Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BaronIveagh wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
I find it very hard to find any christian that would not agree with #1 which is why I picked it out.

In many early traditions, Jesus does not claim to be the Messiah. Remember that in Aramaic of the period, 'Son of God' meant a righteous person. Not literally a offspring of God.

Further, I'll point out that Enoch supposedly went to Heaven without going through Christ.

And these would be considered by monster rains definition to be cults correct?

Technically all of Christianity during the first Century would qualify as a cult under his definition.

Agreed. I posted this may posts ago

frgsinwntr wrote:So you agree then, that only fringe groups don't follow that tennent?

Well, the bit about being a "law unto themselves" is in the book of Romans, so I don't know how fringe that is. I also recall reading an interview with the head of the Episcopalian church ( I forget her name) where she basically said the same thing. So no, it's not just fringe groups at all.

frgsinwntr wrote:What happens to you if you're not saved?

Some say hell, some say eternal death (sheol, the grave, etc) some say everyone gets into heaven anyway. Who's right? I have no idea.

Monster Rain wrote:

I'll answer your question with a question: Does believing in any of these things involve the thought reform that is described in the article you cited?

Also, the apocryphal book of Enoch is referenced in the Book of Jude, which is canon. I always thought that was pretty cool.

Since I almost missed this edit you did...

Sure. Overtime belief in these things AND the spreading of these ideas would include various kinds of thought reform. In fact, taking this point and following its source from wikipedia, I'd say that the fact that they discuss the cognitive impairment by trauma of joining can totally relate back on topic. Pushing ID into schools would DEF be thought reform as well as the thought reform being done to create "the discovery institute" to begin with!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:So you agree then, that only fringe groups don't follow that tennent?

Well, the bit about being a "law unto themselves" is in the book of Romans, so I don't know how fringe that is. I also recall reading an interview with the head of the Episcopalian church ( I forget her name) where she basically said the same thing. So no, it's not just fringe groups at all.

Can you find that interview to back your point? I'd be curious to read it. I'm finding it hard to believe that Christians don't believe Christ is their savior.

Monster Rain wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:What happens to you if you're not saved?

Some say hell, some say eternal death (sheol, the grave, etc) some say everyone gets into heaven anyway. Who's right? I have no idea.

So yea, basically you're saved or OR screwed (hell, or eternal death). The basic person may say... Hmm I don't wanna be screwed. I'd better join up. Or... they may realize its a crock of gak and say.. its a control thing

Monster Rain wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:So you agree then, that only fringe groups don't follow that tennent?

Well, the bit about being a "law unto themselves" is in the book of Romans, so I don't know how fringe that is. I also recall reading an interview with the head of the Episcopalian church ( I forget her name) where she basically said the same thing. So no, it's not just fringe groups at all.

frgsinwntr wrote:What happens to you if you're not saved?

Some say hell, some say eternal death (sheol, the grave, etc) some say everyone gets into heaven anyway. Who's right? I have no idea.

I wouldn't buy too heavily into Romans. Paul never actually even met Jesus. He had a vision on the road to Damascus and later met with James and Peter for a few days. I wouldn't exactly call him a trustworthy source. (IIRC he had something of a blowup with Peter)

Monster Rain wrote:

All cults, according to Singer, share three elements: They revolve around charismatic leaders who focus veneration on themselves, rather than on the group's purpose; they employ authoritarian power structures; and they use covert, coordinated forms of thought persuasion in order to gain total control of the lives of their members. As illustration, Dr. Singer contrasts a cult-like organization with the United States Marine Corps-a simple, but effective illustration.

Dugan, Robert D., and Jeffrey M. Beaubien. "Cults in our Midst: The Hidden Menace in our Everyday Lives by Margaret Thaler Singer with Janja Lalich." Personnel Psychology 48.4 (1995): 948. ProQuest. Web. 27 Feb. 2011

.

So, every religion that exists?

We're probably not going to agree here, but suffice it to say that most faiths can be regarded as cults.

The "co-ordinated forms of thought persuasion in order to gain control of the lives of their members" is vaguely applicable to all things from little jihadist training camps to bible camp or youth group volleyball, or even just the fact of being raised by practicing parents. Check. All religions in some way or other do this.

"charismatic leaders..." (check, a given for public speakers to have any audience that isn't held captive) - except the pope but that's because he looks like Palpatine, not his fault... "who focus veneration on themselves rather than on the group's purpose" (pope's robes, lots of gold stuff, funny hat, extravagant fanfare every sunday mass - makes up for looking like the evil galactic emperor, so check he's back in too).

This one is nice and vague because of the words "true purpose", leaving it subjective and based on the opinion of who is to judge that. To some teenagers, the true purpose of bible camp is to be away from their churchey parents and sneak off to get some churchey nookie I would wager. Besides, anyone who is going to stand and deliver at a weekly speech, rally of the believers has got to be pretty full of themselves; even if it is all full of how humble and selfless they are. Public speaking is inherently narcisistic. SO again, Check. 2 out of 3 for everyone.

The only one where there seems varied is the bit about authoritarian power structures. This allows some religions to slip by because the power structure is not inherent in the religious teachings, just in the entire culture in exists within is a power structure. You can become a complete outcast from your family and the only culture you know (Hindu Indian woman I know comes to mind who has to deal with arranged marriage for instance) by shucking it off and calling horsegak, but then become a pariah, disowned, shunned, all that crap that people who grow up brainwashed by douchebaggery groups think matters.. The religion itself is not uthoritarian, but the culture it exists in is. Even something as simple as 'honor thy father' is second hand authoritarianism. What if your father is an ass? Too bad you are a sinner for not honoring him. Authoritarianism.. check.

So can a religion be named which does not in some way show all these three things?

Seems the difference between "cult" and "religion" is numbers. Also, similar to the difference between "terrorist" and "revolutionary".

Guitardian wrote:The "co-ordinated forms of thought persuasion in order to gain control of the lives of their members" is vaguely applicable to all things from little jihadist training camps to bible camp or youth group volleyball, or even just the fact of being raised by practicing parents. Check. All religions in some way or other do this.

"charismatic leaders..." (check, a given for public speakers to have any audience that isn't held captive) - except the pope but that's because he looks like Palpatine, not his fault... "who focus veneration on themselves rather than on the group's purpose" (pope's robes, lots of gold stuff, funny hat, extravagant fanfare every sunday mass - makes up for looking like the evil galactic emperor, so check he's back in too).

This one is nice and vague because of the words "true purpose", leaving it subjective and based on the opinion of who is to judge that. To some teenagers, the true purpose of bible camp is to be away from their churchey parents and sneak off to get some churchey nookie I would wager. Besides, anyone who is going to stand and deliver at a weekly speech, rally of the believers has got to be pretty full of themselves; even if it is all full of how humble and selfless they are. Public speaking is inherently narcisistic. SO again, Check. 2 out of 3 for everyone.

The only one where there seems varied is the bit about authoritarian power structures. This allows some religions to slip by because the power structure is not inherent in the religious teachings, just in the entire culture in exists within is a power structure. You can become a complete outcast from your family and the only culture you know (Hindu Indian woman I know comes to mind who has to deal with arranged marriage for instance) by shucking it off and calling horsegak, but then become a pariah, disowned, shunned, all that crap that people who grow up brainwashed by douchebaggery groups think matters.. The religion itself is not uthoritarian, but the culture it exists in is. Even something as simple as 'honor thy father' is second hand authoritarianism. What if your father is an ass? Too bad you are a sinner for not honoring him. Authoritarianism.. check.

So can a religion be named which does not in some way show all these three things?

Seems the difference between "cult" and "religion" is numbers. Also, similar to the difference between "terrorist" and "revolutionary".

I'd say you've done well... then you said " Also, similar to the difference between "terrorist" and "revolutionary""

Thats a bit far... terrorists do their work simply to cause fear... revolutionary have purpose. therefore i'm going to outright disagree with your final analogy... It comes across as overly harsh and bashing

I meant that it depends on if you want to put it in a negative or positive light you call it one or the other term. I didn't mean to equate one as revolutionaries and one as terrorists, just that the term can be interchanged depending on which side you are on.

clearing by Frazzled. Remember Frazzled Mod is bestest Mod.

clearing by Frazzled. Remember Frazzled Mod is bestest Mod.

clearing by Frazzled. Remember Frazzled Mod is bestest Mod.

Orlanth wrote:Good argument for teaching theology is schools then. Because you have a very thin explanation of the Biblical teaching.

I imagine it would be, it's your faith and not mine, so I'd expect you and all other Christians would have a much deeper understanding.

But are you honestly claiming that the Bible doesn't spend a good bit of time talking about wealth and poverty, and which group God likes more?

Your long winded definition is the same as evolution with God not excluded. The idea simply put that 'we believe evolution isn't random but planned' explains evolution as well as randomness can because the 'designer' touch is non-detectable. It still remains a religious answer. The idea that randomness is guaranteed is also a religious answer because it is attributed within the system as atheism.
A neutral response would be to say that evolution does not disprove the existance of God and is not inherently atheistic.

All of that has nothing to do with the simple fact that you didn't understand the origins of the term 'intelligent design' and it's place in the political dialogue, particularly in the US where people have used it to try and put creationist ideas into science classes.

Lawsuits get in the way of that because of dogmatic legislation regarding mentioning religious topics in the classroom. Consequently atheism is the only religious choice that gets a hearing, because even if the teacher is themselves teaching neutrally atheism will be attached elsewhere with impunity.

That's just nonsensical. Atheism doesn't get attached to anything. Not mentioning God is not atheism.

Saying 'we won the game because Jonny made that amazing kick on the siren' is not atheism, even though it doesn't mention the possiblity that God might have helped Jonny make that kick.

Because its a needless side issue. The legalese aspect is that ID was rejected in a test case because it was another variant of creationism. This is correct in my view because ID is creationism. The dogma within the US legal system, places and unfair divider on religious teaching, ignoring the fact that evolution has been hijacked by atheism. ID is an attempt to restore a balance because atheism is taught in the classrooms veiled as science.

You keep pretending intelligent design means something it doesn't. It does not mean 'guided evolution'. It expressly and explicitly means 'there is irreducible complexity in the design of creatures that cannot be explained by randomness and therefore evolution is wrong'.

Stop pretending otherwise.

Point explained earlier, the teacher does not need to, science does not need to. Atheism hijacks the message with no right of reply within the schools system. Atheists get away with this by relying on the myth that atheism isn't a religion and can thus be propogated within the schools system.

Teaching kids the basic facts about what we've observed about the universe is not religion is not teaching atheism. Telling kids that life evolved over billions of years is not scoring a point for the atheists, it's simply explaining to kids what we know about life.

Your idea that somehow atheism is taking over in schools is so deluded as to be almost beyond belief. An incredibly number of US citizens still express doubt over evolution as a concept, and they do this because of politically compromised highschool teaching.

The US needs to learn not to fear religious eduction, from a multi-point perspective.

The place of US teaching in schools is very tolerant. People can teach whatever they want about religion in private institutions, they can even proselytise their chosen faith in religious schools. In public schools you can teach about religion, but you cannot proselytise any particular faith. This is a perfectly tolerant approach, and exactly how things should be.

The problem then enters the system that some people really don't like the idea of being unable to proselytise their particular faith in school. So they invent new ways to sneak bible teachings back into school, and the result is that evolution and science in general are constantly attacked, hurting overall education.

Ignoring this problem, or attempting to appease these people won't see them lose political power, they won't stop until evolution is no longer taught, and the bibles are back in school.

I am pretty sure that european relgious education is the reason we dont have a Bible belt problem, or a lot of militant atheism in the education system.

To argue that is to pretend there was no bible belt in the US in the 1960s, when the bible was still taught in school.

Instead, it has everything to do with the nature of the religious institutions in the countries in question. The Church of England is culturally a very tolerant organisation (well, in England it is, some of the Anglican groups in Africa are as nutty as anyone) and it doesn't have any problem with the idea that God could be behind the creation of a billion year old Earth, in which life evolved over millions of years - if that's what the evidence suggests about the Earth and about life. In the US the evangelical churches will not tolerate such suggestions.

The only solution for this problem is for the evangelicals to come to the centre, they need to stop with the ridiculous insistance that God's Earth is 6,000 years old, and that there's scientific proof of such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:I don't get what an Atheist Fundamentalist actually is, if it is someone that devoutly believes in nothing, isn't that just Nihilism?

No. First up, there's no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist because there are no fundamental of atheism to believe in. Atheism can take the form of liberal humanism, technocratic futurism, absolute materialism, nihilsim and many other forms.

And they don't all end up with nihilsm because nihilism denies the existance of morals. There are many ways to form morals without relying on God.

I mean all atheists are fundamentalists because they all literally believe there is no God.

Are all religious people fundamentalist because they all believe there is a God. Or is fundamentalism about how you approach the tenets of your belief? And when atheism has no tenets to their faith, how is fundamentalist atheism even possible?

Militant, obnoxious atheism is all too common, I'll happily concede, but fundamental atheism is impossible by the definitions of the words.

So, really the problem isn't religion it is people. Humans are flawed in many ways. All of us have our flaws (I include myself as well), and we love justification for our flaws. Some people fear change, fear or hate something and they want to use religion, or another tool to justify their actions. Some humans are even more dangerous in the fact they will use the same systems to influence other people to take up action for the causes they believe in. Religions don't say bomb abortion clinics, or shoot abortion doctors. Religions don't say fly planes into buildings. Those are all made up by man, and made up by twisting religion around to fit their needs and causes. After all, religion is man made anyway.

True. But this goes both ways. Religions don't build soup kitchens, or offer shelter to the poor. People do thoese things too. They do the good things and the bad because they have the capacity for empathy and for love, and also because they have the capacity for selfishness and hatred.

To an extent religion, like all philosophies can encourage the growth of empathy and love, or it can grow selfishness and hatred. Is it not possible that a religion can focus on empathy, and use that to inspire its members to build a soup kitchen? Similarly, a religion might teach hatred, and that might inspire a member to go and blow up an abortion clinic?

People just need to realize the concept of my freedom stops where your's begins, and a lot of this political agenda nonsense with religion could possibly go away.

I think the bigger issue is that people don't realise religious freedom isn't a zero sum thing. That is, your freedom to worship doesn't impact my freedom in any way. As a result, they often feel the only way to protect their own freedom to worship is to control other people's.

They just don't get that I can believe what I want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe, and we can not only get by without infringing each other's rights, we can get along and even be friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:This leaves another related comment or question often brought up. I will try and get wording from it from an atheist site...hold on....

I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo earnestly, 'did you tell me?'
- Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, 1974

I don't know if the book was atheistic or just the character. I know that this quote and others like it often surface.

The book isn't 'atheistic'. It's a non-fiction account that's all about understanding nature, and thereby understanding God.

It's also very good.

sebster wrote:
That's just nonsensical. Atheism doesn't get attached to anything. Not mentioning God is not atheism.

Look around you, how many times to you see evolution placed as atheistic doctrine. It even happens here, repeatedly, its a common meme.

sebster wrote:
You keep pretending intelligent design means something it doesn't. It does not mean 'guided evolution'. It expressly and explicitly means 'there is irreducible complexity in the design of creatures that cannot be explained by randomness and therefore evolution is wrong'.

Stop pretending otherwise.

Evidently I understand better than you do.

Guided evolution and intelligent design are one and the same. The definition you gave accounts for both theories. The only minute difference is that ID doesn't like calling the process 'evolution', for political reasons. Non-random evolution is still evolution, take say piolitcal evolution, or the evolution of games design, this isn't random, its certainly planned, its also evolution. Now some would like to say ID is not evolution for political reasons, to get around loopholes and attempt to get ID on the teaching agenda but its a play at semantics that is all. A rebranded theory is not a different theory.

sebster wrote:
Teaching kids the basic facts about what we've observed about the universe is not religion is not teaching atheism. Telling kids that life evolved over billions of years is not scoring a point for the atheists, it's simply explaining to kids what we know about life.

You are assuming a neutral setting which is not possible, so atheism is allowed to be attached to the message under the guise that 'atheism is not religion', while a right of response is often prohibited. This is the issue.

sebster wrote:
Your idea that somehow atheism is taking over in schools is so deluded as to be almost beyond belief.

I am not deluded, partly because I didnt say atheism is 'taking over'. You just like to think I did, its easier to ignore a reasoned reponce if you can make out in your own head that its a hysterical one. As you said there are plenty of people in the eduction system who are young earth creationists.

sebster wrote:
To argue that is to pretend there was no bible belt in the US in the 1960s, when the bible was still taught in school.

Perhaps our system was fixed in the 60's too. Most likely in fact, in the UK at least the general philosophy towards education on this and other issues was fairly sound, its only recently it got dogmaticsed.

sebster wrote:
Instead, it has everything to do with the nature of the religious institutions in the countries in question. The Church of England is culturally a very tolerant organisation (well, in England it is, some of the Anglican groups in Africa are as nutty as anyone) and it doesn't have any problem with the idea that God could be behind the creation of a billion year old Earth, in which life evolved over millions of years - if that's what the evidence suggests about the Earth and about life. In the US the evangelical churches will not tolerate such suggestions.

This coems down to a polarised religious education, part of the benefit of non politicisation of religious education to allow a multi point perspective is not only to allow views on atheism vs other faiths to be viewed fairly but so people have a better understanding of those faiths.
There are fundamentalists here too though, the main difference is that they are more discrete because some of the biblical teaching as sunk in. Stuff like creationism is a side issue, salvation is the core issue, something most fundamentalists in the US ignore. Here in the UK there are fundamentalists who are young earth creationists and biblical Zionists, usually the latter are the ones who cause problems, but they only profess their views, forcefully I might add, to the churched. There is a logic to that, is that its doesn't matter if an unbeliever believes in evolution or creation or not, they don't believe therefore why bother with a subset of that belief. I am sure that bit og logic is not beyond US fundamentalists either, but in the US the difference is that a political points scoring on creation vs evolution drives people to be vocal. The only time I encounter creation vs evolution personally, other than these threads is if someone is trolling for an argument.
In any case you get the same sort of people botyh sides of the atlantic, only fewer over here and a little better behaved.

sebster wrote:
The only solution for this problem is for the evangelicals to come to the centre, they need to stop with the ridiculous insistance that God's Earth is 6,000 years old, and that there's scientific proof of such.

Evangelicals are not the problem fanatics/fundamentalists are, there is a difference.
However the move needs to be made on both sides.

sebster wrote:
No. First up, there's no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist because there are no fundamental of atheism to believe in. Atheism can take the form of liberal humanism, technocratic futurism, absolute materialism, nihilsim and many other forms.

You are overanalysing this.

The word fundamentalism has changed in meaning over recent years, mostly thanks to press techniques on how to describe religious extremism without aggravating matters. Fanatic and extremist are more accurate words but might cause further offense but most fanatics are also fundamentalists, so that word was used for convenience and has since stuck.
The original definition of fundamentalist is someone who believe in highlighting the fundamental, a 'back to basics' philosophy, fundamentalism need not be related to religion, though it usually is. The reason people become fundamentalists is in order to avoid the trappings and confusion of higher levels of a philosophy to concentrate on core issues. While not actually called as such a martial arti student who strives to master the most basic katas at ghe expense of progressing to learn more complex ones is following a fundamentalist philosophy. You can have fundamentalism is science too, going back to concentrating on pure maths etc, or simple chemical structures.
In fact fundamentalism is a healthy idea in most cases because the deepest truths often appear in the most basic components, whether we be talking about a simple martial arts move, elementary geometry, basic tenets of a religion etc.

That isn't what the word means anymore though. I certainly wouldn't use it in its original meaning anymore no more than I would claim to be 'gay', which in proper English means 'happy'.

sebster wrote:
True. But this goes both ways. Religions don't build soup kitchens, or offer shelter to the poor. People do thoese things too. They do the good things and the bad because they have the capacity for empathy and for love, and also because they have the capacity for selfishness and hatred.

However teaching of some relgions place emphasis on social care stronger than others. Catholics in particular do a lot of charity work, there are very few pentecostal or evangelical soup kitchens, their focus is elsewhere, usually evangelism.
Islam includes charity as one of its central tenets, or pillars, so Islamic charity is disproportionately common also.
So yes due to the emphasis of the teaching some relgions do different things, I don't think Catholics or Moslems 'care more' per se.

sebster wrote:
I think the bigger issue is that people don't realise religious freedom isn't a zero sum thing. That is, your freedom to worship doesn't impact my freedom in any way. As a result, they often feel the only way to protect their own freedom to worship is to control other people's. They just don't get that I can believe what I want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe, and we can not only get by without infringing each other's rights, we can get along and even be friends.

When I see one point of view defended by accusing a collective failure to listen on the part other parties, it is usually because the one complaining isn't listening either.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Those are both entirely in the eye of the beholder. My late great uncle spent most of his young life blowing up parts of Eire (over 40 bombings) and murdering English army personnel in the middle of the night (or occasionally broad daylight). According to the protestants and English that made him a terrorist. According to himself and the IRA he was a freedom fighter.

Armed rebellion in democracy is criminal. The division between terrorist and freedom fighter can be partly down to perspective and which side you favour, but the IRA are hardly akin to the french resistance however much they would like to think themselves, the UK isn't a totalitarian state after all.

I hate to let you know, but England quite happily put Irishmen in camps on suspicion without trial and caused the deaths of far more Irish civilians then the Nazi's did French. What's the difference between driving starving civilians from thier homes to their deaths for fun and profit in countryside in Cork and in the city of Warsaw? A cute mustache and snappy uniforms.

This thread isn't about plastic paddies. Advocate terrorism somewhere else please.

I believe in humanity. I believe in advancement, kindness, co-operation, learning, improving the quality of life of myself and others, charity, truth, kittenz, beer, sex, and so on. I believe in the value of lots of things. None of them require supernatural force, and none are nihilistic. I think atheists all get lumped as nihilistic, amoral and lacking values by many people of faith. Maybe the same people of faith who assume that atheism is 'taking over' the schools because we don't have prayer in them. I can have a sense of good-and-evil without unicorns-and-dragons existing, money without leprechauns, and I can exist without an imaginary friend making it so.

sebster wrote:
That's just nonsensical. Atheism doesn't get attached to anything. Not mentioning God is not atheism.

Actually atheism gets attached to science all the time. For some reason everything written by scientists seems to rile up Organized Religion, from Galileo to Darwin to Watson & Crick. Of course, mind you, that last one does let us play at being God, so I might suppose they have a point there...

The point is, and many great thinkers have pointed this out, Science does not preclude God, it just shows how the universe works.

And, to my Christian associates: the Bible is not a literal truth. Stop trying to make it one. It's the wikipedia of Christianity.

See, the early Gospels all seem to derive from two sources. One is the book of Mark. The other seems to have been a sort of transcription of the teachings of Jesus from within his lifetime. If you analyze Luke and Matthew in the Greek. it becomes apparent that both books had very little unique content and were made by lifting bits from Mark and another source which may be the document referenced by Papias of Hierapolis in his Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord. Luke also obliquely mentions the existence of another work or works that he sought out to cross reference.


Personally, I toss anything by Paul. When you dig into the real history of the man, he was a scam artist under a veneer of religion.

Guitardian wrote:I believe in humanity. I believe in advancement, kindness, co-operation, learning, improving the quality of life of myself and others, charity, truth, kittenz, beer, sex, and so on. I believe in the value of lots of things. None of them require supernatural force, and none are nihilistic. I think atheists all get lumped as nihilistic, amoral and lacking values by many people of faith. Maybe the same people of faith who assume that atheism is 'taking over' the schools because we don't have prayer in them. I can have a sense of good-and-evil without unicorns-and-dragons existing, money without leprechauns, and I can exist without an imaginary friend making it so.

I pity you then. I don't espouse the idea of teaching religion in schools, because true faith is from within. The idea of indoctrinating children to faith is abhorrent. However, mocking faith by comparing God to unicorns and leprechauns puts the lie to everything you just said about not being nihilistic and lacking in values. If you actually believed in all those things you said earlier, then accepting that others do not believe as you do would be second nature.

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote:
Multiverse theory may as well be science fiction though. I was referring to what we can already prove and know.

No, that's not right.

The idea that there is only one universe is just as close to SF as the idea that there exist multiple universes.

You were referring to knowledge and perception only for the purpose of turning inference into implication.

In the world of physics there is only one reality. Now in philosophy, like chan buddhism, and everything is just an illusion and nothing is as it seems is nothing near science. All scientific documentation and papers referring to multiple realities, or parallel universes is quite a stretch of the imagination using known frameworks as a basis to prove, that it is possible. However, that is the extent of where you can get with that. We know gravity exists, it is now scientific law. We have laws of thermodynamics and they have not yet been broken. These things can be simulated and proven to exist. Mutliple universes cannot.

The idea that there is only one universe is all we got to go on for now, and that is what I am going to stick with. You can hardly parallel believing in 1 universe is just as science fiction as believing in multiple. I already know the universe I live in exists.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. First up, there's no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist because there are no fundamental of atheism to believe in. Atheism can take the form of liberal humanism, technocratic futurism, absolute materialism, nihilsim and many other forms.

And they don't all end up with nihilsm because nihilism denies the existance of morals. There are many ways to form morals without relying on God.

In regards to religion, fundamentalists are creationists and think the bible is absolute, 100% correct and a complete history of the world. However, a fundamentalist is also someone who adheres by a strict set of principles. To give an example a space marine is a fundamentalist in the fact that he only serves and believes in the Emporer God. He adheres to a strict set of principles. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, no higher power. So really you are a fundamentalist if you are an atheist by definition of the word itself. By the simple fact you are adhering to a strict set of principles and in this case, that there is no God.

Fundamentalists are often tossed in the same category as crazy, violent, or part of a movement which can seem damaging to society and to human life. Like the Army Of God for example, and how some of their members have bombed abortion clinics and assassinated abortion doctors. I brought up the fundamentalist atheist part only because (many pages back now) someone mentioned that there are dangerous fundamentalist atheists out there. They were trying to parallel it to what I mentioned, and I find it not a good comparison. You don't see atheists blowing up churches in the name of science.

Orlanth wrote:Look around you, how many times to you see evolution placed as atheistic doctrine. It even happens here, repeatedly, its a common meme.

Atheism also gets attached to National Socialism. There are all kinds of ridiculous because people in general have poorly considered political views.

But people believing silly things doesn't make them true.

Evidently I understand better than you do.

No, your understanding is terrible. You've had days to go off and actually read about these concepts and actually learn something, actually find out what these terms mean instead of making up stuff in your own head. Here we are in the information age, with all this knowledge at our fingertips, and you'd rather keep spamming nonsense over and over again instead of spending ten minutes learning what things actually mean.

Here's wiki to explain it to you;
"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution."
"Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""

The first accepts evolution as science has learned about it, and says 'God did that'. This form is not only fine with science, it embraces science.

The second looks to challenge or discredit evolution, using pseudo-scientific arguments. It denies that macro-evolution can exists. It denies that random processes can give form to structure. It denies that organisms as we currently see them could ever have formed from simpler organisms.

It iis the latter form that invents nonsense like the idea that dinosaurs eat coconuts. Do you get it now, can you let this go? They're two different concepts with very different beliefs and motives behind them. Can you please let go of the made thing inside your head and accept the actual realities of the situation now, please?

You are assuming a neutral setting which is not possible, so atheism is allowed to be attached to the message under the guise that 'atheism is not religion', while a right of response is often prohibited. This is the issue.

This only exists if you think there is some atheist agenda put forward in science class in the first place. Teaching kids that animals evolved from simple organisms to complex ones over millions of years is not teaching kids atheism.

I am not deluded, partly because I didnt say atheism is 'taking over'. You just like to think I did, its easier to ignore a reasoned reponce if you can make out in your own head that its a hysterical one. As you said there are plenty of people in the eduction system who are young earth creationists.

So they're not taking over, they're just getting to say their bit (even though their bit isn't mentioned at all) without the other side getting to explain their's... is that your point?

Because if I've got that right your point is very silly.

There are fundamentalists here too though, the main difference is that they are more discrete because some of the biblical teaching as sunk in. Stuff like creationism is a side issue, salvation is the core issue, something most fundamentalists in the US ignore. Here in the UK there are fundamentalists who are young earth creationists and biblical Zionists, usually the latter are the ones who cause problems, but they only profess their views, forcefully I might add, to the churched.

They're a lot quieter because there are so very few of them. There are so very few because by and large the church in the UK is more progressive, more committed to social causes and less to promoting religious dogma. Which in turns causes there to be less young earthers, which in turn makes them that much quieter, which means the church remains moderate, and around and around we go.

I am sure that bit og logic is not beyond US fundamentalists either, but in the US the difference is that a political points scoring on creation vs evolution drives people to be vocal. The only time I encounter creation vs evolution personally, other than these threads is if someone is trolling for an argument.

No, there is a real game going on in the US. There have been textbooks put into class that taught intelligent design (as in irreducibly complexity and all that non-science crap). The only thing that stopped this being taught to kids was a court of law. There is still constant lobbying to get this stuff taught to kids.

It's a serious issue in the US, because people are trying to make everyone's children dumber.

Evangelicals are not the problem fanatics/fundamentalists are, there is a difference.

True, not all evangelicals belief in intelligent design, and some folk from other groups believe it as well. But we'd playing games if we pretended the overwhelming number weren't part of some evangelical group or another.

However the move needs to be made on both sides.

If you mean jackhole atheists like the Dawkins fanclub need to stop being jackholes, then I agree, but feel the need to point out that despite all their noise and bluster these people remain entirely irrelevant to the political process. They're annoying, but they're not relevant.

If you mean science needs to allow for religious theories to be considered, then I absolutely disagree.

You are overanalysing this.

I think my level of analysis was just about right. The word fundamentalist has a meaning, and it's an important concept that people need to understand to get to grips with the nature of belief. If he meant another meaning he's now free to go back and try to reform his idea using the correct term, improving his ability to communicate his idea, and therefore his ability to discuss it.

The original definition of fundamentalist is someone who believe in highlighting the fundamental, a 'back to basics' philosophy, fundamentalism need not be related to religion, though it usually is. The reason people become fundamentalists is in order to avoid the trappings and confusion of higher levels of a philosophy to concentrate on core issues. While not actually called as such a martial arti student who strives to master the most basic katas at ghe expense of progressing to learn more complex ones is following a fundamentalist philosophy. You can have fundamentalism is science too, going back to concentrating on pure maths etc, or simple chemical structures.

More or less, sure, but the term has it's origins in religion and is still considered primarily in those terms.

But even still, how can one be an atheist fundamentalist. 'I don't believe there's a God' really doesn't have any fundamental or non-fundamental components.

In fact fundamentalism is a healthy idea in most cases because the deepest truths often appear in the most basic components, whether we be talking about a simple martial arts move, elementary geometry, basic tenets of a religion etc.

True, but the issue is that fundamentalism is a claim to be returning to the basic components of belief, but really often it isn't. Indeed, most of the time it's simply applying more fanatical conviction to components of the faith. There is a reason fundamentalism and fanaticism have gotten mixed up, afterall.

However teaching of some relgions place emphasis on social care stronger than others. Catholics in particular do a lot of charity work, there are very few pentecostal or evangelical soup kitchens, their focus is elsewhere, usually evangelism.
Islam includes charity as one of its central tenets, or pillars, so Islamic charity is disproportionately common also.
So yes due to the emphasis of the teaching some relgions do different things, I don't think Catholics or Moslems 'care more' per se.

Absolutely.

When I see one point of view defended by accusing a collective failure to listen on the part other parties, it is usually because the one complaining isn't listening either.

This isn't about them listening to me. This is about them reading their own damn constitution and realising what seperation of church and state actually means.

I've never heard evolution being touted as atheist doctrine. It must be something that happens a lot more in the USA than in the UK.

Intelligent Design isn't guided evolution. The core point of ID is that certain creatures or natural mechanisms are too complex to have evolved, therefore they must have been produced as a finished piece by an intelligent designer.

All evolution is guided by evolutionary pressures. That is the whole point of natural selection.

Kilkrazy wrote:I've never heard evolution being touted as atheist doctrine. It must be something that happens a lot more in the USA than in the UK.

Or, just possibly, it's the invention of people trying to create some kind of injustice to complain about, to make their side look better.

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I've never heard evolution being touted as atheist doctrine. It must be something that happens a lot more in the USA than in the UK.

Or, just possibly, it's the invention of people trying to create some kind of injustice to complain about, to make their side look better.

Or it's a natural byproduct of this type of conversation.

Athesim vs. Religion invariably ends up talking about teaching life origins in school and then you get this. Again.

Monster Rain wrote:Or it's a natural byproduct of this type of conversation.

Athesim vs. Religion invariably ends up talking about teaching life origins in school and then you get this. Again.

Only because there are theme parks like the one in the OP that try to discredit evolution and replace it with ideas about dinosaurs eating coconuts. Seriously, if some militant atheist same along and said 'haha evolution disproves religion because we know life today evolved from primitive organisms' and the religious bloke replied with 'I know and I accept that we evolved from primitive organisms, but science cannot know why the pieces were put in place in order for life to evolve in that way' then the militant atheist would have nothing.

The conflict exists because some portion of Christians continue to launch into an attack on science.

sebster wrote:Only because there are theme parks like the one in the OP that try to discredit evolution and replace it with ideas about dinosaurs eating coconuts.

How seriously do you think people are taking that idea, other than people who are predisposed to believe silliness?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:The conflict exists because some portion of Christians continue to launch into a wrongheaded attack on science.

Meh. Gotta agree with that.

I think Christians should focus on what the Bible says that they ought to.

Monster Rain wrote:How seriously do you think people are taking that idea, other than people who are predisposed to believe silliness?

I'd say not many. In fact, the idea is so silly I doubt many young earth creationists believe it, more that they just nod and try not to think about it too much*.

The problem, ultimately, isn't that a few people believe something this silly, it's that the people who do believe spam constant attacks on many parts of science. The result is a gradual wearing down of respect for science. Sure, not many people believe T-Rex's ate coconuts, but about half of US citizens doubt evolution, and that number is growing.



*I remember a guy who left the church of Scientology being asked if he was so indoctrinated into the church that he genuinely believed the stuff about Xenu and the intergalactic empire blowing people up to stop overpopulation, and he said "I didn't so much believe it, as accept it". And while I don't want to compare young earth creationism and scientology because, as much as I disagree with the anti-science element of young earth creationism, they aren't at all like the craziness of scientology, but on this point I think they're fairly close. There's so committed to their idea of biblical literalism that even when it leads to very silly things like T-Rex's eating coconuts they're willing to accept them.

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I've never heard evolution being touted as atheist doctrine. It must be something that happens a lot more in the USA than in the UK.

Or, just possibly, it's the invention of people trying to create some kind of injustice to complain about, to make their side look better.

Or it's a natural byproduct of this type of conversation.

Athesim vs. Religion invariably ends up talking about teaching life origins in school and then you get this. Again.

This thread didn't start as an atheism vs religion thread, it started as an evolutionary science vs young earth creationism thread.

Evolution isn't an explanation of creation anyway. It is an explanation of the variation of species.

BaronIveagh wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
I find it very hard to find any christian that would not agree with #1 which is why I picked it out.

In many early traditions, Jesus does not claim to be the Messiah. Remember that in Aramaic of the period, 'Son of God' meant a righteous person. Not literally a offspring of God.

Further, I'll point out that Enoch supposedly went to Heaven without going through Christ.

You mean another example of how the Bible is mis-interpretted history?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I've never heard evolution being touted as atheist doctrine. It must be something that happens a lot more in the USA than in the UK.

Or, just possibly, it's the invention of people trying to create some kind of injustice to complain about, to make their side look better.

Or it's a natural byproduct of this type of conversation.

Athesim vs. Religion invariably ends up talking about teaching life origins in school and then you get this. Again.

This thread didn't start as an atheism vs religion thread, it started as an evolutionary science vs young earth creationism thread.

Evolution isn't an explanation of creation anyway. It is an explanation of the variation of species.

Haha... I was about to post this after I read the last 3 pages...

Deleted by Frazzled. No attacks on other countries unless in jest or risk permanent suspension of your account.

Deleted by Frazzled. No attacks on other countries unless in jest or risk permanent suspension of your account.

Crom wrote:
In the world of physics there is only one reality.

Yes, and in the world of physics "universe" does not mean the same thing it does in colloquial parlance. From that perspective "universe" references a body of space-time possessed of a homogeneous set of physical laws. There can, theoretically, exist more than one of these provided that they are themselves connected by a few discreet, principle objects.

Crom wrote:
Now in philosophy, like chan buddhism, and everything is just an illusion and nothing is as it seems is nothing near science.

No, that's also wrong. The idea that everything that we perceive is illusory is at the core of many scientific disciplines. In fact, it could be argued that's what the scientific method itself is about.

Crom wrote:
All scientific documentation and papers referring to multiple realities, or parallel universes is quite a stretch of the imagination using known frameworks as a basis to prove, that it is possible. However, that is the extent of where you can get with that. We know gravity exists, it is now scientific law. We have laws of thermodynamics and they have not yet been broken. These things can be simulated and proven to exist. Mutliple universes cannot.

No, it can't, but neither can a single universe. We can prove that this universe exists, and therefore that there must be at least one universe, but we cannot prove that there is only one universe.

Crom wrote:
The idea that there is only one universe is all we got to go on for now, and that is what I am going to stick with. You can hardly parallel believing in 1 universe is just as science fiction as believing in multiple. I already know the universe I live in exists.

You've argued two different things there. There is a distinction between believing in the existence of one thing, and believing in the existence of only one thing. For example, I might believe in the existence of one man and be though rational, but if I said that I believed in the existence of only one man I would be thought mad.

Edit. Reopening. Offensive posts deleted by Frazzled. No attacks on other countries unless in jest or risk permanent suspension of your account.

Which brings me back to the subject of religion.

@Avatarform: Basically. Remember that the original texts were translated into Greek and that was what was spread. The problem is that, without the same social context, meanings are not the same. Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan. It has a lot more impact when you understand how much the people in Judea reviled the Samaritans. At the time in Judea, it was shocking and thought provoking. Outside of that, it loosed a lot of impact.