I seem to be hogging the blog lately, but I guess all of the other contributors are busy, sick, or on holiday. It looks like most of you want me to continue posting religious rants, so here goes.
I’m not sure where this video aired, but apparently a lot of Christians are upset that those of us who don’t believe have the balls to speak out in public, something they’ve been doing for two thousand years. I guess they don’t want to share the grandstand.
We (the “new atheists,†a group to which I’m quite proud to belong) attack with violence and venom? I’m sorry, but these people have their head in the sand. If you’ve ever seen Dawkins, Harris, etc. (the authors cited in the video) speak in person, they are polite, mild, and totally in control emotionally. Last time I checked, it was Christians who have been violent and venomous, as many, many recent news stories and videos of Christian preachers confirm (just do a YouTube search if you don’t believe me).
In addition, I’m glad this discussion has moved from academia to the public and popular spheres. That’s where it belongs. It’s too important for the average person to ignore. And, as Mr. Writerdd often tells me, “They started it.†If religious folk had kept religion quiet and in the personal sphere, we would have no reason to be speaking out so loudly in the public sphere. But they are the ones who took their beliefs and threw them in the rest of our faces, even to the point of trying to legislate religious so-called morality. And we should accept this in silence?
What really gets me is that these guys (more whiteys-with-penises, if you take note of these things) have the gall to say that atheists are being intolerant. Last time I looked it was Christians who were saying things like “God hates fags“, claiming that natural disasters are God’s punishment on countries who are tolerant of gays and others who don’t buy into their particular religion’s moral dogma, and fighting against equality and tolerance. I happen to agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali that “tolerance of intolerance is cowardace.”
The speakers in this video believe those with whom they disagree should shut up, crawl in a hole, and hide. Basically, my response to that is “not a chance.†My goal is to find more places to speak out loudly and without shame about atheism, critical thinking, and skepticism, and to do everything I can to stop prejudice against unbelievers and to acheive public acceptance for those who don’t think that faith is a virtue and, yes, to get more people to abandon faith.
Hat tip to Hemant.
There are so many false premesis in their arguments – but there may be some of the same here.
Video is well written propaganda, though.
I especially like the story about the one athiest this guy met on a plane, and his lack of research, since that's certainly "telling" about all athiests of course. Further that "athiesm" is a "leading secular religion" (would there be any other kind of "secular religion"?). And College will turn your kids godless.
I love how they unraveled their own argument in the same airplane story jmarquiso mentioned above… they are telling US to be quiet, saying that we might convert people or whatever they think it is we want to do, but that preacher from Belief 2.0 said "if what I believe can't stand up to a couple questions, it isn't worth believing." Now, my opinion that it ISN'T worth believing aside, then what's the harm of us talking about our non-belief? If faith is able to stand up to it, why SHOULDN'T Hitchens and Dawkins be on the Daily Show and Colbert Report?
It's just another example of the elitism of these people. Of course MY faith is strong enough to handle it! But I'm doing it to protect the hoi-polloi religious folks out there who may not know better! It's not ME that's afraid, not ME who's worried…I'm only worried for everyone else. Garbage.
Maybe I should finish the video and see if they blow it any further.
WOW…at the end they TOTALLY admit to being a brainwashing organization by saying that churches need to get them early to keep kids from being corrupted by secular colleges. Like I said before…it's elitism and double standards all the way down. I'm so glad that (grandparents aside) my family isn't religious. I would get very tired indeed of people trying to "save" me.
Don't you know it's the _Christians_ who are downtrodden and persecuted? What with not being able to force children to pray in schools or use government funds to promote their delusions and all.
Okay, I've got as big a chip on my shoulder as the rest of you about this, and rightly so, but the tactic of using a whack job like Fred Phelps to characterize all Christians is not only ridiculous, it's getting old. Below I link to an article that everyone should read in order to get a clearer perspective.
Yes, it's at Cracked Magazine, but it is a serious and earnest look at the situation as it exists between Christians and Atheists from a very rational and cool-headed angle. Take that chip off your shoulder for a moment and read this–take a good look at his points. He does not suggest that anyone not speak out or not take pride in their belief. But there are some undeniable facts presented that we often easily overlook in our vitriol. I'm as guilty as any and frankly, I'm getting sick of it.
<a>Click here for the article
Ack. Something's wrong with my link, but here's the URL:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_god-fuse-10-…
mighty favog, Fred Phelps is a wack job, I will admit that most Christians even recognize him as such; however, he does claim to speak for Christianity and he is not really very far off from other public leaders of that religion, including many evangelical leaders in the United States and bishops of the Anglican church in the UK.
I don't think it's a riciculous example, since the guy in the video was claiming that atheists are violent. I was not saying that Phelps is telling others to shut up. I was using him to illustrate it's much easier to find examples of Chrsitians who are violent than atheists who are violent. I can't even think of one example of an atheist who is even near as vitrolic as Phelps — not even at the pretty-darn-extreme <a href = "http://gods4suckers.net/" rel="nofollow">God is for Suckers blog — and none of the atheist leaders (either self-proclaimed or assigned to such a role by the media) are in any way violoent. It's quite easy to find examples of Christian leaders and laypeople who fit that description.
Being snarky is not the same thing as being violent. Making fun of someone is not the same thing as trying to take away their rights. The former may be considered rude by some, but it's certainly not discrimination.
I read that Cracked article a few days ago and found it remarkably underwhelming. Why shouldn't I be happy that a person who was making the world an unpleasant place is doing so no longer, via the trick of being dead? I disagree with the way that a serial rapist views women; is it callous of me to feel in some small way joyful or relieved when he is imprisoned?
I know I've had a better life than many people on the receiving end of unthinking hate. I can eat at whatever lunch counter I please, and I can ride at the front of the bus, for starters. However, that doesn't forbid me from feeling angry when people make money by ignorantly insulting me. I like my insults to be mindful and considered, thank you very much.
"Adding comments has been disabled for this video."
Bah!
Ain't that ALWAYS the way, Chupacabras? As if it weren't obvious enough from the video itself that they wanted to stifle debate and restrict thought…
That comment about telling (was it Hitchens or Harris?) to go try to give his talk in Saudi Arabia is ridiculous. If the christians controlled a theocratic government in the US, he wouldn't be able to give his talk here either!
Ah, the old, "You've got freedom of speech, so shut up!" argument.
writerdd:
Fred Phelps doesn't wield political power and no politician would be stupid enough to align with him. It's like when they say "Stalin was an atheist."We don't gain anything by behaving in the same knee-jerk fashion as our opponents. As Wong points out in his article, the best way to shame them is to behave better than they do. That includes making useful, defendable observations, not lumping all Christianity into one bad group. THAT'S how you court the mainstreamers, not by bashing everybody.
The problem with this video is that these people are clearly all lying, and have no problem doing so. Harris never says that christianity and islam are the same. He's clear about the difference, expressly so. Dawkins' book is not a screed. The guy with the plane story MORPHS his character from a graduate research assistant into the professor himself, a calculated propaganda move.
By their acts, we know them to be without the very moral foundation they claim to represent.
Just thinking about the appeal to authority early on in the video brought a smile to my face…that guy says "I'm a literature professor and I know literary genres, and this is a screed!" (paraphrasing)…so sad, really :)
I don't blame them for disabling comments. What with the terrible violence we might inflict on them (;p)…not to mention the biting sarcasm of our atheist authors…it burns….it burns.
I think the worst punishment that we can and have inflicted on them is to stop taking them seriously and to correct them like naughty school children when they pull rubbish like this out. A religion that needs special lessons in "apologetics" surely shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.
Mighty favog: Fred Phelps might not have any power or influence, but many not that far from him in their stance share in the condemnation of anyone who doesn't fit their narrow definition of 'good people', do have such influence and have no problem wielding it. In fact, in my opinion, seemingly borne out by polls, they are a significant reason why there is such a backlash against the religiots and why books by Dawkins et al have become so popular. Similarly, much of this garbage about the so called violent, militant atheist is possibly a response to the effectiveness of many of these 'screeds' in questioning their delusions. That and a fair amount of projection, as the believers have proven time and time again down through history that given the opportunity they will use happily use violence against those who disagree with them in the name of protecting their beliefs. In my opinion, the only difference between the more rabid believers in the US and the kooks who murder and riot because of some perceived insult to Islam is that the law in the West restricts most xian kooks. Though it hasn't stopped a few crazies even in the US, such as with the abortion clinic attacks and murder of doctors. However, unlike them, the worst thing we atheist do is use words, then again, they do say the pen is mightier than the sword and perhaps that is what frightens them the most.
Happy New Year one and all from the UK.
If you don't want Fred Phelps, how about these folks?
creationist-death-threats-part-2/
or
nutjob-of-the-year/
Or the Spanish Inquisition….but no one would expect that.
Sorry I've been AWOL on blogging–new job is kicking my butt. (But I love it!!)
wow…I see a lot of people in here are going to hell. its odd that
you believe in the ignorance of the big bang theory and such, what purpose
does being atheist serve you? you all might as well go ahead and kill yourself and get it over with, I mean if you have nothing to believe in, no hope for an after life, no one to help you…then why live?? you will be dead for an eternity…100 billion years from now you'll still be dead, with no recolection or memory that you ever exsisted, so why exsist at all? your life will serve no purpose, it has no meaning…in all, it's worthless! which is another reason to belive in creationism. life has no purpose at all unless a higher power made it to be. why would nothing all of a sudden produce something?? thats the most ignorant thing mankind has ever suggested! how could life create itself? you need to quit falling in the trap of science…it fails o to often…it always has….and always will….
i was initially going to say that the john turner guy had some decent points on the surface, but that i think as a whole the video was mostly hooey. then i read the first couple comments. personally i don't care what people choose to believe on their own, but don't try to tell me what i should believe. i like my science devoid of any religious ideology thank you very much. let me make my own conclusions as to what i need to believe to get through life. public learning institutions should be totally secular. if you want your children to be taught a religion then that's your and your "chruche's" responsibility, not the schools, not the governments. an atheist has just as much right to "proselytize" in public and door to door as any xian, or any other religion. it's not my fault that the religious programs that are on tv don't have the audience that a colbert report, or daily show may have.
i don't ever remember hearing about an atheist complaining to the public library, or a public school library that a certain book should be removed, or a warning should be added to it because they don't want their little johnny reading about religion etc. the double standard thing is really starting to get to me.
see the truth is (if you watch the video) none of you atheiest know anything at all about religion, except what you can find on wiki pedia! just like most all atheists you are ignorant to any Christian science or books from Christian authors…but you'll buy anything a dumbass will write concerning otherwise…why is that? if you dont believe – fine, so what…but why run your mouth about a subject you CANNOT disprove, and try to take away religious freedoms such as praying in school?…the atheist dont have to participate if they dont want to. but go ahead and oppress…and persecute….it's not new to us.
mighty favog wrote:
Hmm, I read it, and I’m not really impressed.
True, the basic “truths” he puts forth are indeed statements I would agree with, but his elaboration/justification of each seems to devolve into straw-manning and other fallacies.
For what it’s worth, I usually attempt to respond in kind, so if a believer decides to introduce a religious topic into the conversation/discussion (as they are wont to do), I will not sit quietly so as not to offend. You started it, I’m finishing it. Well, depending on the social venue of course. But anything goes on discussion fora. Religious people might find it offensive to have their statements about god and well-meant prayer challenged, but the atheist is not the one who started it. Perhaps in time they’ll realise that much.
But this “don’t fight, let’s just get along” attitude is, I think, the general message writerdd was trying to get across. We’ve been playing nice for far too long, and all it’s brought us is the idea in the general population that atheists are an uncommon breed. And now that we’re speaking up, religious folks think they’re being oppressed. They have no idea what real oppression is even like.
Playing nice and not causing a fuss is all fine and dandy if the status quo is in your favor. It’s not really a “free” place until you can respectfully request not to have religion thrust upon you and not be considered a rebellious shit-stirrer by the majority of bystanders.
urblind:
You have a most apt nickname. Your arguments are nothing new, involve nothing more than straw men and trying to paint us all with the same faulty brush, and a total lack of understanding of science. You have no knowledge of the perspective of atheists, secularists, scientists, or even moderate religious believers. Your claims of persecution are pitiful and unfounded, and your points are unworthy of being debated with any seriousness as they are all fallacious.
You have no idea what you are talking about. At all. If you wish to discuss these topics with other people then I suggest you familiarize yourself with both positions from more than a cursory perspective and then bring up relevant points. The wrong way is to come to this web site acting like you have a clue what you're talking about, lashing out, and acting offended. Otherwise no one will take you seriously and nothing will be furthered by your inane contributions.
urblind said "none of you atheiest know anything at all about religion, except what you can find on wiki pedia!"
I beg your pardon. I was a born again Christian for 20 years. I certainly know a lot more about religion than what wikipedia has to say. But it doesn't sound like you know anything about atheists if you think we have nothing to believe in.
writerdd and Expatria,
your beliefs have no proof….just silly theories (as always with the athiest)
and writerdd I LOL!! you were never a born again Christian!! if you Jesus just for an hour you would know atheists are WRONG! so dont come at me with lies…you may have went to a church for 20 years but you never were born again, so dont talk church talk with me or you will lose everytime…..science isnt nothing more than an organized system of ignorance and it always have been!! and that is solid scientific FACT! if its science you hold faith in, I bet I can use it against you and prove with science the exsistance of God a whole lot better than you could use it to deny his exsistance!
and you claim you have something to believe in? what is it? you have nothing…because when you die thats all she wrote according to you…its funny how over 90% of the world believes in something…while the little athiest believes in nothing, I suppose the majority are all just uneducated poor people right?? well theres plenty of scientists/chemists/leaders/rulers/doctors/teachers who do….
and Expatria who's lashing out? sounds like your the one who dosent have a clue and is offended! what can you people back up?
Hmm. Clearly urblind is either very young, or is intentionally attempting to provoke a negative reaction. These are discussion threads, for discussing things. Not shouting. If you do not wish to contribute to the discussion, and you are only seeking to undermine it by trying to troll, then you will be ignored. That's the way things are. You can say what you want, but unless you keep a civil tongue in your head and make sensible points, no one will listen.
There’s a reason that urblind can’t fathom that there’s really such a thing as an ex-Christian. That’s because the born-again experience is supposed to be a magical thing that happens to you where your soul and/or spirit are literally changed by a supernatural touch from God. It is really difficult to fathom not being a Christian any more if you don’t view becoming a Christian as a psychological change but as a magical-spiritual birth. How does one become un-born?
So my saying now that I’ve come to realize that my own born-again experience was not God touching me and giving me spiritual birth, but rather some sort of phsychological experience that I went through, is in effect admitting that I was not “really†born-again in the first place, since to be “really†born-again is to be touched by God, using the definition that many Christians adhere to.
A change in explanation — from the supernatural to the natural — in no way reduces or diminishes the value or reality of my spiritual experiences, but rather enlarges them and gives them meaning that transcends doctrine, dogma, or ideology.
I believe in the goodness and potential of humanity and the beauty of nature. I believe that because life is so short and transient, it is even more important to be moral and to do all we can to alleviate suffering and help people live happy and peaceful lives precisely because that's all there is. I believe that humanity, without a supernatural creator, is more dignified, more mysterious, and more awe inspiring than allowed by religion. Life, without an afterlife, is more precious.
<hr />
urblind, you're welcome to join in discussions here if you are truly interested. If you are here just to yell at us and call us liars, you'll eventually be banned from the site as a troll.
obviously you never were born again…….it happens, especially to people who dont understand, but go along with what the church members encourage you to do…you can not submit your life over to Jesus and then not believe in him 20 years later after 20 years of service…thats the same as you admitting your mother is not real after years of being her child. now it seems to me that you two wont put your money where your mouth is…I said I could use your silly science to prove God exists more so than you can prove he doesnt….but instead you threaten to ban me rather than "discuss" like you state in your comment. it's hard to discuss a subject when your discussing it with in your little club, in order to discuss something you must have someone with a different view of the subject matter…right?
I know your threatened by my presence..as you should be, because deep down you know that you dont have sufficient anwers……and no Expatria I am not young…probably older than you. Ban me if you wish…it just shows how quick you are to run from the truth, and hide behind a comment box.
and not back up your beliefs.
I guess you think I'm attacking you, but in reality I seek to help you…
believe it or not.
urblind, you don't know me at all so are wrong to pretend to know anything about my spiritual experiences and to be able to tell me whether they were real or not.
That said, I will not ban you from this site. That's not my job. But I'm just telling you the rules. I — we — are not afraid of you or intimidated by your ideas. So far you haven't said one thing that I haven't heard hundreds of times before. But you do need to be polite or we won't bother talking to you any more. Even if we might be interested in what you have to say, we're not interested in being called liars or listening to insults.
[sigh]
your the one with the double standard here…..your calling me delusional
and crazy in the same fashion. I dont have to know you to know weather your religious experiance was real or not…you make it clear yourself by renouncing it…if it were genuine, you would have not turned against it and changed your mind, it's impossible to do so, unless you suffer a mental dissability. like I said earlier you cannnot rationally believe in your mother and then not believe in her…it's the same as believing in Jesus and then 20 years later saying…um naw he is just a myth….you cant! you just can't. thats a psycological fact….simple psycology 101. you probably did have some experiances no doubt…but you were not born again…because if you were truly saved and born again the you would have been filled with the Holy Spirit, and you would have been made into a new creature and it's unchanging, you wouldnt be able to turn back on that…it in itself is impossible from a Christian standpoint. and as far as intimidation goes…I am not trying to intimidate you at all, and I have yet to say anything for you to analyze, so how have you heard it hundreds of times?? I simply offered you "scientific" proof in His exsistance versus your "scientific" proof againt it, but you have not delivered any scientific evidence as of yet…not one. I wish to hear your scientific point of view not your opinion, then I can show you how you are incorrect by using your own science agaist you…even though I have little faith in science "as a whole" but I'm down with scientific data and common since……show me your data- because if you really truly believe so hell bent on your science then I can change your mind about atheism…answer me this, would you be willing to know and accept the truth of life/death and our exsistance? wheather or not it ment accepting Christianity/atheism/buddism or whatever it may be? would you accept the truth if you knew it based on mere science? or will you simply trust your opinion and beliefs just because its how you feel in this moment in time?
Oh My.
Where to begin? I guess I would like to point out that the very first thing that urblind stated was that it looked like a lot of us are going to hell. Not exactly the best way to introduce yourself if what you seek is cool-headed, honestly inquisitive and respectful discourse.
Secondly, I don't see any accusations made on anyone's part of urblind being "delusional and crazy in the same fashion", as he/she accused people on this forum of doing.
Also, he/she states above that he/she "simply offered you "scientific" proof in His existance (sic)". I can't seem to find where, and am also confused by how one can "have little faith in science"as a whole" but I'm down with scientific data and common since (sic?)". I don't understand how one could be down with data arrived at by means of a method that one has "little faith in".
Um, also, regarding us using science to disprove god, urblind? First, since this is a skeptic's forum and you came here to prove something, how about using Jesus to disprove the existence of his noodly appendage, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The thing is that the burden of proof is on the person asserting something. Like I could say "I am keeping you alive with my prayers". How could you disprove that?
Oh, and that stupid, dumb kokoo science? urblind?
YOU'RE SOAKING IN IT. (what with you using the internets on a computer, both technologies, as far as I can find researched evidence for, came to be due to scienc-y people developing them. I know you might have gotten your computer from Santa, but you know, Santa didn't actually invent it.)
Man, I've got some time on my hands and I am genuinely curious, so I have some questions for urblind – hopefully they will get answered in a coherent and honest fashion.
1. What is the "True Church"?
2. What happened to the souls of all of the people who lived outside of the Middle East in the thousands of years before Jesus was (purported to have been) born?
3. Okay, so let's say there is a god, jesus, heaven, hell, etc (since you seem to be of the christian variety). Let's say there will be end days, where the faithful are raptured. Okay? Then what? What's next? really, I want to know because this I've never understood. ultimately, if you end up in heaven and the world is over and everything – what is it? I mean what do you DO forever?
That's all for now.
I eagerly await your answers, urblind, because I think that peace comes with understanding.
Thanks!
You guys? Seriously? You're taking the incomprehensible ramblings of someone with the spelling aptitude of a twelve year old serious?
So far (s)he's done a lot of huffing and puffing, attempting to intimidate us with bold assertions that are clearly the product of ignorance regarding the basic workings of science. Statements like "I think life is too special to have come into existence on its own, so I refuse to believe it and prefer to think goddidit". That's kindergarten logic even a normal 6 year old has learned to move beyond. Heck, and they still believe in Santa.
I'll say just one thing to the fundie with the big mouth:
Just beause you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it ain't true. Until you can deal with that fact, you're gonna to be way out of your league trying to convince anyone around here you even have a clue what the fuck you're talking about, much less make a good point.
Religion will never find the truth, 'cause they're not even looking for it. They think they already found it.
exarch, I try to give everyone who comments on my posts the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to figure out how we do things here and join in the discussion. I know, sometimes it's a waste of breath.
I know I know, don't feed the troll…but I was at work and had a LOT of time on my hands and I just wanted this angry person with impaired critical thinking to try to answer my questions. I really want to know about heaven. Have you guys seen that little documentary by Diane Keaton called "Heaven"? It's kind of amazing what people think.
I saw a movie yesterday called "Saved!". I thought it was hilariously funny, but also an intriguingly accurate look into the mindset of a fundie IMO.
Of course it was a teen comedy, so a little moralizing and oversimplified. But I liked it anyway.
to my friend whitebird,
thanks for being the only one to at least inquire about opinions different from your own…due to that I will try to answer your questions….as far as the rest of the assholes, they have yet to use thier science to say ONE word on thier defense, yet they preach it in every single comment. they are so sure about science and thier proof but hasnt said a word yet, and I'm still waiting…although they like to cusrse and yell at how wrong I am…..true colors of fear if I ever saw it…anyway mr/mrs whitebird the answer to your question:
#1- I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "true church" if your talking about denomination – baptist/catholic/methodist exc,exc…..there is no one and only church, all church is- is a place for spiritual revival, teaching, fellowship and growth. it is looked upon as the body of Christ, a unit so to speak…the methodist goes to heaven just as fast as the baptist and so on. the name and/or location/denomination is irrelevent.
#2-if this question relates to weather or not these people died and went to hell because Jesus wasnt around, here is the answer…..Adam and Eve were the first humans….from day one religion was in order, as they multiplied and grew they were already worshipping hebrew people(this is a few thousand years before Christ) so since the begining of time there was religion (one religion) after that some people decided to make and worship false idols and gods, and such…thats where your heathen religions come from..or pagan if you will…it's due to that fact that Jesus was sent here to begin with because if not many souls would be lost in the long run…as in all religions Christian or non, blood sacrifice is needed to cover the sin, for the sin of mankind as a whole it took the blood of Christ (God) to wash free the sins of mankind as a whole, in turn giving everyone the oppertunity to be forgiven and saved.
#3 I'm glad you speak of the last days, because they are here! John wrote Revelations sometime in the 1st century, he was given a vision and he prophesised- here is a short breakdown of his prophesy- nation would rise against nation (we see that now) war/famine and earthquakes will happen even in places that it normaly does not (happening now again) the world will come under one ruler (the US) one currecy for all the world (the credit card) skin color will blend back into one as it was in the begining ( how many people do know who are biracial?) wickedness will be at an all time high (no need to explain this one) abominations will be everywhere, the seasons will blend as such you cannot tell summer between winter (global warming) fierce storms (el nino, typhoons, tsunami, underwater earthquakes) and I can go on and on with this list, but the bottom line is- there were signs to watch for and they have all taken place in the last 50-60 years and the time of rapture is near- let me pause for a minute and say something about John, even if he lied or made up his book of revelation- mathmaticians state he would of had less than 1/10000000 chance of making such prophesies that have come true- no way he would of guessed that good 2000 years ago the entire state of the world…but anywho, the rapture- once the rapture happens the saved Christians are caught up ( taken from the earth) according to scripture – 2 will be in the field, one taken the other left, 2 will be in the mill, one will be taken and the other left…saved people go first, it will cause an array of confusion…people like you will try to find a scientific explanation for whats occuring, but before you have the chance the rest of the world will be in panic mode, and riots and lutting and such will occur- also the anti-christ will be in control, and tribulation starts- thats 7 years…during which you will be given the mark of the beast on the hand or forehead(this could be a microchip) if you have this mark you will go to hell, if you do not get it, you will not be able to work/buy food/bank/ or any other type transaction…the anti christ will rule very communist like- you will do as they say or be put to death, without the mark you will not be able to survive, with it your doomed to hell, there will be no more bibles on earth or Christian people to help you, except for the 144,000 elect God leaves on earth for one last chance to help you, the tribulation will be far worse than anything you can imagine! afterwards when it's over Jesus comes back and rules the earth for 1000 years of peice and prosperity, after that the world as we know it comes to an end and judment day starts….it's said that the sea will give up it's dead, and the earth will give up it's dead and the saved people come down and every creature on the planet bows down to God and you will be judged. after the judgment, hell is opened and all the judged are thrown into it, followed by satan and his angels and finally death itself will be thrown into it and the pit will be sealed forever…the new heaven (the place Jesus went to prepare) is brought down and us (Christians) will live forever in Gods Kindom…as far as what we will do for eternity? it isnt made exactly known, though it's mostly believed it will be simular to life now, in that we will work a job, have freedom without the restrictions of sin, there is no more sin…or sickness or suffering of any kind. we will worship and love and be in peace and happiness for all time. I hope I was able to answer your questions…I tried to make it as simple and understandable as I could, I can give you actual scripture if you need it, so you can read for yourself. keep in mind that the human mind is restrited in the belief that everything must begin and end- but it's not so, there is no such thing as time- that's a man made invention…also the realms of science is restricted to the natural world…and natural world only. remember this- it's scientifically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, yet he can and does so very well….science doesnt have all the answers…just some….it's also scientifically impossible for something to appear out of nothing…yet so many people believe in a big bang theory….theres lots to debate in the scientific world, nothing in science is truly fact, because wherever there is an expert, there is another who disagrees with him….something to think about..
Okay, since urblind has decided to try actual conversation, I'll do the same. Let's see if we can keep that conversation going.
Let's start with the most glaring errors.
First of all:
Incorrect. Science was unable to explain how the bumblebee could fly, using only the up until then known theories behind flight. Since those theories have been expanded and updated well over three decades ago, how a bumblebee flies is by now thoroughly explained and understood.
Again, wrong. Many things in science are truly fact. That's why they're called facts. What is usually being debated is the interpretation of the facts.
For example, the debate about evolution is about tiny details, not about the FACT that we descended from ape-like ancestors.
The debate about global warming is not about the FACT that our climate is changing, it's about how much of it is caused by humans.
Again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it can't really be that way. And your assumption that the big bang appeared out of nothing is also just a lack of understanding. The very fact that many people think in terms of "before the big bang" is a clear sign they don't understand it. since time itself was created with the big bang, there is no "before". To quote you yourself: the human mind is restricted in the belief that everything must have a beginning and an end.
besides, if it's impossible for something to appear out of nothing, then where did god come from? What makes god so different from the big bang?
Why is it god can create himself out of nothing and you'll buy that hook, line and sinker, but if a theorethical physicist says exactly the same about the big bang, you think he's full of crap? Despite the fact he has good scientific reasoning to back him up? for what it's worth, the big bang is not just a hypothetical idea, it's a scientific theory, which means it's supported by facts and evidence. The same goes for the theory of evolution.
Nope, you missed the point entirely.
It's not merely about different denominations (even though many denminations contradict each other on a number of very crucial concepts). It's about every religion known to man. What makes yours the right one and everyone else's the wrong one? How do you decide who's right and who's not, apart from arbitrarily ignoring the other guy's religion because it's not the one your parents brought you up with?
More of this unfounded certainty shows up in your response to the second question:
As convinced as you are, that the whole Adam and Eve thing is the truth, just as convinced are the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, The Hinduists, the Shintoists, etc… that their creation story is the only correct one. (Not the Pastafarians, because they realise it's all just a joke).
The fact your creation story says that your religion is the only true one (I think it would be incredibly stupid if it said otherwise) doesn't mean it is. What makes your creation story any more true than anyone else's? All of them have just as much evidence to support themselves: absolutely none at all
Bollocks. None of the things you've mentioned are really that different from, say, 100, 500 or even 1000 years ago. People have been seeing signs of the end times for as long as the silly "vision" has been around. None of those things are unique to this period in time. I'd say that with such generalities, it would've been hard to MISS. You name any one particular detail of the prophecy, and you'll find over two dozen different events or situations that'll match it. How is that in any way "accurate".
And how is the idea that John was lying and made it all up in any way evidence that what he wrote was for real?
That makes no sense at all?!
No more sin?
So does that mean that all of a sudden people would be allowed to be gay? Allowed to lie? Covet their neighbours possesions?
Here's my take on this:
We already live in that world. Or pretty close anyway. It's no longer illegal to be gay, to wear clothes of different fabrics, to work on the sabbath day. We have all this, and you would like to see this world destroyed in order to create … exactly the same?
Give it another century, and the notion of nations and borders will be no more than an administrative thing. Wars will eventually die out because the internet has made the entire world's population one global network of acquaintances.
The only ones resisting this evolution are the fundamentalist religious people, who insist that at least three quarters of the world's population is siding with evil and must die before there can be any talk of peace at all. That's just wrong. And all the big religions seem to do it.
Thanks for trying to have a real conversation. I think that can be both interesting and useful.
Exarch said:
I don't think it would be stupid at all. In fact I could respect religion if it said, "Here's one way to find peace and fulfillment in life. This is not meant to be the only truth or the only way to live, and some tenents of this religion may not even be scientificially true, but these myths and ideas make people happy and give them peace, and that is our goal. There are other ways to live that are equally valid, and we will not attempt to deny scientific explanations of reality."
Some liberal religious people actually say things like this and to that extent I can respect them. I give up on respect when they start claiming that crticizing religion is taboo.
Ok…since you decided to answer for writerdd, lets look at what you wrote:
first off, you only helped to prove my theory, by your first response-
And that is: that science is everchanging, because it thinks it has an
Answer, then a few years later it changes the answer and it continues to
Do so forever…meaning nothing is written in stone when it comes to so called
"scientific fact"
As for your second assumption…your wrong again….no one who is an expert
In evolution or any other subject agrees completely with the other experts-
That’s a known fact, and it constantly changes year by year, depending on who
The smart ass college kid is that comes up with a different theory or bone fragment.
Again, just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it can’t really be that way
Wow…looks like you need to take your own advice lol!
besides, if it’s impossible for something to appear out of nothing, then where did god come from? What makes god so different from the big bang?
God always has been…there was no beginning, that's why your small human brain cannot comprehend that!
THE BIG BANG is ridiculas in all aspects of the word….nothing appears out of thin air-
Heck use your science, every action must have an oppisite and equal reaction…right science dude?
but if a theorethical physicist says exactly the same about the big bang, you think he’s full of crap? Despite the fact he has good scientific reasoning to back him up?
What science exsists about the formation of the universe o' wise one?? NONE! It's all guess work
How will science explain how old the universe is, or how it formed, or how it will end, or what's behind it,
Or in it or around it?? Especially since it can't make up it's mind on weather or not it's ok to eat a common egg?
Science is all about guesses and theory…no proof…and a few years from now it will change, then change again.
What makes Christianity right?? That will take a lot of writing to do, plus you'll just dismiss it, so no
Need for me to waste my time on that question
What makes your creation story any more true than anyone else’s?
Well the fact that jews/Christian/and muslim all have the same creation story and that equals
To about 80% of the worlds population….thats good enough for me.
And for your thoughts on John…..your ridiculas if you think those prophesies are not happening..
Go ahead and make your predictions for 2000 years from now and see how accurate you are? You cant…
And lastly….there will be no gay people in heaven, or liers or the other things you speak of, your looking
At sin in the essence of it being an act and not a thing in itself that will be destroyed and gone. Your mind
Cant comprehend spiritual truth which is why…your blind ; )
You are confusing two entirely different matters. A scientific fact is just that, a fact. It's like the fact that two plus two equals four. You can attempt to disagree with it, but it serves no other purpose except not taking anything for granted. The mere fact that you're a fundie who believes in biblical creation already excludes you from even being allowed to take that position, since your blind acceptance of the bible is clear evidence you'll take anything for granted if it was told by the right person/book.
As for scientific theories, these are constructs meant to explain the facts. One such fact is that humans are genetically related to various ape-like ancestors, have similar physical attributes, that these bones were found in rock layers that are definitely much older than 6000 years, etc…
It's true, there can be debate about the exact age of ceretain fossils, but the error range is way, waaaay beyond the 6000 years you assume them to be in order to fit your bible.
The fact that science is willing to alter its theories to fit the truth as we now know it to be is in no way a detriment. Quite the contrary, it's allowed us to move beyond the laughable idea that the Earth was poofed into existence by an unknown, almighty, omniscient entity that left no physical evidence of its existence or its actions. The mere fact that you can't accept your bible to have flaws means you're stuck with believing that the number PI is 3, because that's what it says in the bible. No amount of crazy mathematics is ever going to prove that right, but your bible, being supposedly inerrant, is just plain wrong on that point. Your inability to admit you didn't and don't know the full truth, is your biggest flaw. It means you're forced to defend stone age assumptions about the world because admitting those ideas are wrong is admitting the bible can be wrong.
Meanwhile, science is actually built on constant self-revision and the refutation of ideas and assumptions that turn out to not fit the facts.
To you that may seem like a weakness. It's in fact the best known method to acquire REAL knowledge: testing things you're unsure about in order to see if what you thought was right.
And let's not forget that many things have reached the point where they have so much evidence in their favor, that evidence against them is highly unlikely to ever even show up. Unlike what you may think, the basic idea behind evolution is one of those.
Sure, Behe there might be out there, nitpicking on the tiny, tiny details, convinced that this will somehow invalidate everything. But the truth is he'll never come up with anything that will drastically change our understanding of how we came to be the way we are, because the basic concepts are rock solid
In fact, most of the stuff he's come up with has either supported evolution, or at least advanced our knowledge sufficiently to allow us to take yet another step further away from the creation myth.
No, it's not all guesswork. It's a theory based on observation. It's true there are a few other models/theories. But there are definitely facts on which these theories are based. It's not like somebody just plucked an idea out of their ass and decided to write a book about it.
In fact, that last thing sounds a lot like the bible if you ask me. Some bronze age shepherds wrote down a bunch of stories and impressions on how they thought the world worked. The fact that they were utterly wrong about a number of aspects is no shame, this was after all several thousands of years ago. The fact that people STILL believe them though IS a shame. Our understanding of the universe has advanced far enough that we can see these stories for what they are, and what their purpose most likely was.
You really have absolutely no idea what science is all about.
2+2=4. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but nothing will ever change the facts. You can change your interpretation of the facts, but at the end of the day, 2+2 will still equal 4.
Well, unfortunately, it's not good enough for me. Just because so many people believe it doesn't mean it's right. Many people can just be as wrong as one person can. The fact that 80% of the population is of the judeo-christian affiliation also doesn't mean anything, apart from the fact they were born in a society where being judeo-christian is the norm. another far more interesting fact is that only a minority of those judeo-christian people actually believe the creation is a litteral, historic account. Most of 'em realise it's just a story, and the message behind it is much more important than it's truth value (or lack thereof). So what does that say about creation? What does it mean when 60-70% of the world's population thing the creation myth is just that? Is that good enough to convince you it's just a fable?
The fact that neither of us will be around to witness the veracity, or lack thereof, of my predictions, kind of makes this point moot.
But why do you assume that any generalities I might come up with would be wrong? If there's people with enough imagination, and a willingness to shoehorn events of their day to fit my predictions, I'm willing to bet my predictions are going to be as accurate as those from revelations.
Not quite. I'm looking at the things you call sin, and don't even regard them as sinful. The whole thing about sin is that it's basically been pulled way off balance because of one single in the closet homophobe spouting a load of hooey. But since he (unfortunately) also said a few things about god and Jesus that kinda sounded OK, you now have to take all of his prejudiced crap along with the rest of his message.
On the other hand, the things that were considered sinful in the old testament (sometimes VERY sinful, to the point of warranting gruesome death as a punishment) are now all but completely ignored by practically all christians. Do not forget that working on the Sabbath is a sin. So is wearing mixed fabrics, or planting different crops side by side. These are rules so weird that nobody adheres to them any more. They just don't make sense. But 2000 years ago they were considered serious enough to require very disproportionate punishment.
So are they god's idea of a joke? Just testing to see how far people are willing to go to win the prize?
To me, it makes about as much sense as demanding a football helmet full of cottage cheese …