Jan
Because religion is a natural part of life and to deny it, is folly.
I disagree with you. How can you say religion is a natural part of life? I grew up without it and can say I don't or didn't feel unnatural at all growing up without out it. Nothing was missing in my life, I was and am happy. I was consistently top in my class and year throughout college, I never was lacking in friends. For me to have missed out on something oh so natural why have I done so well in life to date?
And denying it because it is based off pumped up stories and myths that have no relevance to the world around us seems a fairly sensible thing to do, especially when it is causing societies around the world to disregard what we're doing to others and the world itself.
Why don't you try answering what I've written?
You term atheist the modern definition, which says if you believe in God but act like you don't believe in God, you are a theist. There is something profoundly wrong with that concept. Somehow or other you can believe something, act totally contrary, and still be seen as believing.
See, this is why you're wrong. You think I make arrogant assumptions, this is
you're definition of what all atheists think. You are clearly not an atheist so how can you make that statement of what I or another atheist thinks? It goes back to my trying to make it clear to you that grouping atheists under one term because of one similarly held belief is like ignoring all the sects of christianity and simply unifying them as christian, all of them sharing exactly the same beliefs. It's a flawed analogy but close enough.
I've read books from people 50/80 years ago, where they have described the bible, Jesus and God, and they are so intelligent and thoughtful. Their ideas and understandings are extremely clever, insightful, broadminded and profound. I think they outshine some of todays authors, who have everything at their fingertips.
You do realise that 50 to 80 years ago is very recent, and why would their insights be any less perceptive to those of today?
I'm taking about the middle ages where the nobility and some of the middle class were literate. That is a profoundly small percentage of any population throughout europe (and this was the norm up until very recently). They would have been the only ones to be in a position to question what the bible and their faith was about because they were the only ones who knew explicitly what it was about. The lower class (which by far was the majority)
were the people who believed blindly. Hell they went to sermons spoken in latin, they didn't understand, they didn't question, they just
believed. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
That is terribly arrogant of you, and the disease has spread like wild-fire on these forums.
If I am guilty of anything it is trying to put forward a legitimate argument on subject matter of which I actually
know something about. I was stating that that is how different sects came to existence by
my understanding. The bible became widely available (relatively) in the 17th century; people
interpreted what they
believed and found that their
interpretations of what they read in the bible did not align with that of either the roman catholic church or the anglican church. An explosion of sects then followed. Creationism wasn't questioned; creationism was explicitly laid out by the bible. The bible was the source of everyone's and every sects' belief. Do I need to spell it out any further?
And if you find anything terribly arrogant in what I've said maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror some time. This is history I have
studied, I'm doing the next logical human step and am interpreting it. I find
your assumptions arrogant because I don't see where you are basing any of your theories from fact. Don't you bloody well call me arrogant, I'm riled by that comment to the extreme.
Thank God for this fellow.
So what? Most people now don't.
I was
trying to show you why my assumption (and it's not merely an assumption) that everyone believed in creationism and religion wasn't questioned. People believed that the earth was flat for god's sake. I am showing you a parallel to people's belief of creationism. It's based off nothing observed. Like the idea the earth was flat. I can't break this down for you any further.
Creation is far more logincal than "it came out of nothing", in fact that sounds obsurd.
Yes, according to all biological laws of this universe, creationism
is in fact more logical
That' my
whole point. Such stories aren't based in our universe, nor are they based off anything that has ever remotely occurred in this universe. That is my problem with the bible. That is my problem with people's belief in the bible which in turn makes them believe evolution/natural selection doesn't happen when it obviously does. Speciation is visible within any continent of the world and the ocean. That is evolution/natural selection. You just can't deny it when it is so bloody plain to see to anyone who isn't blinded by their belief in the supernatural (ie religion).
And how do you know that the theory of evolution wasn't made up to act as a challenge to creationism, with an intention to divert simple people from the truth?
Because evolution/natural selection was basically created unknowingly by Mendel, a monk from the list in this thread if I'm not mistaken. It's there to for all to see with open minds.
That is your opinion.
So you don't think our dress sense in the 80's and early 90's was backwards? You don't think our knowledge has vastly improved over the last hundred years to show sufficiently that what we perceived a hundred years ago was backwards? You don't think that what we know now makes knowledge from the very first century AD seem simple in comparison?
Are you saying we don't understand what's around us? Could you give an example of wht we don't understand.
Gee, I don't know? How about you think of everything you don't understand? About the universe. About the earth. About the organisms around us. About the old saying; the more we learn the more we realise the less we know (that's from memory and not perfect). What we don't understand? More like where to start?
How so?
I reckon religion instils a here and now selfishness into people, as well as a righteousness in ones actions that is undeserved; George W Bush anyone? That was my born again comment. Some religious folk obviously not, but christianity is basically an end of the world religion. It focuses people on the wrong thing. We should all be looking to preserve this planet for generations to come; hundreds of millions of dollars should be being spent on finding a different source of power other than crude oil and its derivatives. But it's not. People, instead of getting all angsty about other people, should be helping one another. Religion generally doesn't help this IMO.
I'm surprised you didn't respond to this,
Religion is a guide in how to become self-realised, how to use your human potential the best way you can.
I can see how the crusades were reaching our human potential. I can see how polygamy is self-realising. I can see how blowing oneself up is reaching ones potential. I can see how allowing the main patriarchal voice perpetuate is furthering women's causes. Yep, I see it all, and I've stopped because people don't like it when someone goes on and on.
But not that surprised.
a