I never put my belief on the table like you're actually doing. My only experience with Atheist is back when I was in vacation in europe, I was at a diner with some friends and their friends. I was quietly sipping my coffee when one of the girls (We had not been properly introduced) out of the blue asked 'Are you Catholic ? Because I hate Catholics, I'm Atheist.' Since this very moment I see atheist like a bunch of troublemakers who literaly sh** on everyone who don't have the same beliefs as they do. Now please someone throw this thread in the 'Serious' section where it belongs before I'm tempted to flame.
Quality post, summs up my position as well. I think my parents have become less religious over time, and I question whether they believe it at all now. They aren't practising Christians anyway, but I think they just blindly followed to some degree because that's what their parents did. I was sent to two Sunday Schools simultaneously, but that was possibly more in an attempt to support the local community. I can understand the need to have faith. I find that I'm at peace without that requirement, but I will never question other people's faith, that simply isn't my business. For many people, faith helps explain some of the mysteries of life, and helps them understand their place in the world. For me, it just brings up more questions than answers. Would believing in a divine being help me understand where the universe came from and why we are here? Not in the slightest. If God made the world (and by extension the universe), where did God come from? If the answer is, 'he has always been', then how is that any different from believing that the universe 'has always been', or at the least the matter in the universe has always been? Ultimately, I fully believe that I live my life in a better, more 'Christian' way than 90% of religious people out there. There is only one rule I feel necessary to follow, and that is to 'treat others as I wish to be treated'. For me this covers just about ever aspect of life, and hopefully means that I am a thoughtful, caring person, who will do more good in this world than bad. If everyone did the same I believe the world would be a much better place
I think you need more than a sample size of one to make conclusion on quite a large group of people. As a Catholic I'd of thought this principle would be quite close to your heart.
You've more than likely met hundreds of athiests, you just didn't realise. People who shove their beliefs, or lack thereof, in your face are jerks, regardless if they are atheists, Catholics, Protestants, or any other religion. If I used the same logic to dislike entire groups of people, I'd hate everyone, including myself.
Role reversal.... happens all the time every which way. Christians wail on other Christians for God's sake. It's like a big angry dome and half the world are shouting at the other. Some don't even know they are shouting, some don't know they are being shouted at. The only thing I don't like is: Astrologyy. I think it projects personality on to people and helps relay and compound flaws in people that don't exist because they feel like they have it in writing from a deeper or spiritual plain. That they can take this problem as one of there inherited indisputable character deficiencies and that we should work round it. When I think in truth, you would most likely find that being told you are something is self serving and somewhat of a placebo. For instance, a person told me when I was younger that I was bad at maths to make another person feel better. I am free to be ignorant at maths all I want - but being told something may have allowed me to use it as a crutch to support my ignorance. But there you have it, now I'm shouting at others and all is spinning full circle...
Aye, extrapolating wildly there It's a bit rash to judge an entire group of people by the actions of one individual who happened to be a total dick Also: law99, don't you mean astrology?
First, taking the bible's creation story as fact is just plain silly. It's obviously a story written long before the concepts needed to explain it were around. That said, it never says that one day is 24hours. In God's time it might well have been 6 billion years. Time and gravity were his first tools, evolution only being one of his latest. If science it the language we use to define the world around us, then it's ideal for discovering the mysteries of the universe he gave us. The more we learn, the more we see that. Stop thinking of science and faith as opposites. For me they are parallel.
Johnny is actually very close on what I believe. I don't believe that, in the creation, it was Earth days that were being referred to. Also, I also believe He also is bound by laws. Does he have the ability to make sure that nobody breaks any commandments? Yes, he does. Is there a law that says "don't"? Yes. Ergo, do I have the ability to speed in a car? Yes. Is there a law that says "don't". Yes. I personally believe that the laws He is bound by are also the ones we are bound by. However, having the power to do something and having the authority to do it are similar, much like miracles. Miracles, in my opinion, are simply manifestations of the higher law. Now, what makes me interested is the fact that He said "time is meaningless" to him. What happens to our current laws of physics if time is a meaningless factor? I'm a Mormon, true blue, through and through. How about you?
I'm probably going to regret this, but let me wade in here... I'm always struck by the almost exclusive focus by atheists on abrahamic religions -- I'd be the first to agree that the various bibles belong in the fiction section. A lot of religions are concerned with defining the terms of God's existence in definitive terms, but I think there is room to argue for the existence of a God in more abstract terms, be it as a collection of physical laws that define the operation of the universe with intent, known or unknown (Yeah, Science) or a more anthropomorphic sentient concept, not necessarily defined by dogma. Atheist argument can also be very human centric. How can God exist if he lets x happen? I'd comment that we have no idea if a supposed God has any sort of vested interest in our affairs at all. I'm aware of arguments such as Russell's teapot and the watchmakers analogy, but the fact remains that the existence of a God cannot be definitively disproven, however unlikely. Aptly put, absence of proof is not proof of absence. I'm agnostic, by the way.
I don't have any problem with unempirical belief (including religion) per se but I disagree with the notion of saying that theistic views (of the commonly upheld variety; I'm not including Einstein' s version of 'god' here) is compatible with widespread scientific practice. I think to allow the two to operate harmoniously you have to compromise one or both concepts to the extent it renders it/them completely useless. Both religion and the empirical principle are both belief systems (in many ways science is just the belief in occams razor) so neither is more philosophically correct and both are fundemebtally just tools. However, look at them both and tell me which has served its practitioners best...
why? When all science does is reveal the beauty in the universe, why does it have to be compromised to believe in a higher power and that we all live lives with a propose?
I can't remember how many time I've been stung by a bee, however I can clearly remember the first time. PS: Bloodyhell, that was so fuc**** painfull ! I was rolling on the parking with 3 bees under my T-shirt.
Look at it from anthropological, rather than psychological perspective. Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page for LBGT Adoption:
It may be impossible to disprove, but much of Religion feels very natural to me. In most cases: -It seems to serve to negate some of the painful realities of life, e.g. cessation of conciousness, why terrible painful things happen. -It gives explanations to the troublesomely unexplainable. -It changes according to the societal trends of the time. -It has flaws and contradictions. -It is passed from generation to generation. -It serves to maintain power structures and strengthen groups within society. -It has separate branches that while distinct (and often contradictory), have enough in common to suggest they came from the same source. I think it is most likely an evolutionary trait that came about to deal the problems associated with human beings' heightened understanding of themselves and their environment. Once humans gained the ability to understand, imagine and record, people who had a belief in some higher purpose/power were more likely to thrive and passed this on to their offspring.
Just because people don't, doesn't mean they can't. I know gay Christians (one of which a vicar) and know of gay Muslims. The Pope not so long ago confirmed that evolution is not contrary to the Bible's teachings. Last time I did a hive inspection I got stung twice. Last time I collected a swarm, six times. *****.
A higher power that fits in with what we know about the universe is a redundant higher power, it certainly isn't anything along the lines of traditional abrahamic thinking. Put it this way, if god has an impact on the world then it can be tested and his existance proven or disproven, but if he doesn't then the distinction between existance and non-existance is irrelevant. So yes, you can believe in a higher power while following scientific principles but then all you're doing is giving lip-service to the idea of some deity. Einstein constantly refered to 'god' is his discussions but you wouldn't really call that religion. I suppose to clarify things we should really split science into its component parts which might be something like: believeing in the empirical principle, a practice of the empirical method and the belief in select various principles already established by 'science'. I'll ease on my statement a bit and assert that not all components of science are incompatible with all aspects of religion, however, far too often I get the impression that the notion that religion and science can be harmonious is wishful thinking or a policy adopted to avoid conflict - something which, I would argue, is actually hurting society in the long run.
