gil

I have actually believed in the tooth fairy, but never in god :eek:

gil

New Page

Cosmo-poof

:gil:

kovalenkov

From American foreign policy to religion discussion. This forum never cease to amaze me.

Dr. Hook

Fellas, you are completely missing my point, and while I hear you say that religioous people cannot comprehend atheism, you are failing to comprehend that principally your beliefs are no different than those of religious people. So let me try again.

I acknowledged that you cannot directly compare atheism to a structured, organized religion. However, I think all of you are making the mistake of assuming that because your morals and beliefs are not derived from religion, and maybe even because they are nearly or completely unique, that they are somehow different in principle. They are not. The only difference in nature between the beliefs of the religious person and the atheist is the source of those beliefs. True, the atheist's beliefs are not codified beyond the fact that there is no God, but they come from a source nonetheless, AND they dictate the way you think and act in the world. Again, how is that ANY different from someone whose beliefs are derived from organized religion? They are only different as to the source. With that said, any perspective which endorses an atheistic worldview (such as many tenets of evolutionary theory) is principally the same as a view that endorses a religious perspective (such as many tenets of ID).

Okay, so technically you are correct that atheism is not a religion, but at the end of the day, it performs exactly like religion: it is a perspective that governs your behavior. It is a belief system, if one that is different from individual to individual.

Quinny, yes I am a religious individual, but I really didn't mention it because I don't think it's important in this debatae. I don't have a problem with you being an atheist; you are a free moral agent, and I am not threatened by your view. It doesn't give me comfort OR cause me distress to know that there are people who feel that what I believe in is crap and choose to believe that there is not God. That's life and human diversity. It simply seems to me that as long as one view (even if it is the single and only tenet of that view) is going to propagated in a classroom, then others need to be given the same consideration.

Now, for Kov: I agree ( i know ) that many of the early scientists were religious. Darwin was not one of them, however. Is it so far out of line to attribute bias to some of these scientists? Many have no problem slamming proponents of ID because of their religious slant, but no one bothers to talk about the slant of most of the Evolution people. If you are a scientist that is an atheist, then that is absolutely going to inform your approach. Just because the atheist is not working under the rubric of an organization in his or her beliefs doesn't necessarily create credibility. Just something to think about. As far as the ID people go, at this point I think there is a fairly large and growing number of credible, academic schientists that are subscribing to this view; not to promote religion but simply because they do not believe the Darwinian theory of random mutations and natural selection is adequate to explain the complexity of life on earth. Based on that, I don't see what evolution proponents have to fear about that view being given equal time alongside evolution in a classroom. Let the students make their own decisions and inquiries; that is the spirit of education. No one would like to see a single political theory dogmatically taught in a classroom (Nazis and Soviets anyone?) and this should be treated in the same fashion.

Finally, let's stop the insults. You know who you are: if you choose atheism, fine. I respect your feelings and even understand them. So show me and others the same courtesy when it comes to our beliefs.

iamthequinn

If it was me who insulted you then I apologise unreservedly - it certainly wasn't the intention. I only asked if you were religious as it explained your stance in the debate.

kovalenkov

You missed the point of atheism. As vegan poof said, the only thing connecting me to him or any other atheist is that I choose not to believe in "higher being". That is it. I live by my own morals and I choose to believe into whatever I want. You may want to argue, that this is what you do as well. You don't. Morals are forced to you conciously or subconciously by your religion. You believe in miracles, which is also forced to you by your religion. There is no free spirit. You can't be e.g. a Catholic and disbelieve in walking on water or making wine out of water. You have to believe those things. I don't have to. I can choose what I am going to believe based on information from multiple sources. Oh, and I read the Bible more times than an average religious person. I am also planning on reading Koran, when it is translated into Slovenian language.

As far as evolution goes, the proof that it is correct also stands in the life's simplest form: virus. Now, you can go, and explain to me, that virus mutations are the act of "higher being", however all evidence show that it is not. The virus has the ability to adapt to the new environment or it would have become extinct. That also prooves "Surviving of the fittes" theory, since viruses are the most surviving beings on the whole planet.
I understand, that you can't start explaining religion by saying: "God created the earth and beings", but then at the same time try to explain how and why would Mamuth mutate into an elephant. The easier way, and I know the christian church using this a lot is: "It was the will of god". Fine. Prove it. Until you do, I choose to belive into what is proven. And that is an evolution theory.
Therefore, teaching children of every aspect of every religion on certain things would bring nothing good to schools. First, it would massively enlarge choriculum. Second, the students would be thought the facts of the religion, to which the professor belongs. Third, they can find that out for themselves.
If religion truth is the only truth there is, then the rational person would find that obvious in his/her church group.
Schools are there to teach you of free thinking, church is there to teach you religious stuff.

As far as insults go. Have whatever belief you want. You can believe in green Martians for all I care. But don't try to convince me they exist before you have a proof.

And I agree with others that religion is the cause of majority of conflicts in the past and even now. Members of Al-Quaeda are firm believers of Alah. Terrorism they cause derives from the fact, that Alah does not approve other religions and promises Heaven for everyone doing his holy duty.

Dr. Hook

No it wasn't you

iamthequinn

You say:

But according to the Archbishop of Canterbury (March, 2004):
"It’s easy to talk as though ‘atheism’ were a self-contained system, a view of the world which gained its coherence from a central conviction – that there is no transcendent creative power independent of the universe we experience ... It is difficult to see them as a system; they share the denial of a transcendent agency but little else. Thus there are varieties of belief and intellectual policy involving this denial, but their actual contours are not necessarily determined in detail by it. As an ‘ism’, atheism does not present a single face ... To speak as though ‘atheism’ were a belief system alongside varieties of religious belief is simply a category mistake..."

The bearded bish doesn't see atheism as a belief system. I'm sure if I were to do a search of senior rabbi or mullahs, I'd find similar viewpoints.

Dr. Hook

Well now are you just making assumptions, and bad ones at that. First off, I cannot speak for everyone, but for myself, I hold a religious view that I came to as an adult, and which I CHOSE to believe. Because I chose that view, I necessarily CHOOSE to believe what comes along with that. So, yes, it is exactly the same thing as what you do. You also made my point for me by stating that you have sources from which you derive your views. If I have one, and you have twenty, that doesn't change the principal one bit. The number of sources from which you derive your beliefs are meaningless. You have them, and they shape and guide you. No different from a religious person.

Perhaps some people just don't want to engage the facts and say "It was God's will." Secondly, how is anyone supposed to prove something that is not given a place from which to debate? You ask for proof, yet you would deny any alternative view other than what you believe right now. Speaking of religion, you say you read various things and make up your mind. So what is your objection to allowing others the same freedom vis a vis the ID vs Evolution debate?

One of the principles of free thinking is being allowed to select a belief from a variety of choices. It is not free thinking when only one belief or theory is presented. That is the only point for me. I am not advocating religious instruction in schools; just academic freedom. I would not maassively enlarge a science curriculum to spend one or two class periods presenting the case for ID (or any other alternative theory that does not advocate a particular religious point of view. It is absolutely disingenous of educators to insist that the evolutionary theory as a whole is the only scientific view that exists.

Well show me anywhere in this thread where I (or anyone else) tried to convince you or anyone else to believe in a religion On the contrary, religious people have been called irrational, senseless, etc. I imagine that we can have this discussion without some of you resorting to belittling the beliefs of other member of this forum.