Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[MMI]

A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.

No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did. I ask you to remember that I spoke of two girls originally; it was you who linked them to your grandchildren. My point was that they had life, although lumps of meat and bone did not, and I suggested that the believers' claims that god gave the girls life was better than any explanation modern science can come up with.

Let's back up ... right to the beginning, because we're getting nowhere here.

You say you do not believe in god(s) because there is no satisfactory evidence to convince you. That's fine. I too am unconvinced about it.

You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence. It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings. I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?

If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.

Then I look at Bush ...

[denuseri]

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation. After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system. There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other: God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.

Oh he wont like the idea of that becuase it takes the "evil" out of religion and puts the blame for a misguided theory squarly on the shoulders of the guys who really came up with it...which btw were not christian monks at all but much earlier astrologers. And alltough they were undoubatable believers in a religion in their day and age...they based their assumptions about a terra centric model on the scientific observations that they were capable of making.

[Thorne]

Oh he wont like the idea of that becuase it takes the "evil" out of religion and puts the blame for a misguided theory squarly on the shoulders of the guys who really came up with it...which btw were not christian monks at all but much earlier astrologers. And alltough they were undoubatable believers in a religion in their day and age...they based their assumptions about a terra centric model on the scientific observations that they were capable of making.

Oh, I have no problems with that. I agree, the early astrologers could only work with the tools they had. And at first the heliocentric theory met with resistance because it was unable to predict the positions of the planets with any more accuracy than the geocentric model. Primarily this was because they still considered the planets to be moving in perfectly spherical orbits, according to divine plan. Then Galileo came along with his telescope, which showed that there were satellites orbiting Jupiter, not Earth, and that Venus showed phases just like the Moon, indicating a heliocentric system. The Church didn't like that idea, though, as it went against dogma that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was only after Kepler deduced that the orbits of the planets were, in fact, ellipses that the heliocentric theory was able to overturn the old geocentric theory. Even then there were detractors, though, who based their opposition on the teachings of the Church. If nothing else, the Church's stranglehold on education seriously delayed the advancement of science and freedom for the common man. That's evil enough for me.

[denuseri]

Only your trying to blame the Church for something it didnt do...its position conserning geocentricism wasnt founded on dogma from the Bible but on the observations made by many many people who came before the Church even existed..also traditionally in the west the Chruch acted as a preserver of knowledge and a promoter of education and if it were not for that fact we would most likely be having this conversation via hand written letters in arabic instead of on computers.

[Thorne]

I agree that geocentrism did not originate with the Church. I believe Aristotle was the first to write about it in detail, though it's likely the idea began much earlier. But the Church did declare, as part of dogma (not all of which comes from the Bible), that the world was created by God as defined by Aristotle, with crystal spheres, the dome of the sky and all those things which we now recognize as wrong. Granted, they were as close as anyone could come at the time given the tools they had to work with. But when Galileo, and others, began placing doubts upon the Aristotelian Ideal the Church actively resisted, arresting, imprisoning and even executing those who dared to blaspheme against dogma. It was only after the heliocentric model proved to be far more accurate than the geocentric model, and the rest of the world was already on board with the new idea, that the Church begrudgingly agreed and accepted the heliocentric model.

And you must be aware that the Church, while saving many documents and artifacts which supported its dogma, also destroyed many documents and artifacts which disagreed with it. It's quite possible, though impossible to prove, that the Church set back the advance of science several hundred years.

[denuseri]

Making it a completely unfounded assumption!Especially in light of the actual historical records and efforts of the clergy to preserve knowledge when it would have otherwise been lost. Yes even knowledge that wasnt part of the cannon.

[Thorne]

Here's a site which discusses this: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...ng.php#Culture

Some notable quotes:
"Christians try to deny that, when they achieved total power at the end of the fourth century, they ravaged the Pagan learning accumulated over the whole of previous history. Since this vandalism started the Dark Ages, it is quite difficult to prove, simply because the destruction of learning meant there was little recorded evidence about it that was not written down by Christians—the few left who could write."

"Christians [claim that they] tried to preserve classical and Pagan works, and it is because they succeeded so well that we have them today. That claim is belied even in the New Testament itself where in Acts 19:19, Christian converts burn magical books worth sixty thousand pieces of silver!"

"once the church leaders got control of the publication of books, they launched an all out destruction of any literature they did not like."

"the fourth century was when the Roman branch of Christianity gained dominance over most rival branches, including the remnants of Nazarene “Christianity”. They began to persecute these rival churches and destroy their manuscripts."

There are many, many more. One thing to remember is the old proverb, history is written by the winners. Since almost all of the history of Europe we have from the founding of the Holy Roman Empire has been filtered through the Church, it is understandable that documents which conflict with Church teachings are hard to come by. But they do exist, and they have been turning up to contradict the Catholic histories.

[denuseri]

lmfao...Vandalism? Vandalism...you mean that thing we named for the Vandels?Speaking of which...it was the Goths and Vandels and Huns and others who hammered the nail in the coffin the classical world; when they looted a place it was done...Rome never recovered its former glory. And Chirsitanity in and of itself had zero to do with it, (though it had a lot to do with us getting back out of it) the latest cross disiplinary reaserch has shown that a combination of factors (including climate change and over urbanization and consentration of wealth) were the real culprits.And while your at it do try and not take all your information from a completely biased source for your "interperative history"...smh and you say the atheists dont have a dogma...you sure preach it for them a lot. It is also a complete myth that history is only written by the winners...if that were the case no one would know anything about any of the people who lost a war or who were destroyed.At this point in the disscussion you just doing more sidestepping (just like you did on the geocentric line of attack until flatly stopped in your tracks by the facts) to avoid the proverbial point...yet again.That Atheism is no more or less right or valid of a belief/assumption/philosophy/whatever you wish to call it, is based on zero evidence, has had follwers who committed just as evil of atrocities as any religion, and in allmost everyway acts just as bad as any other ideology when in the hands of intolerant individuals who have no respect for other's beliefs.

[MMI]

It was my understanding that we owed our Renaissance not to what we had done in the Dark Ages, but to the careful preservation of ancient books and ideas by the Ottomans, and the gradual re-introduction of those ideas was only made possible as Arabic translations of those ancient works reached Europe.

[Thorne]

It was my understanding that we owed our Renaissance not to what we had done in the Dark Ages, but to the careful preservation of ancient books and ideas by the Ottomans, and the gradual re-introduction of those ideas was only made possible as Arabic translations of those ancient works reached Europe.

To my knowledge you are correct. And the reason those books had to be re-introduced was because the Church had destroyed almost all of the copies they could find. (Some were kept, buried deep within the Vatican, where good Catholics would not be able to read them and get "wrong" ideas.

[denuseri]

Actually there is no clear historical break in human activities...cultural movements are defined many many years after they occur."The Renaissance was a cultural movement that profoundly affected European intellectual life in the early modern period. Beginning in Italy, and spreading to the rest of Europe by the 16th century, its influence affected literature, philosophy, art, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of intellectual inquiry. Renaissance scholars employed the humanist method in study, and searched for realism and human emotion in art.Renaissance thinkers sought out in Europe's monastic libraries and the crumbling Byzantine Empire the literary, historical, and oratorical texts of antiquity, typically written in Latin or ancient Greek, many of which had fallen into obscurity. It is in their new focus on literary and historical texts that Renaissance scholars differed so markedly from the medieval scholars of the Renaissance of the 12th century, who had focused on studying Greek and Arabic works of natural sciences, philosophy and mathematics, rather than on such cultural texts. Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; quite the contrary, many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to it, and the Church patronized many works of Renaissance art."In other words...if we didnt have the Church supporting it so much...we wouldnt have had a "Renaissance".99% of the anti-chirstian propaganda expoused about the church being anti-knowledge orientated or against progress is simpley a modern day tactic used by modern day atheists to promote their own dogma over that of the theists and is outright sophistry in its worst form.

[denuseri]

Too late Thorne look up a couple posts. lol Dealt with.

[Thorne]

Too late Thorne look up a couple posts. lol Dealt with.

Yeah, I got that. I'm a little slow today. I've responded.

I have to say that you and MMI are really testing my research skills. And keeping my mind active. Despite our differences of agreement I'm enjoying the debate. I wish a few more people would join in, preferably on my side. I'm feeling lonely here!

[Thorne]

So denuseri, are you claiming that the Catholic missionaries did not orchestrate the destruction of "pagan" temples and manuscripts (Mayan Codices, in particular)?
But it started long before that! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ning_incidents (yeah, not the best source, but at least it's not atheist!)

"The books of Arius and his followers, after the first Council of Nicaea (325), were burned for heresy. Arius was exiled and presumably assassinated following this, and Arian books continued to be regularly burned into the 330s."

"In 364, the Christian Emperor Jovian ordered the entire Library of Antioch to be burnt.[18] It had been heavily stocked by the aid of his non-Christian predecessor, Emperor Julian."

"Elaine Pagels claims that in 367, Athanasius ordered monks in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria in his role as bishop of Alexandria to destroy all "unacceptable writings" in Egypt, the list of writings to be saved constituting the New Testament."

And let's not leave Islam out of this! "Uthman ibn 'Affan, the third Caliph of Islam after Muhammad, who is credited with overseeing the collection of the verses of the Qur'an, ordered the destruction of any other remaining text containing verses of the Quran after the Quran has been fully collected, circa 650. This was done to ensure that the collected and authenticated Quranic copy that Uthman collected became the primary source for others to follow, thereby ensuring that Uthman's version of the Quran remained authentic."

The destruction of "heretical" or "treasonous" writings has long been a staple of autocratic, and theocratic, rulers. The RCC was no exception!

As for the Renaissance, there can be no argument that the Church is responsible for vast quantities of art and architecture. Of course, there were few outside of the Church and the nobility who could afford to sponsor such art. And naturally, as the buyer, the Church had the final say on the FORM of such art. Anything which clashed with Church teachings would be unlikely to be acceptable. And the artist who created such works would be lucky to simply be banished.

But the Church also conspired to keep the common people from reading the Bible. Few outside of the nobility and the Church could read their own language, much less Latin. Yet the Church condemned to death many people who translated the Bible into languages OTHER than Latin. This is not the act of an organization which wanted to revive learning, but of one which wanted to control it. Look up John Wycliffe and William Tyndale for verification. I don't want to point you to any atheist sites.

[Switch_John]

Since this appears to be a free for all, I guess I shall enter my opinion.

I, myself, am an atheist. not a theist. (I always laugh when people actually think being atheist means your a theist) I, through my own research, which I will personally acknowledge as incomplete and will not be close to complete for many years. I have read the Bible and Qur'an but strongly feel the need to reread both as much as I can. I also plan on reading as many translated version of each as the translations will differ and meanings will in turn come out differently, something I believe actually harms religion. I also plan on reading the Torah. I strongly believe in making a case and taking a side, only if you have actually researched the topic. This goes heavily with religion. I have found that many atheists in my area are simply people who don't care or are to lazy to practice a religious faith. With that said I will give my reasons I have come to so far from my research for which I will focus on the Catholic Bible as it holds a very personal bond with me.

One of the reasons for my atheism is personal experience. Throughout my life I have never found there to be a reason for religion. I have only seen hypocrisy in religion. Majorly, how does an all forgiving father kill billions of people? In the book of Genesis with the story of Noah and the Ark God had decided to brutally drown the entire world only leaving 8 people alive. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Not only is this a brutal, unforgiving act of evil but it also means that, because of the rainwater for the 40 days and 40 nights (rainwater is freshwater) the rain would mix with the oceans creating a deadly water mixture that would end all marine life. This story was always told to me as a child to teach me how "just" God was. For me, and I'm sure many others, all it did was scare the living crap out of me.

There is also the matter of the faith's own hypocrisy. The Bible has many instances where it states situations of incest, child genocide, and murder. And, if I'm not mistaken one of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill". So that means killing is bad, unless its in the name of God? or is all killing bad? Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. That means that they must of had sex with each other, there children and there children had to have sex with their brothers and sisters to populate the earth. Odd, because the faith states that incest is bad and an act against God, at least the churches and schools I have gone to taught that. Also the story of Noah and the Ark promotes incest. Which the act of sex is incredible because at that time Noah was about 600 years old and his children were around 100 years old. An incredible feat if you ask me as I'm surprised no one broke a hip.

Then there is the argument "You cannot take the Bible literally". Odd considering your faith is based on taking your Holy Book literally. So as you see, I have found religion to be one of hypocrisy, outlandish fairy tales and a mass murdering all forgiving father that no one has any proof of existing.

I will end this with a few things:
1) I have nothing against people who believe in religion. Many of my good friends are religious.
2) I am not saying people who believe in religion are wrong simply putting out my findings and questions.
3) I am not saying atheism is the "right" thing.
4) A question for atheists and the religious, How did you arrive at your decision
5) A question for the religious "With 26 thousand children dying of starvation today, why should god answer your prayers?"
6) And a quote I have heard that I have fallen in love with, "Two free hands can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

[MMI]

SJ - are you saying God doesn't exist, or that he is a mass murderer?

Welcome to the debate, by the way.

[Switch_John]

Haha, I believe that God does not exist. Simply asking to those who believe in God if they know they believe in a mass murderer.

[Switch_John]

You bring up a very valid point. No one can say god(s) exist or do not exist. It is still impossible for us to do so. But will say this. Scientifically, something had to come from nothing at some point at time. Even if one says God came before everything, what came before that?

It is all simply matter of opinion. And not one atheist believes the exact same things as another atheist. Only thing we can do? Research, research, research.

Anyone know where I can get a good translated version of the Bible Qur'an and Torah? Im convinced the ones I have at home are simply crap...

[Thorne]

John, welcome. Nice to have a little moral support here.

I'm impressed that you've read both the Bible and the Qur'an. I have to admit I haven't completely read either. I have read large sections of the Bible, and scanned over many other sections, but have never had the stamina to read it cover to cover. The Qur'an I've barely scratched, but what I have read of it has done nothing to change my mind about the fallibility of holy books.

Like you, I gradually came to the conclusion that there was no real evidence for the existence of God, and my science studies showed me that there was nothing on this Earth which required the existence of gods to explain. I spent a long time as an agnostic, too apathetic to really care whether gods existed or not. It's only within the last 10 to 15 years that I finally came off the fence and decided that there probably are no gods. Additionally, my readings, both biblical and elsewhere, have convinced me that the gods of humanity, whether Yahweh, Allah, Jupiter or Ra, or any others one cares to name, cannot exist as defined by their own followers.

So jump into the discussion wherever you feel comfortable. As for the translations you seek, I generally use The Skeptic's Annotated Bible at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ . They also have translations of the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon, all annotated for easy searching. They claim that, "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible attempts to remedy this imbalance. It includes the entire text of the King James Version of the Bible, but without the pro-Bible propaganda. Instead, passages are highlighted that are an embarrassment to the Bible-believer, and the parts of the Bible that are never read in any Church, Bible study group, or Sunday School class are emphasized. For it is these passages that test the claims of the Bible-believer. The contradictions and false prophecies show that the Bible is not inerrant; the cruelties, injustices, and insults to women, that it is neither good nor just." I have checked several passages with other sources and found these translations to be accurate.

[MMI]

I think I've said all I usefully can here. I'll just watch for now.

[MMI]

OK, I know I said I'd shut up, but during a quiet moment at work, I was checking the news and browsed through to this blog :http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermon...oes-crea.shtml

While the BBC's Nature editor clearly (but impartially, he adds) favours a "scientific" explanation for creation, he does seem to allow that, unless the debate is restricted to what can be measured scientifically, science will never be able to dislodge faith. To quote him,

Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, or that God may have once put in place all known physical laws and processes that shaped the universe and everything in it.

Science cannot challenge faith, which by its very nature, does not require evidence (many scientists are religious people who see no contradiction between their faith and work and many people of faith see no contradiction with what science can explain).

But science does require evidence, and this evidence allows us to explain, with increasing accuracy, how the world around us works.

That is what I was trying to get over to Thorne. To challenge the truth of religion, one has to deal with it on its own terms, otherwise religion will respond to any argument by saying, Your criticism might make sense in human/natural terms, but God is beyond and is not bound by any such limitations.

However, modern believers do seem to be feeling the pressure and have responded to scientific theories with theories of their own. Intelligent Design is one such theory, and, withregard to
evolution, they have formulated something called Creation Science

Matt Walker's blog discusses an attempt by Prof Paul Senter of Fayette State University NC - is that near you, Thorne? - to challenge creation science on its own terms, and it read pretty convincingly to me. However, you do have to take notice of Oliver Elphick's posts in response to the blog and the comments posted afterwards, which very clearly and stridently - not to say, defiantly - defends the religious position.

Elphick's posts are collated here,http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile.s...serid=14330698

[Thorne]

OK, I know I said I'd shut up, but during a quiet moment at work, I was checking the news and browsed through to this blog :http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermon...oes-crea.shtml

I'd heard of this, and find it fascinating, in a bizarre way. Undoubtedly the Creationists will disagree with his conclusions, though.

Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, or that God may have once put in place all known physical laws and processes that shaped the universe and everything in it.

Science cannot challenge faith, which by its very nature, does not require evidence (many scientists are religious people who see no contradiction between their faith and work and many people of faith see no contradiction with what science can explain).

But science does require evidence, and this evidence allows us to explain, with increasing accuracy, how the world around us works.

This is basically what I've been saying, too. Faith does not belong in the science classroom, and science does not belong in the religion classroom. Those scientists who DO retain their faith manage to separate it from their scientific work, and vice versa. They also, almost universally, accept the modern cosmology of the Big Bang and evolution of species. Their faith does not rely on accepting the Bible as literal truth.

That is what I was trying to get over to Thorne. To challenge the truth of religion, one has to deal with it on its own terms, otherwise religion will respond to any argument by saying, Your criticism might make sense in human/natural terms, but God is beyond and is not bound by any such limitations.

You make the assumption that religion has truth. But there is no scientific basis for making that assumption.So which religion is it that has truth? They can't ALL have it, since so many of them contradict one another. And since we are all human and natural, with no discernible connection to an hypothesized supernatural world, we can only deal with the natural. By your own definition God is beyond our ability to understand.

However, modern believers do seem to be feeling the pressure and have responded to scientific theories with theories of their own. Intelligent Design is one such theory, and, with regard to evolution, they have formulated something called Creation Science

The problem with both of these is that they begin with the inviolate law that God exists. Not that he might exist, and not as an assumption, but as a basic premise of their "science". And that immediately takes them out of the realm of acceptable science. "Creation Science" is even worse, in that they declare, without evidence or proof, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and they distort and warp their "science" to agree with that assertion. In other words, they are masturbating to make themselves feel better and claiming it's "science".

Matt Walker's blog discusses an attempt by Prof Paul Senter of Fayette State University NC - is that near you, Thorne?

Yes, it's about an hour up the road from me. I'm not familiar with it, though.

to challenge creation science on its own terms, and it read pretty convincingly to me. However, you do have to take notice of Oliver Elphick's posts in response to the blog and the comments posted afterwards, which very clearly and stridently - not to say, defiantly - defends the religious position.

Yes, there are some interesting comments there. And there are some problems with his comments. He says, for example, "Yes, I think the earth is near the centre of the universe. There is nothing in science to contradict that." He's wrong. Most notably, the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around, so right away that puts us off center about 93 million miles. Second, the whole Solar system revolves around the galaxy, about 27,000 light years away. To place the Earth at the center of the Universe would entail everything revolving around US. Rather unscientific, that.

He then says, "It doesn't matter how many people assert evolution; if they are wrong their opinions need to be rejected. The mechanisms for it do not exist. It is not a convincing story." The first part is right enough. If they are wrong then their opinions are worthless. But he's wrong about the mechanisms. Evolution is a fact, about as close to an absolute truth as it is possible to get in science. The mechanisms are complex, to be sure, and not fully understood even now. Darwin proposed basically one, survival of the fittest. We now know that's not exactly right. There are other mechanisms at work, and some which we may not have found yet. But regardless of HOW it works, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution does occur.

When speaking of the different accounts of Genesis, he claims, "No. There is an account from God's point of view (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and there is an account from Adam's point of view. They complement each other, they do not conflict." It's my understanding that this is a post-hoc rationalization by a theologian to "explain" the differences. There is nothing, so far as I can tell, in either account that supports this. Hell, Adam wasn't even created until the sixth day! How could he have a "point of view" of what happened before that?

There is so much else wrong there. He claims the Bible is historically accurate, yet we know that it is not. He claims that the age of the Earth can be calculated from the genealogies written down by Moses, but we have no historical evidence that Moses even existed. He makes claims about the divinity of Jesus based on theological, not historical, grounds. There ARE no historical, contemporary accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible, despite the claim that tens of thousands knew him and witnessed his miracles. If there WAS a Jesus son of Joseph around at that time, he almost certainly was NOT as described in the Bible. Those accounts were all written well after his presumed death, and probably not by eyewitnesses to his life.

Which is beside the point. As theological doctrine, the Bible is tolerable. But it's not science! And that is where the conflicts arise.