Thank you very reasonable points, I will try to respond if for no other reason to drag out this thread a little longer....
I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, and the civility of it. Thanks to all involved....now back to reading....where did I put that thesaurus again? DD
The definition of religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers. Look up the definition in any dictionary and similar definitions can be found. Someone who lacks this belief cannot be said to be religious and to describe someone as "religious" is perverting the normal use of the word. That "atheism" is a belief system or that some theists (or even atheists) consider the belief a matter of "faith" doesn't therefore mean that it is equivalent to a religion. Unless of course one were to consider all matters of belief systems "religious" which would render the word meaningless and contrary to the word's established meaning. Lack of belief in something is not equivalent to belief in something. To equate the two is mistaken. And as I pointed out earlier, most atheists are "weak atheists" or "agnostic atheists" who remain skeptical about the existence of supernatural beings and deities and therefore at present lack belief in them due to (for them) insufficient evidence of same without claiming they absolutely do not exist. This is therefore not even exactly opposite to a theist POV which claims they absolutely do exist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion&x=&y= 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
i never said i don't think he existed. i just don't think the evidence is conclusive. and if he did exist which he very may well have, im not disputing that, that doesn't make him the son of god. There is no credible evidence that his disciples died as martyrs and there is no evidence that he rose from the dead.
What box am I stuck in? No it doesn't, just like it doesn't preclude any other human fantasy. The point is that evolution finds no evidence for God, and evolution is an alternative to creation, but with more convincing proof. Hence we believe in it more than we do in religions. The whole concept that everything must have a purpose is rather silly. Everything has a cause, but a cause is not a purpose. Not everything has a purpose. The fundamental question here is how you should explain your perception of the world. Atheists prefer to use concrete, verifable and reproducable theories. We don't believe in things that cannot be proven, period. A person can believe in both evolution and religion -- as long as he ignores the contraditions. Atheists prefer not to ignore the contraditions, and that's why we don't believe in religions. Where exactly is the contradtion? I've said that we realise it's very possible that we can never have all the evidence, and that's why our understanding and belief keep changing. We don't need to prove god exists. If we see no evidence of his existence, there is just no reason for us to believe it exists. It's incredibly simple to scientifically prove god -- just get him down here in front of us and perform a miracle -- part the water, raise some dead people and fly around without using any aircrafts. If there is no reason for me to believe something, I will not believe it, as simple as that. If there is no reason to believe that the water I'm drinking is poisonous, I will drink and believe it's fine. God can be emprically proven -- just as soon as he shows himself and performs a mircale. It make me think that you don't actually have an argument when you start labelling me with names. I've said many many times already -- being an atheist means to always believe the most convincing theory based on logic and facts. If that's narrow-mindedness to you, then I'm afraids that we have no common grounds of understanding. Science and religion deal with the same thing when they both claim to explain the origin of our species. Science claims evolution is the origin, religion claims creation is the origin. I don't see how they are dealing with different things here. It'd be a mistake to use bible to disprove evolution if what the bible claims is clearly illogical or false. It'd be perfectly reasonable to use science to disprove bible if what the bible says is clearly illogical and false. Ok, let me rephrase this, I believe that the probability of the Sun rising tomorrow is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to the power of 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times greater than the Sun not rising tomorrow. As you said, my belief is based on my previous factual experience and every living person's previous factual experience, and that's why it's not faith. You are just speculating here. Astrophysists don't yet have all the details of how a star system is formed, so you cannot possibly think that you know that a little tiny change in the early life of our solar system would have made today's world totally impossible. Even if the probability of the forming of our solar system is really low, there are practically unlimited number star dusts or whatever in the universe, and some of them will become solar systems. It's just simple statistics, like in a lottery. What's the point of relying on something that you know will never happen? Maybe you know that there is probably no God, but you are hoping there is one? I just don't see the point if it contradicts with I firmly believe in. Humans are weak, I also pray when I get on a plane, but deep down I know that it's the weather, the mechanics that service the plane and the pilots flying the plane that determine my fate, not God or Allah. When my great grandmother passed away, I kept hoping that she would be in heaven, and that made me feel better, but deep down, I know it's just a lie and a drug for the brain. God either exists, or he doesn't. I don't think context makes any difference. Again, I'd say you are abusing the word "faith" here. It's only faith if you believe in the existence of something that has no empirical proof.
Then do you believe humans evolved from apes, or created as humans by God? If from apes, what's with Adam and Eve? In other situations, God told Adam and Eve not to eat from a tree -- but gave no explanation, and when they did eat from that tree, God condemned them and their off spring to lives of decease and death. But you never ask the fundamental question: does god really exist? Well, if someone on the street comes up to you and tells you he's Jesus, the son of god, would you believe him? I'm afraid that's faith. Whenever an atheist finds truth, he just finds truth. I'm not going to argue with you about what's religion and what's not. As long as you believe in the existence of a personal god, I believe you are religious.
I've read through all the post's and I just wanted to add that the way I always understood Christianity was that some would get it and some wouldn't. If you do, it was pre-determined. The ones that don't, never will and weren't meant to. I can't remember the term for this. Also, I don't know if the C.S. Lewis book "Mere Christianity" was so amazing because I was already a Christian when I read it, but I always recommend it to anyone with any questions regarding the subject. It breaks everything down so beautifully. Maybe my bias on the subject clouds my mind to science, but I'll never doubt that Christ is anything but fact. In the end, if Christians are wrong and whoever else proves to be right, well....feel free to have the last laugh. I won't regret.
in an otherwise cliched rant against religion i found it curious that you admit to prayer. i will admit that i prayed when i was younger. hey, we all grew up with religion in that it is a part of the fabric of all human culture. i am no atheist but i can assure you that now, regardless of context, i do not pray. not condemning you, it's just curious.
I think it's called predestination. Could be wrong, but I think Calvin really pushed this viewpoint. but I don't know if it was pre-determined as much as foresaw. one implies actively saying so and so will be a Christian, while the other says, I know who is going to be a Christian or not. I agree with this sentiment as well.
Not the most convincing arguments I've ever heard. Well, I'm not really a person who's always able to be rational about everything. My mental strength isn't as great as I'd like it to be, and certain things such as flying and taking exams would freak me out to the point of getting serious IBS. Other things like losing loved ones or failing to do something I strongly desired would also make me rather weak and irrational. In these difficult times, I need a mental drug to make me feel better for a while, and that's when I start wishing all the supernatural and superstitious things were true.
1. I believed they are not evolved from apes, but from a common ancestor as is current with the theorey of evolution. The story of Adam and Eve, is a poem. It is written in a recogonized format of a type of poetry that existed at the time. It was always a poem, and meant to teach a lesson in spirituality, not a science lesson about where humans came from. 2. The poem of Adam and Eve did not have them question him. Not every story has to have questioning, in it on every page, to show that it was encouraged. There are plenty of examples of it, and it is often rewarded which contradicts the idea that blind acceptance is a must. 3. If I did ask, I wouldn't find evidence that God doesn't, and yet I will look at what evidence I can find. Almost all of the great people in history believed in God in one form or another. MLK, Malcolm X, Albert Einstein, etc. I may be wrong in the end, but I will be in good company. I have actually asked that question many times. Questioning is a part of faith, not excluded from it. 4. No, I probably wouldn't 5. Whether an atheist calls it just truth or not doesn't really matter. It is a different name for the same thing.
You're stuck in a box of a fundamentalist materialistic approach that is as stilted as the approach you accuse those of being religious as. This illustrates the above point. You see knowledge of the origin of speciation as a zero sum gain between an absolutely religious view vs. an absolutely scientific view when they aren't in conflict unless you take the fundamentalist view. Its the same mistake as those who oppose the theory of Evolution on religious grounds. Once again nothing about the theory of Evolution precludes a deity. The existence of a deity is neither proven or disproven by the Evolution. In fact Darwin himself continued to believe in God. He didn't believe in the literal Biblical account but he didn't see Evolution as being in opposition to the idea of their being a higher power. This is again a materialisticly fundamentalist point of view and one that denies human nature. One differenc between humans and other animals is that we are endowed with reason. As such embue meaning onto things. Therefore that we both seek a purpose in ourselves and in existence isn't an irrational idea but one that comes out of our very rationality. Whether there is a purpose to everything or not isn't a question that can be empiracally answered but believing that there is no purpose to anything is nihlism and something that almost no sane human can maintain. I'm curious are you and Objectivist? Because the way you are using the term contradiction sounds like how Ayn Rand has used it. To borrow a phrase from Rand though. Question your assumptions. You are seeing a contradiction where none exists. As I pointed out in my earlier posts, I would consider there to be fundamental atheism vs. a practical atheism. You are stating a fundamental atheist POV by again looking at this as a zero sum gain where you either believe in religion or in science. Many recognize that they relate to inherently different things and there is no contradiction. I would call that practical atheism where you might still believe in God but that belief doesn't affect looking at empiracal evidence. The contradiction is that you say your mind is open to new facts yet you also dismiss something right away. You're right if God appeared himself and performed some miracles that would be proof of God. Now show me how you have disproven God? The fact is you can't. Just because God or Vishnu haven't been proven doesn't mean that they have been disproven. Your argument though basically states that whatever we can't physically perceive doesn't exist. By that reasoning then Pluto didn't exist until Percival Lowell discovered it. The contradiction with your argument is that at its basis its intellectually dishonest since you say that your views will change given new evidence but then absolutely rule something out. The intellectually honest answer would be "God might exist or might not. I haven't seen proof" as opposed to "God doesn't exist." I apolgize if you find the term fundamentalist to be offensive. I'm not using it as a slur but to point out your atheism and those like you is fundamental towards your intellectual makeup. Furhter if you feel that my argument is invalid because you perceive that I have slurred you then again I'm sorry and it isn't personal. I'm debating the issue and I will use language that I see fit to the debate. FYI. If it makes you feel better on other debates I've inadvertantly offended those arguing against the Theory of Evolution by saying Intelligent Design was "magical thinking." A few problems here. Science doesn't claim "evolution" is the origin. Evolution is a process not an origin. The Origin of Species is exactly what it is a book about how speciation orginated and not how life originated. The other problem is that again you are looking at this as a zero sum game. IN particular a zero sum game with Judeo Christian religions. In regard to the Bible inparticular though yes it is a mistake to use the Bible to disprove Evolution and if you take the Bible literally you can scientifically disprove it. Though not everyone takes the Bible literally. If the Bible is instead considered not as literal fact but instead as a poetic statement of principles are you going to then rely on science to disprove that? Do you use science to disprove Dante's Inferno or The Declaration of Independence? Its only when you take a fundamentalist view of both religion and science that states that human understanding can only be one or the other does what you say is correct. We humans are far subtler than that and for most of us we can differentiate between the two. Except that even science states that the sun has a limited lifespan and no one is sure of when that might end. Further much of the innerworkings of the sun are misunderstood. You are relying upon faith, and not misplaced or misguided faith, but faith none the less. You've misunderstood my point. Yes statiscally given the right conditions a star might form that said though why did this particular star form and this particular planet form in such a way as to produce life and lead up us here typing away debating this? What are the odds given the timeline of the universe that at this speficific moment a poster with the moniker "Sishir Chang" would be having an online debate on an internet board about the Houston Rockets? You can bring up statistics but those are always bound by a limited context. The statistics that I would have brunch with my relatives today are good if you were predicting that behavior about me two months ago. Now try figuring out what the odds that I would be having brunch with my relatives today were 50 years ago? Howabout from the beginning of the universe? You ask to see miracles but if you look at probability on a universal context then everything is a miracle. For instance the existence of the Universe as we percieve it now according to the latest cosmological theories is miraculous given that at the Big Bang there was less than a 1% difference in the amount of matter vs anti-matter created. If the ratio had been even then the universe would've annhilated itself rather than us existing. If you know it will never happen then why do you insist that you are open to new ideas? Right here you've not only contradicted your claim to open mindedness but have already stated that your belief in the non-existance of God is faith. You state "I just don't see the point if it contradicts with I firmly believe in." That's a statement of faith as much as any statement of faith. But since you ask and to show that I'm not just being an @ss trying to trap you I will give you my own opinion on the existence of God. Honestly I don't know. I believe the universe we live in is miraculous. I believe there is a purpose to my existence. Whether that is directed by a higher being I don't know. This could be the greatest roulette wheel roll that as ever happened to why we exist as we do and our existence could be meaningless. I choose not to believe that and believe there is higher purpose even if it is of our own creation. Pardon me if this sounds insulting and I don't mean to be but don't know how to phrase it any other way. It sounds to me like you are highly conflicted and aren't being true to your own human desire for spirituality. You are regarding spiritual faith as being a character flaw to be quashed and as corrupting your reason when it need not be. Belief in Heaven may be irrational since it can never be empiracally proven but at the same time if it provides emotional comfort there is a very logical and rational purpose to it by preventing us from becoming consumed with grief. It might very well be a lie, frankly we'll all know sooner or later, but even if it is its not one without a purpose.
Just watched the documentary and I found the evidence very compelling and worth a great deal more study. The panel discussion after the show was extremely frustrating however. Koppel is such a tool. He wasted a lot of time semi-slamming the journalist who directed the documentary for including re-enactments, instead prompting the critics for their specific critiques of the evidence presented in the film.
Ok, so what's this common ancestor? The bacteria? If you look down the chain of evolution, some bacteria eventually turns into apes and some apes eventually turn into humans. Human didn't evolve directly from bacteria, so there must have been some intermediate form, so if not apes, then what? A poem? Where in the bible does it say it's a poem? Is this your interpretation of the bible or the literal meaning of the bible? Where do you find the criteria and standards to interpret the contents of the bible? But the fact remains that you have not asked the hard question, and even if you asked, you'd already have the mindset that the answer is positive. That's not the right way to ask questions. Einstein is an atheist, read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" to find out why. For every great human being you claim to be religious, I can also find another terrible human being who is also religious, so your argument is void. I also don't believe questioning is a part of faith -- that's why nobody of faith has seriously asked the hard question yet. Whether a religious person calls it just truth or not doesn't really matter. It's not the same thing if it's not the same thing, no matter how much you think it is.
