823:
You are right that a religion needs not worship a deity to qualify as a religion. You know what it does need though? Communal, social spirituality. You know what calling Mao the father of China doesn't have? Spirituality. Now take all your things that you think are or are not religions and put them against the litmus "Is this organized social spirituality?" Then you will know things that are right.

So the requirement for something to be considered a religion is a completely intangible aspect? When every other aspect is being fulfilled the lack of one aspect makes it something else?

This is a matter of walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck but because it doesn't THINK it's a duck it's not a duck?

Olrod:

afroebob:

And NO, evidence does NOT equal proof, and it does NOT make something true. That is nowhere near what I am saying. There is evidence that Obama is a Muslim. He probably isn't. There is evidence that evolution is real. It probably is. There is evidence that the Illuminati is real. It probably isn't. There is evidence that we can support life on Mars. We probably can. There was evidence that the atomic bomb would destroy the atmosphere. It did not. There was evidence that smoking can kill you. It does.

Evidence can be big, it can be small. It can lead to the truth or it could lead to something completely false. That is what the word means.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

No, it means exactly what he is explaining it as meaning. Evidence is something that indicates something, but one peice of evidence does not prove something as a whole. Accounts of a person called Jesus is evidence that proves a person called Jesus existed, it doesn't prove that God is real but it is a small piece of a puzzle towards proving if God is real or not.

So... does that mean there's evidence that Harry Potter is a real person?

I think you're using the word "evidence" in the way creationists use the word "theory".

Olrod:
So... does that mean there's evidence that Harry Potter is a real person?

I think you're using the word "evidence" in the way creationists use the word "theory".

There could be evidence that Harry Potter is a real person. I mean, there probably has been a person or is a person called Harold Potter.

The next step is to prove that the person is a wizard - of which there is presently no evidence.

Such is the same with Jesus. We have proven that a person called Jesus did exist in the area and at this point in time but it is not possible to prove he performed the supernatural acts he is claimed to have done.

Danny Ocean:
SNIP!

The quantum state of the cat (which exists) is one where he is both alive and dead, if we are taking as a given the notion of quantum state superposition. And that is it. Unless you perform a "measurement" and open the box, there is no way to tell apart the state of the cat.

I don't believe this applies at all to what you guys were arguing about.

Abomination:

Olrod:
So... does that mean there's evidence that Harry Potter is a real person?

I think you're using the word "evidence" in the way creationists use the word "theory".

There could be evidence that Harry Potter is a real person. I mean, there probably has been a person or is a person called Harold Potter.

The next step is to prove that the person is a wizard - of which there is presently no evidence.

Such is the same with Jesus. We have proven that a person called Jesus did exist in the area and at this point in time but it is not possible to prove he performed the supernatural acts he is claimed to have done.

It is actually not proven. All things considered, I find it likely, but there is nothing tangible to demonstrate it.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Abomination:

Olrod:
So... does that mean there's evidence that Harry Potter is a real person?

I think you're using the word "evidence" in the way creationists use the word "theory".

There could be evidence that Harry Potter is a real person. I mean, there probably has been a person or is a person called Harold Potter.

The next step is to prove that the person is a wizard - of which there is presently no evidence.

Such is the same with Jesus. We have proven that a person called Jesus did exist in the area and at this point in time but it is not possible to prove he performed the supernatural acts he is claimed to have done.

It is actually not proven. All things considered, I find it likely, but there is nothing tangible to demonstrate it.

Look, don't say that. The last thing we want to do is get into the debate that there wasn't a person called Jesus alive during that particular period of time... because then it gets turned around and some proof will be demanded for it. There MUST have been a person called Jesus at the time because it was just some fella's name. The specifics of being born in Bethlehem to a carpenter and a virgin are probably narrowing the realm of probability a bit too much but there must have been ONE person within 200 miles of the place called Jesus. He was also probably within the age range of 30-40 since folks didn't tend to live much longer than that at the time anyway.

So sure, we've got no proof there was this specific Jesus but there damn well would have been at least one Jesus. It's not one of the extraordinary claims one could make, like how the fellow was lighter than H2O or how he could bend the laws of space and time and create something out of nothing. "Fixing" mangled legs and such could be possible, maybe the guy used his carpentry skills to fashion a splint or cane of some sort. It's said he made the crippled WALK again, didn't say he mended the bones back into their normal form allowing the individuals to possess the same level of mobility as their peers. Sight to the blind? That's a tricky one but maybe he just gave them an eye bath or knew how to make early spectacles?

The Bible is a bit loose with specifics.

But it does say that sticking a sword in someone kills them and that there was some bloke called Jesus. I know the first one is true and the second part I would be foolish to say there was never a bloke called Jesus.

afroebob:
There where very very VERY many people who made claims of witnessing the miracles that supposedly occurred by the hands of Jesus during the time he was alive.

Oh? Contemporary sources outside the bible canon? Because you might have overdone the "very" a bit there, unless you know something I don't in which case please go ahead and enlighten me.
And this sounds way more sarcastic than I intended but I just couldn't for the life of me think of a better way to say it, don't take it the wrong way.

If it were about the charity work that churches do, then obviously could you just make tax exemption the same requirements that secular charities have to go through. You do charity and are a church? You can demonstrate that fact? Tax exempt. You are a church but can't prove your charity work? You are not tax exempt. It's not the fact that some churches acquire tax exemption that is the problem, it's the fact that merely being a church grants a group tax exemption.

Abomination:
First, while you would contend that religious services and religious counsel are beneficial - many would not. Because much like any religiously themed act it can (and frequently does inhabit a fair portion of either side) be bad or good. Who does it benefit? It benefits those who pay for it, those who attend the services themselves. That isn't a donation - that's a service that has been bought and paid for. The priest gets paid and gives a rousing speech.

I don't attend nor ever have been a member of a church, so I'm not aware of traditionally closed-door policy to non-paying attendees that qualifies it as a business service. That would honestly be news to me. But if people don't see any benefit to communion or counsel, I don't know what to say to them. I'd certainly be glad if they were not in a position to take away tax breaks on that opinion.

Skeleon:
You do charity and are a church? You can demonstrate that fact? Tax exempt. You are a church but can't prove your charity work? You are not tax exempt.

That's far too simplified and would result in silly, rigid rules.

Still waiting for the topic to come back and derail this irrelevant round robin. I could try: using this thread to air grievances against religion is arrogant. There.

AgedGrunt:

That's far too simplified and would result in silly, rigid rules.

How about we make it as silly and simplistic as it currently is now for non-church charities that are tax-exempt?

@AgedGrunt

That's far too simplified and would result in silly, rigid rules.

No, that's consistent and fair. Don't you think parasitic money-making schemers shouldn't benefit from a blanket tax exemption? Doesn't that cause damage to charitable groups, religious and otherwise? And to society as a whole? And why do secular charities doing proper work have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get recognized as such? The silly simplification and rigid rule is to simply grant any and all churches tax exemption, regardless of their actual behaviour. Obviously we could debate the exact qualifications and certification required, but to call such an approach that actually takes individual cases into account and checks for validity of a tax exemption claim rather than just rubber-stamping anything that claims religious exemption "too simplified" is ludicrous.

Olrod:
How about we make it as silly and simplistic as it currently is now for non-church charities that are tax-exempt?

I'm not defending current law. I simply contend that charity is not black and white and also shouldn't be the sole criteria to determine tax advantages.

I'll depart by hazarding a guess: rather than try to wedge a meter stick into a church and scientifically measure the "actual" benefit" to a community, it's easier and safer not to tread into those waters. Note that I neither support exclusion nor deny some form of accountability, only that it's not nearly as simple as some want to argue.

Perhaps when the complaint department closes there will be something to return to in this thread.

AgedGrunt:

I'll depart by hazarding a guess: rather than try to wedge a meter stick into a church and scientifically measure the "actual" benefit" to a community, it's easier and safer not to tread into those waters.

Yeah! Right-on! Silly liberal arty-farty bleeding heart "benefit to the community" this, and "evidence of charitable work" that!

It'd be easier to just give up on collecting tax from businesses, too. All that paperwork! Pfah! Let's just call 'em all charities. Doesn't matter much that they don't do squat to back up that status. It's so much easier.

And why d'we bother collecting tax from all those people, too? So many tax collectors, so many forms, so many claims and files! Charities, all of them. Sweet relaxation. Sweet, debt-ridden relaxation.

I don't like atheism and agnosticism because, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, it demotes religious research and study in favor of parroting whatever a smart looking atheist or agnostic has to say. If there is research and study, then it's usually shallow and for the wrong reasons. It's shallow and wrong because instead of understanding why the world is the way it is, validating or invalidating history is its use. Trying to prove or disprove God and religion is just chasing ghosts in a circle and becoming distracted to the greater machinations of the world.

Fact is, religion is the dominating motivator for humanity since over two thousand years ago. It never lost its swing either. Even today there are very powerful people in very high places working hard to make religious prophecies a reality. Culture, diplomacy, economics, family, health, morality, news, politics, war... Everything on the global scale has roots in a religious belief. Turning a back on this simple fact creates exploitable ignorance.

afroebob:

Arakasi:

The fact that Jesus was a guy who existed according to historians does not provide even a mote of evidence towards their being a god. Why would someone claiming they are god and claiming to be doing miracles even be considered to be considered evidence?

You either misread or simply didn't understand what I said, so I will try to restate it.

There where very very VERY many people who made claims of witnessing the miracles that supposedly occurred by the hands of Jesus during the time he was alive. This is called an eye-witness testimony. That is, by the definition of the word, evidence. It is not definitive evidence, it is not even strong evidence in very many cases, and many times it is just barely evidence, but it IS evidence none the less. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether there is evidence or if there is not. I am trying to make this as clear as possible. I am not talking about how strong the evidence is. I am not saying what I believe is right or what anyone else believes is wrong. I am just saying that, while nowhere near definitive, there as, by the most basic definition, evidence.

Actually, there's not a shred of valid historical proof that a Christ ever existed (the main source for a Christ is self-referential biblical scripture; outside of the texts that later get incorporated into what we call the New Testament, there is only hearsay). Note that none of the gospels are eyewitness at all.

Run some searches on my name and "Jesus Christ" (or "bible" or "gospel" or "Documentary Hypothesis" or "Tacitus") and you'll see this topic was covered in great detail on this board previously. Feel free to post any rebuttals to my prior overview of the available 'evidence'.

Cheers,
-Aes

Jdb:
I don't like atheism and agnosticism because, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, it demotes religious research and study in favor of parroting whatever a smart looking atheist or agnostic has to say. If there is research and study, then it's usually shallow and for the wrong reasons. It's shallow and wrong because instead of understanding why the world is the way it is, validating or invalidating history is its use. Trying to prove or disprove God and religion is just chasing ghosts in a circle and becoming distracted to the greater machinations of the world.

Fact is, religion is the dominating motivator for humanity since over two thousand years ago. It never lost its swing either. Even today there are very powerful people in very high places working hard to make religious prophecies a reality. Culture, diplomacy, economics, family, health, morality, news, politics, war... Everything on the global scale has roots in a religious belief. Turning a back on this simple fact creates exploitable ignorance.

I do not see how you're getting the idea that religion has dictated all of those things. Certainly religion has directly or indirectly influenced those things throughout the years but it is hardly the "dominating motivator".

Culture? People dress differently, draw differently and sing differently.
Diplomacy? People have differing variations of honour, expectation and ways to negotiate.
Economics? People place differing value on certain items depending on their scarcity for the geographic region.
Family? Far more biological than anything.
Health? Do not make me laugh. If you want to suggest something that has done more harm than good to the medical sciences religion is at the top of that list.
Morality? Well, that is religion in a nut-shell. It's all about morality with the the justification of "My invisible friend says this is the right thing to do" instead of an actual argument.
News? What? Some media entities might have a particular religious slant but it doesn't mean they all have to.
Politics? Influenced at times, yes - has never dominated. Whoever had the biggest sticks and the most strong men to carry them is what has dominated politics.
War? It has been influenced far more by diplomacy, economics and politics than religion - though religion has been at fault for many.

The reason why atheism and agnosticism are so "up in religion's grill" is because it is a reaction to how religion has been and still is being used as a social, political and economic weapon. If such actions were only contained within their actual demographics then atheists and agnostics might "tutt-tutt" as bystanders; but since religion loves to get involved in everyone else's business and attempt to change things on a political (and even recently again a scientific) level of COURSE they're going to cause a fuss. We're talking about the worst kind of neighbor, one who tries to paint your house and decorate the interior in a fashion they approve of - no matter how much you might protest - and if they get enough followers then in democratic countries they might just get the power to do so.

Hafrael:

Arakasi:

Hafrael:
The struggle between the human and the divine...

There is no divine, problem solved.

If you think this millennia long struggle can be ended with that sentence you don't know anything about it.

And to think it's over you'd have to be insane, look at the money the Avengers made!

I could be wrong as I was never into the comic books but my understanding was that in the Avengers universe the Norse "gods" are not actual gods but are highly advanced aliens.

Abomination, yes, religion dictates that much. Irreligious societies are infants compared to religious ones. And like infants, they're na´ve. They tried to ignore or downplay the fact the story of the Abrahamic religions is far from over. Now it's coming back to bite everyone in the ass. The 1950's to 1970's secular progressive Middle East was probably the first to feel the bite. The United States of America felt the bite in 2001. Now Europe is feeling the bite. And the venom from these bites is spreading.

However, Bronze Age radicals are only half responsible. The other responsible party is the third Abrahamic religion that is enemy to both Christianity and Islam. It is this third religion dictating most of the world today. Why? Because the effects of its goal are more tangible and immediate than the goals of Christianity and Islam. This goal is to become the undeniable, insatiable, and all powerful owner of humanity by using any means necessary. In Western societies, there are many people in places of high power affiliated with this religion through consent or coercion. Realizing this simple fact alongside their affiliation's goal makes it easy to understand how religion affects everything.

In relation to atheism and agnosticism, this third religion benefits greatly from them. One of its favored tactics is divide and conquer, and the friction between atheism, agnosticism, and religion is leaving everybody distracted from the bigger picture. Atheists and agnostics seem think their enlightenment magically dispels two thousand years of history. However, the reality is they've fallen into a trap of always asking "Why does this still happen?" when the answer is always around them. The answer is simply buried under a mountain of lies and half truths.

This isn't to say this third religion might be responsible for atheism and agnosticism. However, it is aware of every opportunity to further its goal. Most of the time its only involvement is to plant a suggestion from the shadows. Human weakness does the rest.

Jdb:
Abomination, yes, religion dictates that much. Irreligious societies are infants compared to religious ones. And like infants, they're na´ve. They tried to ignore or downplay the fact the story of the Abrahamic religions is far from over. Now it's coming back to bite everyone in the ass. The 1950's to 1970's secular progressive Middle East was probably the first to feel the bite. The United States of America felt the bite in 2001. Now Europe is feeling the bite. And the venom from these bites is spreading.

However, Bronze Age radicals are only half responsible. The other responsible party is the third Abrahamic religion that is enemy to both Christianity and Islam. It is this third religion dictating most of the world today. Why? Because the effects of its goal are more tangible and immediate than the goals of Christianity and Islam. This goal is to become the undeniable, insatiable, and all powerful owner of humanity by using any means necessary. In Western societies, there are many people in places of high power affiliated with this religion through consent or coercion. Realizing this simple fact alongside their affiliation's goal makes it easy to understand how religion affects everything.

In relation to atheism and agnosticism, this third religion benefits greatly from them. One of its favored tactics is divide and conquer, and the friction between atheism, agnosticism, and religion is leaving everybody distracted from the bigger picture. Atheists and agnostics seem think their enlightenment magically dispels two thousand years of history. However, the reality is they've fallen into a trap of always asking "Why does this still happen?" when the answer is always around them. The answer is simply buried under a mountain of lies and half truths.

This isn't to say this third religion might be responsible for atheism and agnosticism. However, it is aware of every opportunity to further its goal. Most of the time its only involvement is to plant a suggestion from the shadows. Human weakness does the rest.

You have managed to type a lot of words but actually convey nothing.

You're going to have to actually say something tangible than talk about some supposed boogeyman 3rd Abrahamic Religion that is enemy to Christianity and Islam.

@Jdb
Wait, did you just pull a "the Jews are behind it all"?

Skeleon:
@Jdb
Wait, did you just pull a "the Jews are behind it all"?

That's what I thought but why would it be called the "Third" when it was the "First"?

I figured he might have been talking about... Mormonisim? I dunno.

Abomination:

Skeleon:
@Jdb
Wait, did you just pull a "the Jews are behind it all"?

That's what I thought but why would it be called the "Third" when it was the "First"?

I figured he might have been talking about... Mormonisim? I dunno.

He does word it in a stupid way--claiming it as the third before even mentioning the first and second--but he probably meant it as being a third to those listed as opposed to being the Third to come about. That and when you're going to blame the Jews for everything like some sort of skinhead conspiracy theorist, I doubt you'd give the grand owners of the world the pleasure of being referred to as "First," so long as you're not strictly talking about chronology and are kinda forced to.

Jdb:
I don't like atheism and agnosticism because, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, it demotes religious research and study in favor of parroting whatever a smart looking atheist or agnostic has to say. If there is research and study, then it's usually shallow and for the wrong reasons. It's shallow and wrong because instead of understanding why the world is the way it is, validating or invalidating history is its use. Trying to prove or disprove God and religion is just chasing ghosts in a circle and becoming distracted to the greater machinations of the world.

Fact is, religion is the dominating motivator for humanity since over two thousand years ago. It never lost its swing either. Even today there are very powerful people in very high places working hard to make religious prophecies a reality. Culture, diplomacy, economics, family, health, morality, news, politics, war... Everything on the global scale has roots in a religious belief. Turning a back on this simple fact creates exploitable ignorance.

The reason we're not wild on religious "research" is because it's nothing more than pseudoscience. If anything, you should be supporting those atheist scientists who are striving to understanding the meaning of the universe, but the fact of the matter is you wont because you're too afraid that it will contradict what you've been sold for all these years.

Sadly, you're correct about religion being a dominating motivator. Although, I'd disagree with you on the time frame. I do, however, have a few questions: Why would powerful people in high places be working hard to make religious prophecies a reality? If they were meant to be, wouldn't they just, sort of, you know, happen on their own? Culture, diplomacy, economics, family, health, morality, politics, war; those things all came before religion. I'd suggest you read up on some of the research done on chimpanzees and other animals who have been seen as quite altruistic. I'm afraid that you've got things just a tad backwards...

Here is an example of said Pseudoscience that @mokes310 brings up:

An idiot interviewed by a modern day genius.

l0ckd0wn:
Here is an example of said Pseudoscience that @mokes310 brings up:

An idiot interviewed by a modern day genius.

That video is utterly unwatchable. I don't know that I've ever wanted to punch someone like I've wanted to punch her.

Keep away, folks, if only for the sake of your sanity.

@Kaulen Fuhs
And the really bad news? This is just a tiny segment. Dawkins sat through that for over an hour. He must have some sort of superhuman patience, apparently, yet he's the loud, strident, arrogant one according to some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

mokes310:

Jdb:
I don't like atheism and agnosticism because, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, it demotes religious research and study in favor of parroting whatever a smart looking atheist or agnostic has to say. If there is research and study, then it's usually shallow and for the wrong reasons. It's shallow and wrong because instead of understanding why the world is the way it is, validating or invalidating history is its use. Trying to prove or disprove God and religion is just chasing ghosts in a circle and becoming distracted to the greater machinations of the world.

Fact is, religion is the dominating motivator for humanity since over two thousand years ago. It never lost its swing either. Even today there are very powerful people in very high places working hard to make religious prophecies a reality. Culture, diplomacy, economics, family, health, morality, news, politics, war... Everything on the global scale has roots in a religious belief. Turning a back on this simple fact creates exploitable ignorance.

The reason we're not wild on religious "research" is because it's nothing more than pseudoscience. If anything, you should be supporting those atheist scientists who are striving to understanding the meaning of the universe, but the fact of the matter is you wont because you're too afraid that it will contradict what you've been sold for all these years.

Sadly, you're correct about religion being a dominating motivator. Although, I'd disagree with you on the time frame. I do, however, have a few questions: Why would powerful people in high places be working hard to make religious prophecies a reality? If they were meant to be, wouldn't they just, sort of, you know, happen on their own? Culture, diplomacy, economics, family, health, morality, politics, war; those things all came before religion. I'd suggest you read up on some of the research done on chimpanzees and other animals who have been seen as quite altruistic. I'm afraid that you've got things just a tad backwards...

So what about the research of non-atheist scientist, out of curiosity? Not re: creationism, but actual sciences and stuff.

Also, your claiming something that's impossible to know. We don't KNOW what the ancient humans were worshiping or doing. We have some good ideas, but you can't claim that you know without a doubt all those things came before them worshiping the fire or the stars. I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time you can't claim that as a hard fact.

Hell, the Aztecs were sacrificing people to keep the sun going around in the sky. I don't doubt for half a second ancient human tribes were doing the same, or something similar anyway.

Anthropology, sociology, and theology (: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; ) are all valid fields of study that do use religion as a major focus, for the first two as part of what makes up humanity, and for the third as the main focus of how its effected humanity.

Abomination:
I figured he might have been talking about... Mormonisim? I dunno.

Doubtful, I'd say. Mormons aren't supposed to be behind everything, behind controlling society as a whole, even though they have quite a bit of political influence in some states. And it's not considered one of the "Big Three" Abrahamic religions, anyway. But maybe he'll clarify. On the other hand he might not want to.

Skeleon:
@Kaulen Fuhs
And the really bad news? This is just a tiny segment. Dawkins sat through that for over an hour. He must have some sort of superhuman patience, apparently, yet he's the loud, strident, arrogant one according to some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

Yeah, I sat through the whole thing with a couple of my atheist buddies.

We were screaming in pain by the end...

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked