Questions You Have Always Pondered On

[Schumikonen 2]

Having been an atheist my whole life, I found it weird when fellow godless commies non-believers get too beligerant against "religion". I find it useless to argue against it, when not rightly counterpoductive. Religion (from an atheist POV) is, or should be, non-existant. It is all about people, individuals. And if it is about people, you might discuss either it sensibly and in a very open minded fashion, condescendence or aggressiveness will take you nowhere. If you want to argue about the bad deeds done by religious people, then it should be enough to focus on them and try to explain whether they behavior is connected with their religion or not (I don't think Mark Chapman's religious background was the main reason for shooting Lennon, for example).

And to argue with people that is obviously (or, at least, presumably) your intellectual and moral equal in a condescending tone because of the deeds of paedophilic priests, for example, is to say the least, very rude and inconducent. I doubt the religious people (Mike, Brad, Alex, Tommy) here is responsible for the wrongdoings of abusive priests, or the racism of some fundamentalist christians, or the terrorism from some fundamentalist muslims, or the attacks on disarmed people from the Israeli Government.

You can argue whether these wrongdoings are precisely because of religion (though I think that would be oversimplifying things too much), but that calls for a very complex debate. A debate that goes beyond the capabilities of posts in a forum. So, in the end, I think it will accomplish nothing more than offending people for no reason.

I'm not sure this post came as I wanted it to be.

I think it did and I agree with you, almost 100%, I am a believer and I think religion should be non-existant too, religion have done some good to humankind but the sad true is that has dome more bad things than goods, I said it before and I know most believer will disagree with me but that's the way I see it and I know "think" I am right, all religions are wrong and the big problems is that non-believers think that religions represent God or God's people, but 100% of religions are created by man and as man is not perfect niether are his creations, if you go to any, and I mean any Christian church, you'll find out that this particular church have a book of rules that is not the bible, those are the Church rules that have been implemented by man and that members are required to follow them, so I think the same religion should be non-existant and a debate that goes beyond the capabilities of posts in a forum but we had a very good discussion here about that topic and I think it was pretty respectful, I enjoyed the experience and I regret that I have fallen behind in my science knowledge as that stopped me from being at the same level of some notable members of this forum like Muzza and Cav but I did my best and now let's enjoy Canada.

[yurp 0]

I think it did and I agree with you, almost 100%, I am a believer and I think religion should be non-existant too, religion have done some good to humankind but the sad true is that has dome more bad things than goods, I said it before and I know most believer will disagree with me but that's the way I see it and I know "think" I am right, all religions are wrong and the big problems is that non-believers think that religions represent God or God's people, but 100% of religions are created by man and as man is not perfect niether are his creations, if you go to any, and I mean any Christian church, you'll find out that this particular church have a book of rules that is not the bible, those are the Church rules that have been implemented by man and that members are required to follow them, so I think the same religion should be non-existant and a debate that goes beyond the capabilities of posts in a forum but we had a very good discussion here about that topic and I think it was pretty respectful, I enjoyed the experience and I regret that I have fallen behind in my science knowledge as that stopped me from being at the same level of some notable members of this forum like Muzza and Cav but I did my best and now let's enjoy Canada.

A new POV in this thread and a very enlightend one.

If more theists questioned the organised religions by which they identify themselves the world would be a better place.

In the same way, if everyone questioned the morality of the companies for which they work, we'd be a lot better off too.

Its a matter of continually encouraging the pursuit of honesty and with that occasionally painful honesty determining truth and finally morality.

But the red bit is logically flawed Tommy - Atheists don't believe god exists, so we can't think "religions represent god or his people". Religions [and God] are the creations of man. Nothing can represent god as he/she/it doesn't actually exist.

To my mind Andres was slightly wrong in his post too. These conversations are never entirely pointless (though they may seem that way). Though no one's position may be shifted directly, questions are asked. The more questions are asked, the more answers are required. The more answers are required, the more inevitable the truth becomes. The immediate reaction is to retreat, ignore and deny. But the long term consequence is the acceptance of truth - no matter how scary. And yes - not having a religious belief is scary for people who have become accustomed to it, but in the end its a relief.

[Kate's Dirty Sister 0]

R u a believer. I guess this pretty much sums up the question...

Yep and thanks it took me a while to answer that question, I like questions that get me thinking.

true, it's christians that give God "a bad name" through misinterpretation or ignorance.

and Adam, you've touched on a subject that non-believers always use to crit God and his followers. God "spoke" and behaved differently to humans in the old testament. The symbol of God's love and gift to us, Jesus Christ, took all that away and we now live in a state of mercy.

Totally agree it is sad how Christians give God a bad name, it's also sad that many non Christians don't know enough about the bible to know that these people are acting against what God has said.

Having been an atheist my whole life, I found it weird when fellow godless commies non-believers get too beligerant against "religion". I find it useless to argue against it, when not rightly counterpoductive. Religion (from an atheist POV) is, or should be, non-existant. It is all about people, individuals. And if it is about people, you might discuss either it sensibly and in a very open minded fashion, condescendence or aggressiveness will take you nowhere. If you want to argue about the bad deeds done by religious people, then it should be enough to focus on them and try to explain whether they behavior is connected with their religion or not (I don't think Mark Chapman's religious background was the main reason for shooting Lennon, for example).

And to argue with people that is obviously (or, at least, presumably) your intellectual and moral equal in a condescending tone because of the deeds of paedophilic priests, for example, is to say the least, very rude and inconducent. I doubt the religious people (Mike, Brad, Alex, Tommy) here is responsible for the wrongdoings of abusive priests, or the racism of some fundamentalist christians, or the terrorism from some fundamentalist muslims, or the attacks on disarmed people from the Israeli Government.

You can argue whether these wrongdoings are precisely because of religion (though I think that would be oversimplifying things too much), but that calls for a very complex debate. A debate that goes beyond the capabilities of posts in a forum. So, in the end, I think it will accomplish nothing more than offending people for no reason.

I'm not sure this post came as I wanted it to be.

What a very good post.

Another case of poor quality design! God must learm TQM and QFD (quality function deployment) in order to design better creatures next time! But if you consider we are born as images of God... then God must be a nerd!!! (and worst thing is he is a nerd with no sex at all)

Now I know you don't believe that, because I've seen your "beautiful girls" thread!!!

The red bit is where I see problems though...

If people do good things in the name of their religion people say 'praise the lord'.

If atheists do good things simply because they are good things to do, no one says 'praise the non-existence of god.' do they?

But more importantly - when religious people commit evil in the name of religion, we call it unchristian and blame the individual rather than the religion.

To me - that puts religion in a no-loose situation. Religion takes the credit for the good but no responsibility for the bad done in its name.

To me, a responsible individual or collective (such as a religion) should accept that any bad done in its name was enabled by its existence, just as any good was.

I also take you as a moderate and intelligent person, so although you may not agree with the attacks being made on the science curriculum in the US, your chosen religion is facilitating those attacks. You may not see the whole 'we should teach creation in the science classroom' idea as dangerous, but believe me, when we take such enormous steps back in progress and turn away in the face of enlightenment, we start along a very dangerous path. We cease pursuing truth and start pursuing prejudice, intollerance and personal agendas.

Look at everything around you. There is practically nothing that isn't a result of the scientific pursuit of truth. That very method is what many modern Christian sects in the US would desregard for their own gain (cheifly monetary). You may say that's unchristian of them, or not what god/jesus taught, but the very existence of christianity facilitates that greed and those actions and often makes those vices seem excusable to the individuals who perpetrate them.

Considering you have said you know the bible very well then you will know that it says that all good things come from God, therefore Christians do tend to thank or praise God when good things happen, they are following the bible teachings, there is no harm in that Now I don't know of any group or singular person who has ever done something horrific yet biblical (If one springs to mind please help me out here) so that is why when some one or group do something that is not in line with the bible they are the ones that is wrong not Christianity, it's not lack of responsibility. It's like saying Lewis Hamilton shouldn't get into trouble and be responsible for wheel spinning in Australia, because he's part of F1 and F1 is to blame because they encourage speeding etc. No where does F1 encourage that kind of behaviour. Now who's fault is it? Of course it's Lewis who has to be responsible, just like the people who do bad things although they are Christians.

Now the bit I've made grey: I'm not American, I don't know what is currently happening with the school systems so I can't comment specifically on that. I'd read up on it but knowing the internet I think it would be hard to find a site that is not blindly one sided.

But what I will say is this, firstly I love science, I've studied it through school, at college and I love to read about stuff on the internet anything from organisms to chemical reactions to the stars, absolutely everything. But the majority of what people say are science truths about the world around us have not been proven and maths doesn't back it up either. I'm all for searching for ideas of how, where and why but a lot of science is guess work and presumption and there are major holes in their theories that mathematics can't yet explain. So when science books drop the word "theory" or state things as fact that are not actual facts then I wouldn't class that as enlightenment, I would class that as the exact opposite. Why not say this is a thigh bone of a huge dinosaur, this is the only thing we have ever found so apart from it's guessed height and guessed weight we don't know much about it. But instead (and this is true because I came across this particular dinosaur and studied it a while recently) science tells us that this dinosaur was famous for it's neck strength, it lived on it's own and the young would stay with it's mother for 3 years before setting out on it's own. This particular dinosaur was one of the first to be omnivorous and this is a picture of its actual size next to a human...blah blah blah!! None of these are facts, and I find it incredible that this is allowed to be published in books as facts. Science that says things as facts that are not facts is to me the huge step backwards, not the allowing of different points of view in a classroom.

Don't get me wrong a lot of things science says can now be proven and it's great to know how things work, but lets face it, science changes all the time, a lot of what we thought ten years ago is laughed at now so why do current scientists think they hold all the cards for teaching children? Science was originally the art of asking questions and trying to find the answers, allowing different points of view about how the world began in a science class room would only encourage children to question what they think and find facts to back it up.

And the part I put in bold. A Christian might say: look at everything around you, according to the bible there is nothing that isn't a result of God's great work. That very method is what many Scientists all over the world would disregard for their own gain (chiefly monetary). It works both ways!

I think it did and I agree with you, almost 100%, I am a believer and I think religion should be non-existant too, religion have done some good to humankind but the sad true is that has dome more bad things than goods, I said it before and I know most believer will disagree with me but that's the way I see it and I know "think" I am right, all religions are wrong and the big problems is that non-believers think that religions represent God or God's people, but 100% of religions are created by man and as man is not perfect niether are his creations, if you go to any, and I mean any Christian church, you'll find out that this particular church have a book of rules that is not the bible, those are the Church rules that have been implemented by man and that members are required to follow them, so I think the same religion should be non-existant and a debate that goes beyond the capabilities of posts in a forum but we had a very good discussion here about that topic and I think it was pretty respectful, I enjoyed the experience and I regret that I have fallen behind in my science knowledge as that stopped me from being at the same level of some notable members of this forum like Muzza and Cav but I did my best and now let's enjoy Canada.

Yep religion is wrong, it says in the bible that God hates religion too.

[Schumikonen 2]

A new POV in this thread and a very enlightend one.

If more theists questioned the organised religions by which they identify themselves the world would be a better place.

In the same way, if everyone questioned the morality of the companies for which they work, we'd be a lot better off too.

Its a matter of continually encouraging the pursuit of honesty and with that occasionally painful honesty determining truth and finally morality.

But the red bit is logically flawed Tommy - Atheists don't believe god exists, so we can't think "religions represent god or his people". Religions [and God] are the creations of man. Nothing can represent god as he/she/it doesn't actually exist.

To my mind Andres was slightly wrong in his post too. These conversations are never entirely pointless (though they may seem that way). Though no one's position may be shifted directly, questions are asked. The more questions are asked, the more answers are required. The more answers are required, the more inevitable the truth becomes. The immediate reaction is to retreat, ignore and deny. But the long term consequence is the acceptance of truth - no matter how scary. And yes - not having a religious belief is scary for people who have become accustomed to it, but in the end its a relief.

Yes, my bad about the red part, I shouldn't have used Non-believers as I was refering to people who are not seeking to find God and most of the people who are seeking God say they "believe" in God so I wasn't talking about atheist as they don't think religion represent God.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Religion is a set of rules written by man, to keep man in line. Apparently.

God is a deity that many choose to believe in.

I choose to believe in myself. I am the master of my own destiny and therefore my own deity.

[AleHop 0]

This is a much better post Alehop, so I think it credits a reply...

It was just a few ideas for you to digest.

I never said religious shouldn't be able to claim a good deed for god, only that they often do. Which is true. Religious people often atribute good deeds to the following of their religions. No?

I then said an atheist would never claim praise for their lack of belief in god when they do something good. This is also true no?

I said it is up to you to praise whatever you so please for any good thing in your life. You don't need to praise anything or you can say whatever you prefer. What is it so annoying to you if a believer praise God?

I am very much for freedom of expression. I am also in favour of people and organisations (the christian church is an organisation) taking responsibility. My chief concern is that religions do not take responsibility for the evil committed by people using religion to excuse their behaviour. I think it should - just like BP must take responsibility for the guys who built that oil rig badly.

Your chief concern is wrong.

Organizations can only take responsibility for whatever they are responsible of. A particular church is responsible for whatever they preach but they cannot take responsibility for anything their members do in God's name. Can you understant it? That's not a debate about religions, that's a debate about law and rights.

If a priest or a minister do something wrong the Church has taken responsibility for it sometimes in court or by agreement like any other corporation. Have you not seen that? In the past the Catholic Church apologised for what the inquisition did during a few centurys in Europe, have you not seen that?

Ah but as a footy fan, I do blame football's governing bodies for facilitating hooliganism. Most people within the football governing bodies recognise that it is their responsibility to take actions against hooliganism, have done so and continue to do so. So even though religion is very unlike football, your metaphor supports my argument quite nicely.

As you see it, everything supports your argument nicely. What goberning bodies recognise about their responsibility to take actions against hooligans is not the same as taking responsibility for what hooligans actually do. Can you see the difference? Most Christians and the most important Churches recognise they cannot be above human's law, by no means. It's in the Bible too.

Second - you keep asking me to concentrate on what Jesus said or did, so let's clear that up now - My issue is not with Jesus. What I am discussing here is religion in general and christianity more specifically. To me it appears Jesus and his teachings have very little bearing on what modern day christianity has become.

I do so because there's no point on talking about religion in general when you are all the time talking about Chrisitanity and the Bible.

Fact - Christians have murdered, raped, drowned, burried alive and stoned people to death throughout history in the name of christianity.

Fact - The bible dictates that stoning is an appropriate punishment for various crimes.

Were you talking about religion in general, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the Bible in general...???

Fact - The bible dictates that killing a human being is by no means acceptable for Christians.

This is the common mistake (often made by theists) of misunderstanding atheism as a belief system like a religion. Atheism is the absence of a belief system, not a rival religion.

You can blame facism, nazism, communism etc etc for many deaths, but not atheism - its not an ideology, belief or organisation. It is indeed in a no-lose situation, it is also in a no-win situation. To win or lose first it must be. Atheism is the 'non-being' of religious belief.

Equally, the destruction of all religion would not represent a victory for atheism because without theism there is no atheism. Atheism would no longer have any meaning as the antithesis of a nonexistant thing.

No, you're wrong again. There are atheists organised as such that have a belief system like a religion with no deity. Anyway, I think you didn't understand what I meant. What killed those 8.000 priests and nuns was intollerance, prejudices, blind hatred, etc.

I don't really understand what you want to say in this bit, but my point in the above paragraph was this - christianity provides the platform and support network on which has been built the anti-progress, anti-knowledge and ultimately anti-truth lobby that wants creationism taught as science.

My point was that you are completely wrong. Those people use Christianity as a platform for their own benefit but most Christians acknowledge science as a good way to know God. 30 years ago in a Catholic school, in the Religion Classroom, the teacher, who was a priest, told us the book of Genesis was mostly alegoric. There's room for Darwin among Christians.

As for god contradicting himself...

The guys writing the bible sure did contradict themselves. Since the bible is supposed to be the word of god, I find it hard to understand how that statement can be justified.

When science contradicts itself a further pursuit of the truth is required and followed until the initial contradiction is understood.

When the bible contradicts itself we say, 'yeah, well, errrm, its down to interpretation, but its all correct, because hey, god said it.'

The debate about whether the Bible is the Word of God, the written WoG or only a few books in the Bible are actually the WoG could be endless. What you see as a contradiction in the Bible, is it really a contradiction? There are not that many contradictions in the Bible.

Is a contradiction that Christians eat pork? If you read Levitico 11 you could say so, but it isn't. You can find others like that but they're not contradictions.

I still think you're missing my point...

Either accept that religion is not responsible for any of the good its adherents do OR accept that religion should also be held responsible for the evil people do in its name or under its guise.

i.e. Religion is responsible for all the good and bad done in its name OR none of either.

To say we should thank religion for the good but blame the individual for the bad is hypocritical.

I'm not missing your point. Your point is simply pointless. When a given religion preach hate, intollerance, ignorance, etc. then they are responsible of it. When a given religion preach goodwill then you cannot blame them for the hate, intollerance or ignorance of its members. Simple as that.

Can we blame the Catholic Church for what the inquisition did in the past? Yes. Did they accept the responsibility for that? Yes. Can we blame the Catholic Church for what paedophile priests did? No. Is the Catholic Church subsidiary responsible? Yes. Should the Catholic Church clean up the house? Yes. Should they destroy the house? No.

[yurp 0]

I said it is up to you to praise whatever you so please for any good thing in your life. You don't need to praise anything or you can say whatever you prefer. What is it so annoying to you if a believer praise God?

Who said it was annoying? - please read what I actually write Alehop.

I didn't say it should be stopped, I didn't say it was annoying, I just said that it happens.

Organizations can only take responsibility for whatever they are responsible of. A particular church is responsible for whatever they preach but they cannot take responsibility for anything their members do in God's name.

So why do people credit religion with the good things its followers do?

This is what I've been saying all along. If you deny religious respnsibility for the bad, then you must deny religious responsibility for the good too.

everything supports your argument nicely.

Yes, because my argument is logical.

What goberning bodies recognise about their responsibility to take actions against hooligans is not the same as taking responsibility for what hooligans actually do. Can you see the difference?

Exactly - I can see the difference and that supports my question again...

Why does the church accept responsibility for the good its followers do? Why do priests say 'praise the lord' when someone drops $1m into the donations box? That's not god's work, its the donor's.

I keep saying the same thing. You can't argue one thing for good actions the opposite for bad.

Most Christians and the most important Churches recognise they cannot be above human's law, by no means. It's in the Bible too.

So what you're saying is: "Some Christians and the some important Churches recognise they can be above human's law".

I do so because there's no point on talking about religion in general when you are all the time talking about Chrisitanity and the Bible.

And I already told you that Jesus and Christianity are two different things.

Were you talking about religion in general, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the Bible in general...???

Again - as I said before - my posts have all concerned religion in general and Christianity more specifically.

Fact - The bible dictates that killing a human being is by no means acceptable for Christians.

And yet it describes stoning to death as appropriate punishment in Leviticus. As we already covered - the bible is contradictory.

No, you're wrong again. There are atheists organised as such that have a belief system like a religion with no deity.

Sorry but that's just funny.

Anyway, I think you didn't understand what I meant. What killed those 8.000 priests and nuns was intollerance, prejudices, blind hatred, etc.

Fine - that's still not athiesm.

What's your point here? Are you trying to adopt victimhood for christianity? That would be ironic.

[yurp 0]

My point was that you are completely wrong. <b>Those people use Christianity as a platform for their own benefit</b> but most Christians acknowledge science as a good way to know God. 30 years ago in a Catholic school, in the Religion Classroom, the teacher, who was a priest, told us the book of Genesis was mostly alegoric. There's room for Darwin among Christians.

Exactly.

Also - I suggest you read up on what certain sects of christianity say about Darwin and genesis these days.

The debate about whether the Bible is the Word of God, the written WoG or only a few books in the Bible are actually the WoG could be endless.

Not really, here's one of many arguments from a religious website www.believers.org...

The writers [of the bible] claim a supernatural origin for their writings. Nearly 4,000 times expressions like "Thus says the Lord," "The word of the Lord came unto me," etc., are recorded in the Bible. If the Bible is not God's Word, then the Bible is full of lies.

So who's wrong? The bible authors, other christians, yourself or god? Someone has to be.

What you see as a contradiction in the Bible, is it really a contradiction?

How about I give you a list?

But hang on...

There are not that many contradictions in the Bible.

So you accept there are some. That's a start.

Oh hang on again...

Is a contradiction that Christians eat pork? If you read Levitico 11 you could say so, but it isn't. You can find others like that but they're not contradictions.

Why? and Why?

Simply saying "they are not contradications", doesn't make them not contradictions.

Listen figure this out for yourself first - either agree that there are contradictions in the bible or disagree and I'll give you a very long list to explain away. Your call.

I'm not missing your point. Your point is simply pointless. When a given religion preach hate, intollerance, ignorance, etc. then they are responsible of it. When a given religion preach goodwill then you cannot blame them for the hate, intollerance or ignorance of its members. Simple as that.

Many religious leaders preach hate, intollerance and ignorance on various issues. That's what makes religious nutters go out and shoot abortion doctors or gay people.

How about a little look at christian anti-semitism over the past 2000 years or jewish anti-islam preaching or the islamic leaders who promote war on the west? Major religions preach hatred, intollerance and ignorance all the time.

Let's look at the preaching of ignorance... Religions consistently reiterate fictions that they have no evidence for and deny the authenticity of knowledge that aids humanity (including them) in order to perpetuate their own falsification of 'truth'.

Can we blame the Catholic Church for what paedophile priests did? No.

I was steering clear of the religious faux pas de jour - it always seems a little unfair to rub noses in religion's latest scandal, but since you brought it up.....

You don't blame the catholic church for the raping of children committed by those people running and belonging to it? How about blaming the pope? After all, instead of excommunicating a priest who was guilty, he simply moved him to another position where he continued. No? Not guilty your honor?

The catholic religion provided these people with the position and the power to rape children. Then, when they knew it was happening, they leaders of that religion covered it up.

Jesus wept!

Now what did you say earlier? -

Most Christians and the most important Churches recognise they cannot be above human's law, by no means. It's in the Bible too.

Oh yes, but raping children is okay - we'll just move him to a different church.

Is that not a contradiction either?

[quote name=AleHop' date='11 June 2010 - 06:05 AM'

timestamp='1276207531' post='318783]Should the Catholic Church clean up

the house? Yes. Should they destroy

the house? No.I entirely agree here. No one should aim to destroy religions. There is no need. They will crumble on their own. Humanity requires them less and less every year. Eventually we'll collectively and happily grow up and leave behind our childish, superstitious beliefs.

Anyway - I have found myself repeating the same things over and over during these posts - which is always an indication that we've gone as far as we can go on this limited subject.

If you would like to try to offer some proof of the existence of your god we could perhaps shift onto that subject (a particular favourite of mine).

Cheery bye bye.

[yurp 0]

[A lot of stuff which I did read in full and will answer now]

Kate - unfortunately you have a common misunderstanding of science (regularly encouraged by evangelical churches wishing to discredit it). But don't feel bad. Its a misconception that many MANY intelligent people have. Some religious people actively encourage ignorance of what the scientific method is and what scientific terminology means. It makes their own argument seem more authentic.

Science never makes the obnoxious claim that it is 100% correct. Only religion does that. However science can quite reasonably make the claim that some religious explanations of the world are most likely incorrect. This is what upsets the evangelicals.

The scientific method and terminology allows for an inevitable degree of error in every theory. That's why there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Many people don't understand what a scientific theory is either. A theory is as close to fact as a scientific hypothesis ever gets. The theory of gravity is 'only a theory', the germ theory of disease is 'only a theory', evolutionary theory is 'only a theory'.

When you say 'science is always changing' actually it's not. Science is always progressing. If by progressing, old theories are expanded, improved, replaced or even disproved, this is all in the pursuit of truth and demonstrates the scientific method's greatest strength - adaptation to observed reality. Religions do the opposite. If observations don't fit their preconceptions they are denied, refuted and attacked.

By adapting to observation science at any one time supports any theory that explains all current observations.

The ironic thing is that evoltunary theory has saved millions of lives and yet many religious people would have creationism taught in its place in the science classroom. Some even claim that 'intelligent design' is a 'scientific theory'. But again, they are misrepresenting what a 'theory' actually is in the sphere of science. A hypothesis does not become a theory until experimental and observational information has been found to be fully explained by it.

The stance of these people is what I would call anti-progress, anti-truth and ultimately anti-life.

[AleHop 0]

Who said it was annoying? - please read what I actually write Alehop.

I didn't say it should be stopped, I didn't say it was annoying, I just said that it happens.

And I just said so what?

So why do people credit religion with the good things its followers do?

I keep saying the same thing. You can't argue one thing for good actions the opposite for bad.

I can't believe you're asking the same question once again. I try to be careful and use adverbs like most/some to avoid generalization I think you should learn that. Read carefully.

If religion preach goodwill then people can praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach evil then people can blame it when followers do bad things.

If religion preach evil then people cannot praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach goodwill then people cannot blame it when followers do bad things.

Answer: Because they behave in a logical way and they harm nobody doing so.

This is what I've been saying all along. If you deny religious respnsibility for the bad, then you must deny religious responsibility for the good too.

Yes, because my argument is logical.

All your arguments lack a conclusion. Your logical is empty. If A then B and if B then A is circular reasoning, it's pointless and non-informative. But even worse when both are false and you consider them true. You're not debating, you're trapped in your both circular and wrong reasoning and nobody can take you out of it but you.

So what you're saying is: "Some Christians and the some important Churches recognise they can be above human's law".

You nearly got it but failed once again. If you want to apply logic, do it correctly.

So what I was saying was: "Least Christians and the least important Churches recognise they can be above human's law".

Sorry but that's just funny.

Funny and true. Believe it or not some atheists can be as bad as those christians you talked about.

What's your point here? Are you trying to adopt victimhood for christianity? That would be ironic.

Around 8.000 priests and nuns killed in Spain between 1934 and 1939. That's my point. A crime is a crime, that's my point. They were killed by atheists, not by atheism. That's my point.

[AleHop 0]

Exactly.

Also - I suggest you read up on what certain sects of christianity say about Darwin and genesis these days.

Not really, here's one of many arguments from a religious website www.believers.org...So who's wrong? The bible authors, other christians, yourself or god? Someone has to be.

How about I give you a list?

But hang on...So you accept there are some. That's a start.

Oh hang on again...Why? and Why?

Simply saying "they are not contradications", doesn't make them not contradictions.

Listen figure this out for yourself first - either agree that there are contradictions in the bible or disagree and I'll give you a very long list to explain away. Your call.

Many religious leaders preach hate, intollerance and ignorance on various issues. That's what makes religious nutters go out and shoot abortion doctors or gay people.

How about a little look at christian anti-semitism over the past 2000 years or jewish anti-islam preaching or the islamic leaders who promote war on the west? Major religions preach hatred, intollerance and ignorance all the time.

Let's look at the preaching of ignorance... Religions consistently reiterate fictions that they have no evidence for and deny the authenticity of knowledge that aids humanity (including them) in order to perpetuate their own falsification of 'truth'.

I was steering clear of the religious faux pas de jour - it always seems a little unfair to rub noses in religion's latest scandal, but since you brought it up.....

You don't blame the catholic church for the raping of children committed by those people running and belonging to it? How about blaming the pope? After all, instead of excommunicating a priest who was guilty, he simply moved him to another position where he continued. No? Not guilty your honor?

The catholic religion provided these people with the position and the power to rape children. Then, when they knew it was happening, they leaders of that religion covered it up.

Jesus wept!

Now what did you say earlier? - Oh yes, but raping children is okay - we'll just move him to a different church.

Is that not a contradiction either?

I entirely agree here. No one should aim to destroy religions. There is no need. They will crumble on their own. Humanity requires them less and less every year. Eventually we'll collectively and happily grow up and leave behind our childish, superstitious beliefs.

Anyway - I have found myself repeating the same things over and over during these posts - which is always an indication that we've gone as far as we can go on this limited subject.

If you would like to try to offer some proof of the existence of your god we could perhaps shift onto that subject (a particular favourite of mine).

Cheery bye bye.

There's just too much wrong with your post to even bother with.

I've had many fascinating debates with intelligent atheists in my time - this isn't one of them.

You just keep on believing what you want if it makes you happy.

Cheerio.

[yurp 0]

And I just said so what?

No you didn't. You first suggested that I thought it should be stopped. Then you suggested that I found it annoying. Christian honesty? Watch you don't bear false witness now.

If religion preach goodwill then people can praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach evil then people can blame it when followers do bad things.

If religion preach evil then people cannot praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach goodwill then people cannot blame it when followers do bad things.

All your arguments lack a conclusion. Your logical is empty. If A then B and if B then A is circular reasoning, it's pointless and non-informative. But even worse when both are false and you consider them true. You're not debating, you're trapped in your both circular and wrong reasoning and nobody can take you out of it but you.

If a religion preaches both goodwill and evil (which almost all do) then... hmmm - your conditional statements break down right here.

Most of what religions or priests say is good and I fully support that. Some of it is deception, intollerance and falsehood though.

The finger of responsibility and blame must rest in the same place because both the good and bad stuff comes from the same place. I don't care if you want to say that responsibility rests with the preachers, the religion, the bible, jesus, god - whatever. All I'm saying is that responsibility for both the good and bad rests in the same place because it comes from the same place.

All major religion's leaders and followers have done and continue to do both good and bad things in the name of their religion. Point the finger where you like, but be consistent.

the second bit...

a - you evidently don't understand what circular reasoning is.

b - I have said countless times: if A then C, if B then D - choose A or B and you get the answer C or D - easy peasy lemon squeezy.

If you praise a religion for the good, it must also be blamed for the bad. If you don't blame religion for the bad you can't praise it for the good. There is nothing circular about it. It's really simple.

Most Christians and the most important Churches recognise they cannot be above human's law, by no means. It's in the Bible too.

So what you're saying is: "Some Christians and the some important Churches recognise they can be above human's law".

So what I was saying was: "Least Christians and the least important Churches recognise they can be above human's law".

really? honestly? were you?

Funny and true. Believe it or not some atheists can be as bad as those christians you talked about.

Around 8.000 priests and nuns killed in Spain between 1934 and 1939. That's my point. A crime is a crime, that's my point. They were killed by atheists, not by atheism. That's my point.

Entirely true - but again that's not what I said is it. I said that atheism is not an organised religion - which is true. Please don't change my argument to suit your defense.

Again - how is this relavant? I've been saying that a lot of evil is done in the name of religion. Are you refuting that by telling me that athiests kill too?

Of course they do. So what? They didn't do it in the name of athiesm did they.

Also if you really want to use this flawed line of reasoning (I don't recommend it) consider this...

number of murders committed by religious people vs number of murders commmitted by athiests

Thou shall not murder?

or how about that statistic from earlier. US prisons are disproportionately full of christians compared to the outside population.

Here's a more detailed account I found whilst trying to find the actual figures...

Nearly 76% of violent criminals in the US are Christian and no, most of these Christians did not convert after conviction, they were Christian at the time of the crime. If you examine secular societies in comparison to religious societies; secular societies will consistently have less crime, unemployment, corruption and more freedom, share of wealth and a higher standard of living. Nearly every single advancement towards morality (I.E: ceasing native genocide, freeing the slaves and women’s suffrage) was opposed by the church and Christian organizations.

moral guidance?

There's just too much wrong with your post to even bother with.

I've had many fascinating debates with intelligent atheists in my time - this isn't one of them.

You just keep on believing what you want if it makes you happy.

Cheerio.

Hahaha - It was funnier when I wrote it. Now it's just plagiarism - which is kind of endearing, but doesn't gain any points - especially when you just replied to my first post seconds earlier!

I have to admit I'm rather sad though -

Are you never going to explain to me how the countless contradictions in the bible aren't actually contradictions at all? I was lookig forward to that.

Are you never going to explain to me how some christians claim the bible is the word of god while others can claim the opposite and they can still both be right?

I really was looking forward to your defense of this too...

Can we blame the Catholic Church for what paedophile priests did? No.

Oh well - cheers for the chat - it was fun.

[maure 1]

You guys.

First there is the atheist that couldn't find his arse with two hands. Look, the Bible is not the same thing as an owners manual for a Toyota. I don't remember the Bible forcing anyone to commit rape but it is a fact that it does place lapidation as a means to serve justice. Now, the question is, did God or the Bible makers invented and patented lapidation? Nope. All the "evil" that so-called "atheists" want to find in the Bible (or the Koran, Torah, your pick), is a reflection of the society at the time and the brutality that was considered justice then... and it was so by the hand of all. Oh Quiet One got it right when he said that an atheist simply stays out of the way on these matters. Why? Because...

... if amateur atheists are fvcked, believers are holy fvcked. Simple thing: the Bible is Holy for believers (of the Bible). There are no scriptures but Scriptures. And if and when the savagery of old is found, it must be _interpreted_ into the savagery of today. The task falls, presumably, on those hierarchies that believers accept to have authority and the "evolution" of interpretation depends on many factors. Again, the point is unarguable as to the correctness of the process. It is a religion. It is a matter of faith. In short, it is a different level of explanation.

Of course, all religions fall short _of_each_other_ as, otherwise, they would be the same and only. But, even then, it is a moot point since the element that holds a religion going is FAITH. Without such rare condition, you are out of the loop.

And, thus, we come to the closing point. The discussion, etc, is pointless. It is a if two people tried to play chess according to different rules. It's paradoxical to argue over the existence of "God", it's paradoxical to enter into discussion regarding the worthiness of particular dogmas, and it's paradoxical to bother to try to qualify by contrast one religious idea over another... far worse, if the comparison involves one side not being religious at all.

Let it go. Get it through your head. Let the faithful pray while the rest of us hold on to our genitalia.

Reality is here and it's everywhere. Ready yourself as best you can.

[yurp 0]

You guys.

First there is the atheist that couldn't find his arse with two hands. Look, the Bible is not the same thing as an owners manual for a Toyota. I don't remember the Bible forcing anyone to commit rape but it is a fact that it does place lapidation as a means to serve justice. Now, the question is, did God or the Bible makers invented and patented lapidation? Nope. All the "evil" that so-called "atheists" want to find in the Bible (or the Koran, Torah, your pick), is a reflection of the society at the time and the brutality that was considered justice then... and it was so by the hand of all. Oh Quiet One got it right when he said that an atheist simply stays out of the way on these matters. Why? Because...

... if amateur atheists are fvcked, believers are holy fvcked. Simple thing: the Bible is Holy for believers (of the Bible). There are no scriptures but Scriptures. And if and when the savagery of old is found, it must be _interpreted_ into the savagery of today. The task falls, presumably, on those hierarchies that believers accept to have authority and the "evolution" of interpretation depends on many factors. Again, the point is unarguable as to the correctness of the process. It is a religion. It is a matter of faith. In short, it is a different level of explanation.

Of course, all religions fall short _of_each_other_ as, otherwise, they would be the same and only. But, even then, it is a moot point since the element that holds a religion going is FAITH. Without such rare condition, you are out of the loop.

And, thus, we come to the closing point. The discussion, etc, is pointless. It is a if two people tried to play chess according to different rules. It's paradoxical to argue over the existence of "God", it's paradoxical to enter into discussion regarding the worthiness of particular dogmas, and it's paradoxical to bother to try to qualify by contrast one religious idea over another... far worse, if the comparison involves one side not being religious at all.

Let it go. Get it through your head. Let the faithful pray while the rest of us hold on to our genitalia.

Reality is here and it's everywhere. Ready yourself as best you can.

Actually Maure - I entirely agree with you. I really do. But I'm also enjoying myself immensly. I am also far more aware of what I'm doing than you think.

As I wrote a while ago...

I'm deliberately confining myself to the argument at hand. Why? Because as soon as one starts with the tricky business (for theists) that there is nothing to support the notion that their god exists at all, they run the other way shouting 'faith' as you have quite rightly pointed out.

By allowing Alehop to stay within the bounds of what does actually exist (the bible & historical record), I can continue to enjoy myself.

Also - theists treat the bible exactly like a Toyota manual, so why shouldn't I hold them to it? I don't remember the Toyota manual "forcing" anyone to do anything either - that's the whole point.

As you quite rightly say - the Bible is the work of man. But as soon as I say that to Alehop the discussion will move onto the existence of god which very quickly leads to the faith card again.

The fun from this discussion for me has not derived from bull-dosing straight in, but by prodding and poking gently while it lasts.

[AleHop 0]

Hahaha - It was funnier when I wrote it. Now it's just plagiarism - which is kind of endearing, but doesn't gain any points - especially when you just replied to my first post seconds earlier!

I did want to reply but I was tired and that was the shortest copy&paste reply I could find.

I thought it would be funny and annoying as your 2nd post was more winding up than reasoning.

Are you never going to explain to me how the countless contradictions in the bible aren't actually contradictions at all? I was lookig forward to that.

As I said you can find contradictions but you can see in the end most of them are not contradictions. You have to follow a certain logic even if you don't believe the premises: God can't contradict himself, Jesus is the light of the world, the word of god made flesh, etc. There's no point trying to understand it if your reasoning is non-believer because God doesn't even exist and the Bible is like any other book written by men.

Leviticus 11 says you can't eat some animals not because it's sin (against the 10 commandments) but because it was unhealthy at that time, it was bad. In Mark 7:19 Jesus confirms that no food is unclean for human's heart. Christians can eat pork.

Are you never going to explain to me how some christians claim the bible is the word of god while others can claim the opposite and they can still both be right?

For Christians the most important book in the Bible is the Gospel. Some claim the infallible Word of God can be found there, the rest of the Bible is the Word of God through tradition. Some others claim the all or nothing, so the whole Bible is the Word of God but there's still context and interpretation in contrast with the Gospel and the New Testament.

Can they still both be right? In some way they can. It's not like 1+1=2 vs. 1+1=5. God gave us a brilliant intelligence to be able to get His wishes from the Bible either way. I think most of those theological fights for supremacy are more related to power than to faith.

I really was looking forward to your defense of this too...

It hasn't changed.

Can we blame the Catholic Church for what the inquisition did in the past? Yes. Did they accept the responsibility for that? Yes. Can we blame the Catholic Church for what paedophile priests did? No. Is the Catholic Church subsidiary responsible? Yes. Should the Catholic Church clean up the house? Yes. Should they destroy the house? No.

The cover-ups are unacceptable and I hope justice clarify all the members involved.

[AleHop 0]

You guys.

First there is the atheist that couldn't find his arse with two hands. Look, the Bible is not the same thing as an owners manual for a Toyota. I don't remember the Bible forcing anyone to commit rape but it is a fact that it does place lapidation as a means to serve justice. Now, the question is, did God or the Bible makers invented and patented lapidation? Nope. All the "evil" that so-called "atheists" want to find in the Bible (or the Koran, Torah, your pick), is a reflection of the society at the time and the brutality that was considered justice then... and it was so by the hand of all. Oh Quiet One got it right when he said that an atheist simply stays out of the way on these matters. Why? Because...

... if amateur atheists are fvcked, believers are holy fvcked. Simple thing: the Bible is Holy for believers (of the Bible). There are no scriptures but Scriptures. And if and when the savagery of old is found, it must be _interpreted_ into the savagery of today. The task falls, presumably, on those hierarchies that believers accept to have authority and the "evolution" of interpretation depends on many factors. Again, the point is unarguable as to the correctness of the process. It is a religion. It is a matter of faith. In short, it is a different level of explanation.

Of course, all religions fall short _of_each_other_ as, otherwise, they would be the same and only. But, even then, it is a moot point since the element that holds a religion going is FAITH. Without such rare condition, you are out of the loop.

And, thus, we come to the closing point. The discussion, etc, is pointless. It is a if two people tried to play chess according to different rules. It's paradoxical to argue over the existence of "God", it's paradoxical to enter into discussion regarding the worthiness of particular dogmas, and it's paradoxical to bother to try to qualify by contrast one religious idea over another... far worse, if the comparison involves one side not being religious at all.

Let it go. Get it through your head. Let the faithful pray while the rest of us hold on to our genitalia.

Reality is here and it's everywhere. Ready yourself as best you can.

Good post, maure.

Believers and non-believers can still live in the same world, they can be friends, they can marry, they can...

[maure 1]

Believers and non-believers can still live in the same world, they can be friends, they can marry, they can...

Not only we can, we do... since, after all, we must.

Like I said, there is reality for us lot to deal with. Now, _that_ is a subject of interest.

[yurp 0]

I did want to reply but I was tired and that was the shortest copy&paste reply I could find.

I thought it would be funny and annoying as your 2nd post was more winding up than reasoning.

It did make me chuckle. Thank you

As I said you can find contradictions but you can see in the end most of them are not contradictions. You have to follow a certain logic even if you don't believe the premises: God can't contradict himself, Jesus is the light of the world, the word of god made flesh, etc. There's no point trying to understand it if your reasoning is non-believer because God doesn't even exist and the Bible is like any other book written by men.

This is the expected answer.

Without faith I can't read the bible in the right way yes?

I'm going to be equally lazy...

http://www.infidels....#contradictions

There are plenty there (I don't actually agree with all of them), but here's a simple one for starters:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

So who was Joseph's dad (Jacob or Heli) and how does faith lead you to the correct way of reading these two verses so that they are not contradictory? If one is a mistake then what's to say the bible isn't full of mistakes?

For Christians the most important book in the Bible is the Gospel. Some claim the infallible Word of God can be found there, the rest of the Bible is the Word of God through tradition. Some others claim the all or nothing, so the whole Bible is the Word of God but there's still context and interpretation in contrast with the Gospel and the New Testament.

The above is from the Gospel.

Can they still both be right? In some way they can. It's not like 1+1=2 vs. 1+1=5. God gave us a brilliant intelligence to be able to get His wishes from the Bible either way. I think most of those theological fights for supremacy are more related to power than to faith.

I agree. And though it saddens me to say it, that's exactly what has been happening through religious history. What religious people follow as religion these days is the outcome of centuries of power play and far removed from its origins.

It hasn't changed.

From what? You never explained what your defense actually was.

The cover-ups are unacceptable and I hope justice clarify all the members involved.

And since the pope was involved what should happen to him?

I notice you ignored the whole "What if a religion preaches good and bad?" question.

Did you finally understand?

You seem to have dropped the "religion is responsible for good but the individual for bad" line of argument, so that's a step in the right direction.

Remember I have never said religion is all bad, but that where the responsibility lies should remain consistent.

Also what about the morality problems many religions appear to have? I see you ignored that part of my post too.

I'm off out soon (wife's birthday today and we're off out to dinner) but I'll try to answer any replies tomorrow if I can.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Back on topic.

Why is a fruit machine called a fruit machine when its not a fruit, and does not generate fruit?

[AleHop 0]

So who was Joseph's dad (Jacob or Heli) and how does faith lead you to the correct way of reading these two verses so that they are not contradictory? If one is a mistake then what's to say the bible isn't full of mistakes?

AFAGoogleK, Heli is the father of Mary (Jerusalem Talmud [Chag. 77,4]) so Joshep is Heli's son-in-law. It seems Jews didn't have a different word for son and son-in-law. Or maybe the translation was incorrect or the translator made a mistake.

Yes, there are mistakes in the Bible but it isn't full of mistakes. The Bible is an old book that was written, translated and copied many times by human beings so there's no point denying it contains a few mistakes.

From what? You never explained what your defense actually was.

I said we can't blame the Catholic Church because they do not preach pedophilia, we can only blame the priests who commited the crime. But the Catholic Church is subsidiary responsible because they were looking after the children.

And since the pope was involved what should happen to him?

It happened many years before he was the Pope but human's law should work for him too if he covered it up. My grandfather used to say that the devil had entered the Vatican, he was really a good Christian by the words of Jesus. There are some, maybe small, things I don't like in the Catholic Church hierarchy but there are many more good things than bad in the whole Church.

I notice you ignored the whole "What if a religion preaches good and bad?" question.

Like 50% good and 50% bad? Or mostly good but with some bad flaws? Or mostly bad with some good points? Or mostly good but a few terrible things?

You seem to have dropped the "religion is responsible for good but the individual for bad" line of argument, so that's a step in the right direction.

There was nothing else I could add to the four logical sentences if... then... when...

If religion preach goodwill then people can praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach evil then people can blame it when followers do bad things.

If religion preach evil then people cannot praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach goodwill then people cannot blame it when followers do bad things.

Remember I have never said religion is all bad, but that where the responsibility lies should remain consistent.

And I never said religion is all good, but where the responsibility lies it should be fair and logical.

Also what about the morality problems many religions appear to have? I see you ignored that part of my post too.

I see those problems everywhere and I think religion can help humans to overcome it. Morality problems are not exclusive of religions, sadly. Morality problems can and do appear in any human organization. Should I discredit a given religion or organization for those problems or should I consider where those problems come from and why?

I can't make my point clearer and I think yours is clear too. You can post your conclusion but I'll try not to annoy Steph much more.

BTW, I don't even know what a fruit machine is?

[yurp 0]

Back from a very fattening meal. Feeling seriously bloated. Gluttony - I think the bible was right about that one.

AFAGoogleK, Heli is the father of Mary (Jerusalem Talmud [Chag. 77,4]) so Joshep is Heli's son-in-law. It seems Jews didn't have a different word for son and son-in-law. Or maybe the translation was incorrect or the translator made a mistake.

Yes, there are mistakes in the Bible but it isn't full of mistakes. The Bible is an old book that was written, translated and copied many times by human beings so there's no point denying it contains a few mistakes.

Yep - that's all I was after. I chose this particularly harmless example in order for you to be able to accept that the bible contains mistakes and contradictions. Now comes the more important question: How do you go about assessing what is a mistake and what is not? Be careful how you answer this one.

This...

If religion preach goodwill then people can praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach evil then people can blame it when followers do bad things.

If religion preach evil then people cannot praise it when followers do good things.

If religion preach goodwill then people cannot blame it when followers do bad things.

...still doesn't fit with this...

Like 50% good and 50% bad? Or mostly good but with some bad flaws? Or mostly bad with some good points? Or mostly good but a few terrible things?

...but I think you've realised that now, so I won't push it.

I see those problems everywhere and I think religion can help humans to overcome it. Morality problems are not exclusive of religions, sadly. Morality problems can and do appear in any human organization. Should I discredit a given religion or organization for those problems or should I consider where those problems come from and why?

This would be very true if the proportion of christians in prison was equal to that in the general population, but it isn't. There are more christians in prison than there would be if law breaking was equally common. i.e. christians break the law in the US more than non-christians. And that's only one of the issues I quoted. Religious people are more often on the wrong side of common morality than the general population in all kinds of ways - don't you find that worrying? I do.

I can't make my point clearer and I think yours is clear too. You can post your conclusion but I'll try not to annoy Steph much more.

Fair enough.

BTW, I don't even know what a fruit machine is?

They're the work of Satan, you're better off not knowing.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Satan doesn't exist.

[Rainmaster 7]

Kate - unfortunately you have a common misunderstanding of science (regularly encouraged by evangelical churches wishing to discredit it). But don't feel bad. Its a misconception that many MANY intelligent people have. Some religious people actively encourage ignorance of what the scientific method is and what scientific terminology means. It makes their own argument seem more authentic.

Science never makes the obnoxious claim that it is 100% correct. Only religion does that. However science can quite reasonably make the claim that some religious explanations of the world are most likely incorrect. This is what upsets the evangelicals.

The scientific method and terminology allows for an inevitable degree of error in every theory. That's why there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Many people don't understand what a scientific theory is either. A theory is as close to fact as a scientific hypothesis ever gets. The theory of gravity is 'only a theory', the germ theory of disease is 'only a theory', evolutionary theory is 'only a theory'.

When you say 'science is always changing' actually it's not. Science is always progressing. If by progressing, old theories are expanded, improved, replaced or even disproved, this is all in the pursuit of truth and demonstrates the scientific method's greatest strength - adaptation to observed reality. Religions do the opposite. If observations don't fit their preconceptions they are denied, refuted and attacked.

By adapting to observation science at any one time supports any theory that explains all current observations.

The ironic thing is that evoltunary theory has saved millions of lives and yet many religious people would have creationism taught in its place in the science classroom. Some even claim that 'intelligent design' is a 'scientific theory'. But again, they are misrepresenting what a 'theory' actually is in the sphere of science. A hypothesis does not become a theory until experimental and observational information has been found to be fully explained by it.

The stance of these people is what I would call anti-progress, anti-truth and ultimately anti-life.

Kate's post & your reply to it reminded me of something I read a while back (although I have no idea why I read it): http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

It discusses the difference between science and religion as belief systems.

[yurp 0]

Satan doesn't exist.

(allegedly)

Kate's post & your reply to it reminded me of something I read a while back (although I have no idea why I read it): http://spaz.ca/aaron...ol/science.html

It discusses the difference between science and religion as belief systems.

Interesting, but I find the term 'belief system' a bit misleading.

EDIT - I should explain. To me there is no 'believing' involved in a naturalist view of the world. The 'belief' only goes as far as that required to acknowledge what you can see in front of your eyes. I guess what I'm saying is that there's no 'faith' involved. Just as I can see this computer I'm using and 'believe' it to be there, so to I can acknowledge there is a world around me that works within naturalist, observable and predicatable bounds. His use of the term 'believe' when talking about science seems largely interchangeable with the word 'accept' to me. When talking about religion it seems more akin to 'imagine'. The theists amongst us have every right to think the opposite of course.

Still - an interesting article.

[AleHop 0]

How do you go about assessing what is a mistake and what is not? Be careful how you answer this one.

I think it's not only important to asses what is a mistake and what is not but it is also very important to ponder and weigh it through good judgement. Yes, that's what human beings use for that kind of task. It's the same kind of argument we had before and so we can see that good judgement is different for belivers and non-believers on that matter.

This...

...still doesn't fit with this......but I think you've realised that now, so I won't push it.

Same problem again but this and this fits perfectly for me. First this is about quality, second one about quantity.

This would be very true if the proportion of christians in prison was equal to that in the general population, but it isn't. There are more christians in prison than there would be if law breaking was equally common. i.e. christians break the law in the US more than non-christians. And that's only one of the issues I quoted. Religious people are more often on the wrong side of common morality than the general population in all kinds of ways - don't you find that worrying? I do.

No, I don't. Chrisitanity is for the poor, the prosecuted, the weak, the repented...

EDIT: It is for me.