posted
I find that unconvincing. Surely a god can just vanish the extra water or create it when needed. Heck, even the whale probe from Star Trek 4 could boil water away.
The trickier bits might be tinkering with the geological record, messing around with the DNA of the animals and people on the Ark to avoid the kind of bizarre effects that would be caused by suddenly reducing to and then inbreeding two of every animal (except the ones in the ocean), depending on the date of the flood, fixing the archaeological record...
Granted in the end, all of these issues *can* be solved by an omnipotent deity (the why is a bit trickier, I expect something like "there is no faith without free-will" ... but its just that extra water or required water sounds so....mundane.
Even I can flood pots of flowers with water...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the polar ice caps were completely melted, would the earth not be covered with water? (curious, not challenging)
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine pointed out that for the water to cover even the highest peaks within one day (as the Bible specifies) it would have to fall (or rise) at nine inches per second, far too fast for anything, even the ark, to sustain the sudden increase in pressure.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Even better is when they put limits on God's actions, for no reason other than their own beliefs.
I mean, who do they think they are, limiting God to doing only good, or making him give us free will, or not permitting him to forgive us in a more efficient way?
posted
I too am an atheist, as the common use of the word us used. But I'm actually an agnostic as I'm in constant search for truth of the Universe.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
<imho>Glad to hear it, Joldo. A free mind seems to come up with a better morality anyway, while being less schizophrenic about it. Get out there and contribute to the orthodoxy-free meme pool!</imho>
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I too am an atheist, as the common use of the word us used. But I'm actually an agnostic as I'm in constant search for truth of the Universe.
I like this. I subscribe. What a pity Telp that you live on the other side of the Atlantic, because otherwise we could get together for a non-prayer non-meeting... Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A friend of mine pointed out that for the water to cover even the highest peaks within one day (as the Bible specifies) it would have to fall (or rise) at nine inches per second, far too fast for anything, even the ark, to sustain the sudden increase in pressure.
Okay-- but you're wrong about what the Bible specifies.
Here's what the text says:
quote:Genesis 7: 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and ait was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Furthermore, the text of the Bible suggests that it was more than just rain that caused the Flood; I'm not exactly sure where the "fountains of the great deep" are located, but since it mentions rain in the same verse, one would think they're different items.
I think the Flood is a mythic story; I'm not convinced it happened literally.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an atheist in the bible belt. Who went to 13 years of Catholic schooling, and who's extended family are all pretty serious about their faith (Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist).
*shrug*
They don't give me a hard time about it, and I try not to roll my eyes when they say, "I'd love to be able to do X, but God didn't bless me with that ability." Or something else along those lines.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I take it you are declining my request to edit your post?
Joldo:
quote:*sigh* By mysticism, I mean supernatural beliefs without substantiation that often defy evidence. Such as the belief in the past existence of a worldwide flood.
Why the sigh? If you are not interested in discussing this you are more then welcome to opt out.
You realize that even if the flood did not literally happen, (I'm not sure either way) that you are not required to know one way or the other in order to subscribe to Christianity right? Christianity doesn't hinge on Moses' staff turning into snakes, David slaying Goliath, or Elijah ascending in a chariot of fire. Of course if every event in the Bible was a lie or completely inaccurate that would make it something less then it claims to be. For me at least, the core tenant that I would stop believing if I left Christianity would be that Christ, the son of God, took upon Himself the sins of the world, died on the cross and was resurrected, thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, if you don't think god can do the 'simple' stuff like the flood and fire chariots, then it's unlikely you'll believe the 'dying for our sins' part.
(Strangely, I just want to point out that I've never seen anything particularly supernatural about David and Goliath. It has all the earmarks of a real event that became legend over many a retelling.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is mostly my moral system. And I used to say the Bible boiled down to that. Now I think I was just lying to myself. I feel like it doesn't match my moral system, and if I choose one to toss out, well . . .
So is it Christianity you have a problem with, or is it the Bible?
I see the Bible as somewhat like my old math textbook. If the textbook occasionally gives me the wrong answers, I'd assume the author made some mistakes, but I'd still trust it in general. If the textbook consistently gives me the wrong answers, I'd no longer believe the textbook. But in neither case would the failures of the textbook lead me to abandon math altogether - because even without a textbook, I see how math holds true.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Today I feel sorry for theists- it being so easy for me to see the transparency of their arguments.
And they feel sorry for you because you're missing out on one of the most wonderful things about life. ^_~
But snarking aside, if your religion was nothing but restrictions and fear, then good thing that you've decided to let it go. If you've been studying the Bible without believing in God or the 'mystical aspects' of Christianity, it is pretty terrifying.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions though, before you completely toss religion and God out the back door. If you like religious people, then maybe there is something redeeming in religion that you haven't found yet, and maybe it's worth looking for. I'd recommend some Christian writings other than the Bible--St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis are the first that come to mind.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you like religious people, then maybe there is something redeeming in religion that you haven't found yet, and maybe it's worth looking for.
Does one have to take religion as a whole? If I like some of the things that religions do (and I do), I will take those things. Why do I have to take everything else with it?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
It is perfectly possible - even usual - for Christians to not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
I (and others) have explained that to you. Over and over again. Do you think that I (and others) am lying about that? If not, why do you keep going back to the same stale, deceitful arguments? It may be easier and funnier to caricature Christianity that way, but at this point you knows it is untruthful. It isn't ignorance anymore. That you keep doing it, indicates that you are only interested in mockery and not interested in either understanding or any kind of sincere discussion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
For many people, it actually is.
boots, I think you that insist your beliefs about religion are the only ones that really count far too much.
What you believe is very rare in the multiplicity of Christian thought, but you seem to me to often insist that people address your beliefs as definitive Christianity, even when they are talking about their own experiences.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who says that you do?
It is perfectly possible - even usual - for Christians to not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
I (and others) have explained that to you. Over and over again. Do you think that I (and others) am lying about that? If not, why do you keep going back to the same stale, deceitful arguments? It may be easier and funnier to caricature Christianity that way, but at this point you knows it is untruthful. It isn't ignorance anymore. That you keep doing it, indicates that you are only interested in mockery and not interested in either understanding or any kind of sincere discussion.
I'm not trying to be deceitful. Whether or not I'm stale is certainly up for debate.
I'm not trying to caricature Christianity. When people, both here and in my real life, say 'oh, we don't take the flood and stuff like that literally', that's fine. I believe you. But generally that's followed with "by the way, Jesus died for your sins."
Again, this is fine. Yet it seems like some people are trying to keep others in Christianity by saying that you don't have to believe the supernatural claims when the main tenet of the religion is a supernatural claim.
(edited to fix 'tenet')
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
For many people, it actually is.
boots, I think you that insist your beliefs about religion are the only ones that really count far too much.
What you believe is very rare in the multiplicity of Christian thought, but you seem to me to often insist that people address your beliefs as definitive Christianity, even when they are talking about their own experiences.
When you are trying to decide whether to believe a certain religion or philosophy, what "many people" believe is mostly irrelevant. What matters is the validity of the very best possible formulation of the religion - because if you accept the religion you don't have to accept what "many people" believe about it; you only have to accept what you consider to be the religion in its best form.
quote:Again, this is fine. Yet it seems like some people are trying to keep others in Christianity by saying that you don't have to believe the supernatural claims when the main tenet of the religion is a supernatural claim.
I don't think it's "All or None" when it comes to accepting supernatural claims. You can believe an extremely important supernatural claim without accepting a relatively minor supernatural claim, if you think the latter probably didn't happen but the former probably did.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For me at least, the core tenant that I would stop believing if I left Christianity would be that Christ, the son of God, took upon Himself the sins of the world, died on the cross and was resurrected, thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead.
Now that you bring it up, that does bring up one question that has always bugged me.
Why (historically) hate the Jews/Judas? Why the anti-semitism, Christian or Islamic?
Given that historically the Jews have been persecuted for their role in Jesus's death, that Judas does not fair much better (fictionalized as one of the three people punished by being directly chewed on my Satan no less), the question is why?
* I realise that many modern Christians do not share this hate and it may very well be "theologically" incorrect to hate, but I am trying to understand the hate in the historical context, not why it might be wrong ** I also realise there were political or economic reasons to hate Jews, but I'm more interested in the theology of it
So imagine you're a Christian a few centuries after the crucification about to go on a progrom. My question is why hate the Jews? If Jesus had not died, he would not have been able to take the sins of the world upon him, perform the harrowing of hell, etc. If the Jews had totally accepted him, then what?
Wasn't the whole death thing necessary, even predestined to a certain extent? Are we (Christians) not better that Jesus died and repented for all our sins? Is it not called 'Good' Friday, as in a good event? Or could he have done the whole repenting thing anyways when he died as an old man (and the crucifixion and suffering itself was not strictly necessary)?
For that matter, what would have happened if he had not died? Would we skip directly to God's Kingdom on Earth as in Relevations or something else?
Sorry if this seems impertinent, but I never quite got this part.
Edit to add: This is open to anyone. But preface your comments which which kind of Christian you are, I suspect the answers may very well differ between (mainstream?) Christians and Mormons for a variety of reasons.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think it's "All or None" when it comes to accepting supernatural claims. You can believe an extremely important supernatural claim without accepting a relatively minor supernatural claim, if you think the latter probably didn't happen but the former probably did.
Well, for me it is close to all or none. I see no evidence for the supernatural, so I believe none of it until there is some. If I see evidence for even one supernatural event, it doesn't prove the others, but it certainly makes the others more likely.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom: I take it you are declining my request to edit your post?
Oh, sorry! I figured it wasn't necessary since you clarified the protestantism bit in your own post immediately following, and don't like to edit my own mistakes out of existence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why (historically) hate the Jews/Judas? Why the anti-semitism, Christian or Islamic?
Honestly, this has always completely stumped me. Anti-semitism in general, I mean. I can at least comprehend the 'reasoning' behind many other types of racial, religious, or cultural prejudice, but anti-semitism makes the least sense of any of them.
I'm Catholic, but I doubt you'll get any real answers to this question because I don't think there are any good reasons.
My best stab at an answer is that there is absolutely no Christian theological basis for anti-semitism. Church figures may have spoken out against Jews in the past, but they did it out of simple human hatred, there was nothing of God or Jesus or the Bible in it.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, I know, you're supposed to change yourself for religion. Which would make sense if I believed the mystical aspects of Christianity.
Just out of curiosity, do you still feel a need to change and grow as a person? Do you still have ideals and principles along which to grow? It sounds as if you are motivated in this choice by a desire to be honest with yourself, and I guess that's good. I wouldn't worry to much about the hell thing. But Mormons never do.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
For many people, it actually is.
boots, I think you that insist your beliefs about religion are the only ones that really count far too much.
What you believe is very rare in the multiplicity of Christian thought, but you seem to me to often insist that people address your beliefs as definitive Christianity, even when they are talking about their own experiences.
See, that's the thing. It isn't "rare". I have yet, in decades of spending a pretty good perccentage of my time with religious people of many denominations, never to my knowledge met a biblical literalist except through the internet. What I have said about understanding scripture is perfectly in line with what is taught be professors and students of theology in our RCIA class - which is almost certainly the largest in Chicago.
What I believe isn't at all "rare". It is just made to look that way. It is bad enough when people who do believe that stuff publicize it as the only way to be Christian. It is even more aggravating when people who don't believe portray it as the only way to be Christian.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it is rare. I'm not talking about Biblical literalism versus interpretation. Your specific, individual beliefs are very rare. Yet you respond to people's issues with real, widespread interpretations of Christianity with something akin to "That's not really Christianity. What I believe is Christianity."
I have no problem with you offering it as another interpretation, but you seem to go far beyond that to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with Kate very often (being somewhat of a literalist), but I wouldn't call her Christianity particularly rare.
I've never felt she was saying my Christianity wasn't Christianity.* She often says what professed non-Christians say is Christianity is not Christianity.
MrSquicky, except for the possible difference in the ability and effort I put into being able to articulate it*, my faith isn't any more rare than most.
Mine isn't the only interpretation. But it is rarely (at least here) the interpretation that atheists decide to use as an example when they are listing "what's wrong with Christianity". I think that if there were a sincere desire for engagement, they wouldn't always go for the "easy pickin's" as if they were representative.
Mucus: Well you ought to remember that for the first hundred or so years after Christ died, the Jews did not suddenly stop persecuting Christians after Christ left. Remember Saul of Tarsus who later became Paul was one of the more enthusiastic persecutors of Christians. He himself admits to being responsible for the arrest and deaths of many Christians.
Eventually Christianity through in large part because of missionaries spread far beyond Palestine, and so Christians outnumbered Jews. Where once almost all Christians were Jews eventually alot of gentiles filled the ranks, which created the conflict on whether circumcision was required of Christians. As the years went by Jewish distinction was less important as the original founding members all died and it started to make little difference if you converted from Judaism or Gnosticism.
The Jews were eventually forced out of Palestine by the Romans in a bloody seige and many of them immigrated into Europe, where they like most immigrants were treated as second class citizens and highly expendable. Many of the original inhabitants of those countries or even the current residents saw the Jews as invaders. Now convert all these people to Christianity and you have the combined aggression against immigrants and the belief that the Jews killed the son of God and you have a pretty volitile situation, easy to exploit.
edit: I know it's confusing but I use Jewish and Jews in two ways. 1: Jews who are religiously Jewish, and 2: Jews who are Jews by ethnicity. Hence you can have Christian Jews, but also have Jews persecuting Christians.
Javert:
quote:BB, if you don't think god can do the 'simple' stuff like the flood and fire chariots, then it's unlikely you'll believe the 'dying for our sins' part.
I never said God couldn't do those things. I also said that if none of those stories were even in part true it would invalidate what the Bible claims to be. I do not see what your contention is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. For example, if you wanted a supernatural event that is considerably more central to the core beliefs of most Christians, you could choose the Resurrection as an example.
That would be a more interesting discussion.
Not for this thread, though. I think that I have sidetracked Joldo's thread enough already.
To reiterate. I, personally, feel that Joldo is far better off as an atheist than being forced to believe what he described out of fear. I just don't want him or anyone else thinking that those are the only possibilities.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, if you don't think god can do the 'simple' stuff like the flood and fire chariots, then it's unlikely you'll believe the 'dying for our sins' part.
I never said God couldn't do those things. I also said that if none of those stories were even in part true it would invalidate what the Bible claims to be. I do not see what your contention is.
Bad grammar. I should have said "if one doesn't think".
I was pointing out that if Joldo, or anyone, is having trouble believing in things like the Flood it is less likely that they will believe in the bigger (in importance to us) claims like the Resurrection.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: See I get most of that, thats kind of what I kind of what I classified as **. The only new part to me is the persecution of Jews part, that is a good point.
But I was more interested in the theology of it.
quote:... the belief that the Jews killed the son of God and you have a pretty volatile situation, easy to exploit.
See thats the part that I thought was the major theological reason and thats what I was more interested in and hence the questions after the ** which I was more puzzled about.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I'm curious as to what beliefs of yours are uniquely Christian. If you don't take the Bible literally then what distinguishes you from a Jew who does not take the Old Testament literally either? If you views have evolved beyond those uniquely expressed in the Bible then it doesn't make sense to insist on the term "Christian".
EDIT: I hope it doesn't sound like I'm accusing you or anything. I just don't know the details about what you believe.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:See thats the part that I thought was the major theological reason and thats what I was more interested in and hence the questions after the ** which I was more puzzled about.
Sorry I'll try to be more to your point. Theologically there really is not any GOOD basis for Christians persecuting Jews.
There was tons of selective quoting and willful ignoring of the entire NT picture. There was lots of talk about Jews being Christ killers and traitors against the God they professed to worship, but that flies in the face of Jesus' admonition to forgive. There was little mention of the fact that Jesus never advocated revenge on his behalf. People were much more interested in trying to find allowances in Christianity for their wrong behavior rather then being good Christians.
IMO it was human beings that persecuted the Jews, not Christianity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon, there's lots of mysticism in Chrisitianity, but that's not a bad thing. What makes mysticism bad? It's things that happen, or believing things happen, that can not be explaned naturally. I mean, if you pray to God, and believe he hears you, that's mysticism, right? If you call upon the powers of God to change wine into the blood of Christ, whether you believe in transubstantian or not, merely the act of calling upon God is mysticism, right? If you believe when good Christians die they go to heaven, that's mysticism. If you believe God has any actual effect on people or the world, that's mysticism. Right?
Edit: Hey, look at that! This thread has a whole second page. Missed that.
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
No, it is not possible to prove a negative, and that is why theism is inherently weak intellectually, imo. My ideas about the world are not based on lack of evidence, they are based on the evidence of my own eyes.
This is a rather pigheaded thing to say frankly, I'm surprised at you for it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
No, it is not possible to prove a negative, and that is why theism is inherently weak intellectually, imo. I mean to say that the basic underpinning of theism is an irrevocable, inarguable assumption, and defending it is hardly difficult.
My ideas about the world are not based on lack of evidence, they are based on the evidence of my own eyes.
This is a rather pigheaded thing to say frankly, I'm surprised at you for it.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, it is not possible to prove a negative, and that is why theism is inherently weak intellectually, imo. My ideas about the world are not based on lack of evidence, they are based on the evidence of my own eyes.
This is a rather pigheaded thing to say frankly, I'm surprised at you for it.
I didn't say that my ideas about the world were based on lack of evidence. I said that my opinion on the single question of whether or not there is a god or gods is based on the lack of evidence for it.
It's very simple. If there is evidence for something, I believe it. If there isn't evidence for something, I withhold belief. But this is only talking about beliefs. I have plenty of other ideas about the world.
Is that pig-headed? If it is, please explain how, rather than just giving it a label.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry I'll try to be more to your point. Theologically there really is not any GOOD basis for Christians persecuting Jews. ... IMO it was human beings that persecuted the Jews, not Christianity.
Perfectly ok, nothing to be sorry for. Perhaps you're a bit hesitant to go into the details, due to the question of blame as implied by the last line. I assure you that for the purposes of this tangent, I really have no interest in assigning blame. For brevity, we can agree for this tangent that humans (perhaps motivated by bad theology) did it and Christianity was not the "primary factor".
Well, let's try it from a different angle and see where that leads.
Let's say that the Jesus had not gone through the crucification, that the persecution of the Christians had been a bit more reasonable and the Roman governor had been a little more uncooperative with the Jews. Jesus lives past the Last Supper and a few weeks later, dies of food poisoning or the plague or something.
Question: Was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross to "[take]upon Himself the sins of the world ... thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead"? Or was only his eventual death, peaceful or otherwise, necessary?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: kmbboots, I'm curious as to what beliefs of yours are uniquely Christian. If you don't take the Bible literally then what distinguishes you from a Jew who does not take the Old Testament literally either? If you views have evolved beyond those uniquely expressed in the Bible then it doesn't make sense to insist on the term "Christian".
EDIT: I hope it doesn't sound like I'm accusing you or anything. I just don't know the details about what you believe.
Well, one thing that would distinguish me from a Jew would be that I believe that Jesus Christ was/is the Messiah. And that Jesus was/is fully God. One in being with the Creator.
That is probably the biggest thing.
Christians in general (not all, but most I would think) throughout history and particularly Catholics base their beliefs on more than the Bible. As a matter of fact there wasn't a Bible as we know if for the first few centuries of the Church.
And I do take some of the Bible literally. Depends on what you are talking about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I was pointing out that if Joldo, or anyone, is having trouble believing in things like the Flood it is less likely that they will believe in the bigger (in importance to us) claims like the Resurrection.
This is probably true, although I have heard many theists argue that their belief in things like evolution and materialist principles in general (not to mention their skepticism of things like the six day creation and the flood) does not hurt their faith. I suspect them to be at least slightly delusional.
On the flip side, if something, some new information or new way of interpreting things, make it easier to believe that the Flood may have happened, does that translate into an easier time believing in the resurrection?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, actually - at least in the sense that as a whole the accounts in the bible are not quite as incredulous as they were before.
So that really doesn't amount to much - especially to an atheist that doesn't believe in the validity of the bible anyway, but it does make a bit of a difference.
edit: I hope that makes sense. My brain is fried after writing a paper for the past six hours that I've known about for weeks but thought until the day it was due that I still had plenty of time.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reskpeckobiggle seems to think that I - and every priest I know (for example) is "delusional". I am comfortable saying that most educated Catholics have no problem with evolution. When the question, "Do Catholics believe in evolution," was asked of the priest in class recently, he looked bonestly surprised that the question was even asked in the 21st century and said, "Well, of course."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Joldo, there's an easy answer to that problem:
God did it.
There. Problem solved.
Which one? ;D I've been an atheist all my life... well, actually, I started out as an agnostic when I was 7 or 8 years old. It just doesn't make sense to me to believe in a specific, more or less superior being just because I happen to be born in a country / culture in which Christian denominations dominate and to discard all the other religions at the same time.
In this point I'm rather with Thomas Jefferson:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
I don't think it matters if you believe or not... and which image of a deity (including dogma and doctrines) you are taught to prefer. After all, if you're, for example, a Christian, Muslim or Jew, there's just one God less you don't believe in.
The only thing that REALLY matters, is the way you lead your life and treat other people. Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Bokonist... as long as one at least tries, sincerely, to live according to the content of the following "creed", no hell would accept you as a member. ;D
A Poem by Robert Ingersoll:
"My creed: To love justice, to long for the right, to love mercy, to pity the suffering, to assist the weak,
to forget wrongs and remember benefits, to love the truth, to be sincere, to utter honest words, to love liberty, to wage relentless war against slavery in all its forms,
to love family and friend, to make a happy home, to love the beautiful in art, in nature, to cultivate the mind, to be familiar with the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble deeds of all the world;
to cultivate courage and cheerfulness, to make others happy, to fill life with the splendor of generous acts, the warmth of loving words;
to discard error, to destroy prejudice, to receive new truths with gladness, to cultivate hope, to see the calm beyond the storm, the dawn beyond the night, to do the best that can be done and then be resigned.
This is the religion of reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the brain and the heart."
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
