posted
Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.
As I said before, I don't care if atheism is called a religion in some semantic online debate.
quote:Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods.
The key word is belief. Theists believe in god, gods, or God, as the case may be. An atheist is someone who isn't a theist.
Wrong. It seems the modern English language disagrees with you. "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." In other words, believes the opposite of what theists believe. While your intended definition may be convenient, it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.
quote:There is some breakdown among atheists who call themselves "strong atheists" (believe there is no god) versus "weak atheists" (lack belief in a god)
There is some breakdown among Christians who call themselves "strong Christians" versus "weak Christians." Strike two.
quote:The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.
Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.
Only when regarding the Christian God. You'll notice I mentioned the divine. If you believe there is no divine, then you are atheist, hence:
quote:As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism,
You must not understand Buddhism enough to understand that while there is no concept of god like Christians believe, there is indeed a divine existance. You should learn to stop defining everything from strictly Western Christian points of view.
quote:but there are also groups such as the North Texas Church of Freethought, some Secular Humanists think of themselves as religious. Michael Newdow (the pledge of allegiance guy) is an atheist who argues that he is religious, and that atheism should be on equal footing with religion.
This is because atheism is slowly gaining an institution, though there is no institution in and of itself... yet.
quote:The idea of atheism as a religion generally gets a less than warm reception at atheist gatherings.
And the name "Christian" used to get less than a warm reception in the days of the early church. Atheism in its beginnings was not a religion, because it did not have the qualifications to incorporate dogma at first. Now, it does. This may burn the bottoms of some modern atheists, but it's already a religion (funny that you mention "atheist gatherings" while not calling it a religion).
quote:Also just because the root of the word atheist is a-theist, that doesn't mean that's what the word means today.
See above link. Yes, it does mean that today.
quote:The universe is, by definition, everything. Therefore any claim about the nature of right and wrong is a claim about the nature of the universe. What would it even mean to separate the two? That's like saying that claims about the earth are not claims about the solar system, when the earth is part of the solar system.
Tres, when you use your computer, do you have to have secure and positively absolute opinions as to how the computer was designed, built, and the software written? Sure, for everything you do, you can look up its origins, but to do so would require effort that is generally counter-productive and ultimately useless outside of actually designing and creating software and hardware. When I decide what is right or wrong behavior, I do not require the knowledge on how the universe was created, where the origin of man lies, nor whether or not there is some kind of divinity in the universe to make a decision. That you are implying I do shows a lack of understanding on your part.
quote:I just knew this would turn into a battle of pointless defining and redefining of terms. It sounds so much like the old creationist argument that evolution is a "theory" where "theory" is redefined as "unsubstantiated guess" instead of "tentative conclusion based on available facts". Atheism is as much a religion as creationism is a science.
Since creationism is a science, you must agree with me. Otherwise, your disregard of creationism as not being a science is a pretty adequate display of your own dogma—the dogma that only science that supports atheism is a valid science. How convenient (much the same as creationism is to many Christians).
quote:Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the worship of a supernatural being or beings; it requires belief in the supernatural.
Wrong. Pay close attention to definitions 2 and 4. Only theist religion requires the belief in a creator, and not all religions believe in the supernatural. See Glen Arnold's examples of religions that do not (like Humanists).
quote:Atheism requires only belief in the natural: that which can be detected and quantified using our five senses, and by extension, machines that we have invented to detect elements of the natural that our five senses cannot.
Really? Can you see a double-helix of DNA? Can you feel the void of space? Do we even need to get into quantum mechanics? I mean, there are scientific methods of displaying these things, but one's five senses aren't involved until after mock-ups are created. Mind you: I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying that they are not always "natural" in concept of proof. Also, considering the plethora of unexplainable natural phenomena kinda makes your "it's only natural" somewhat weak.
quote:Because I come from a conservative religious background and became an Atheist later in life, I think I can help clarify the issue for those who have not had the experience of "losing your faith". A person becomes religious usually through some type of "religious experience".
A person becomes an atheist usually through some type of "losing your faith" experience. In fact, with only a few exceptions, all atheists do. It is the same kind of set of experiences that one goes through when they "find religion."
quote:So the point of this whole thing is: I became religious because of an emotional experience, and I stayed religious because of an emotional feedback system. I became an atheist because of education. I remain an atheist because no evidence (other than emotional) exists to support belief in the existence of a god.
Except that'snot what you described. What you described is noticing the hypocrisy of your church, and becoming personally disenchanted with the church. That you equate "open-minded" to atheism implies you equate "closed-minded" to theists, hence you believe atheism is better. Gee, that's just another example of dogma. More specifically, the example of one religion thinking it's better than others (ironically, something you accused your former preacher of doing).
Xav:
quote:MoonRabbit became an athiest after LOSING her faith! Not gaining faith!
Its so hard to accept that you guys can't see this basic fact.
No, she lost her faith in one thing, and gained faith in another. That's what I don't understand why you aren't seeing this. I've been there already, and it requires the same amount of effort in faith to be atheist as it does to believe in a god. My problem is that I don't have sufficient faith for either, which is why I am neither, and remain agnostic for lack of faith in anything. I didn't spring from the womb this way, and as with everyone, experience has everything to do with leading me to where I'm at. The logical effect of losing faith in one religion is the finding and attaching of another. Even as an agnostic, I still find myself drawn to various faiths, with the only thing keeping me from any of them being a lack of ability to invest any faith in full. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't. However, the difference between agnostic and atheist is that an atheist actively disregards any theist religion, and an agnostic does not rule any out.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, when you use your computer, do you have to have secure and positively absolute opinions as to how the computer was designed, built, and the software written? Sure, for everything you do, you can look up its origins, but to do so would require effort that is generally counter-productive and ultimately useless outside of actually designing and creating software and hardware. When I decide what is right or wrong behavior, I do not require the knowledge on how the universe was created, where the origin of man lies, nor whether or not there is some kind of divinity in the universe to make a decision. That you are implying I do shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Except I never said or implied that you needed to know EVERYTHING about the nature of the universe in order to make moral decisions. You may not not need to know how it was created, or if it was created, or whether there are little green aliens somewhere in it.
But that doesn't change the fact that a moral claim still implies SOME unjustified assumptions about the nature of the universe and how we should interpret it.
I said some assumptions, not assumptions about everything from the origin on. I sais some, as in certain assumptions about what should be valued and what shouldn't, and what actions can be done to achieve what is valued.
quote:Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion
You know, normally I might agree with you, but I think you may have to qualify that statement:
quote:Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion, as long as you accept the possiblity that God--the most powerful being in the Universe--is playing a trick on us by falsifying "scientific" evidence that we know to directly contradict the Bible and what we know to be true within the Bible
posted
You're trying to turn it into a matter of dancing with semantics until the original point is lost, Tres. The point is that I do not require affirmation for or against the existance of the divine in order to make moral decisions. You are saying that I require such affirmation to make moral decision. You are now trying to drown what you said into semantics. All one needs to make decisions based on mores is a personal interpretation of the world around them, not why things are the way they are. People do it all the time.
quote:
quote:Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion, as long as you accept the possiblity that God--the most powerful being in the Universe--is playing a trick on us by falsifying "scientific" evidence that we know to directly contradict the Bible and what we know to be true within the Bible
There! Now it all makes sense.
You know, I get really sick of seeing everything defined by the Christian faith. This is just a good example of just how much atheism has more of a religious dogma (mostly against Christianity) than anything else. Way to go, dog.
[ March 17, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This discussion on atheism has been a very fascinating read. A lot of interesting points made. I have had discussions on this topic, but not to this depth.
After reading it all, if I were to bet on a horse in this race, it would be Leto. Still not sure exactly what I think, but the argument is pretty convincing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is that I do not require affirmation for or against the existance of the divine in order to make moral decisions. You are saying that I require such affirmation to make moral decision.
Where did I say that? That's not my point.
My point was what I said in the original quote you responded to:
"They can recognize the beliefs of others, yes, but if they claim one is right and others are wrong then they have established unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe and how it should be interprettd, and thus have religious views, or their equivalent."
Nowhere does it say anything about needing to know whether or not the divine exists in order to have moral views. I only said, and only intended to say, that you need some assumptions about the nature of the universe, in order to judge right from wrong.
A science? I see no such listing at this site, which you used for your previous definitions, John L. "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."
This is what comes of arguing on the basis of semantics.
posted
Tres, I assume you are a theist? Then you believe that the best moral system is one based on God's laws. I think we all can agree that an agnostic can have pretty good morals based on their perceptions of the good of the individual and society.
But you believe God-based morals to be superior. Am I right? That is only natural, given your belief system. Seems to me that is the heart of the disagreement.
A theist believes they can know absolute truth through info from God. An agnostic trusts what they can judge for themselves and does not believe that absolute understanding of absolute truth can be reached. They draw their own conclusions as best they can. Different ways of looking at the universe.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone I'm sure has made this point on this thread or others like it. Most atheists I've known (people who don't believe in god or a religion) weren't even raised in a religious household. They don't even self-identify as atheists. I think it would be a stretch to label such folks as atheists.
Logic and definitions of religion aside, the issue here is the "need" to label.
I don't have the time, interest, or social need to watch football. what does that make me?
My kids firmly believe that there is a guy living in our basement. In fact, they claim to have seen glimpses of him moving around and hiding, when they turn on the basement light and prepare to go into the basement.
Needless to say, it's very difficult to get them to go in to the basement. By themselves, it's absolutely impossible. Such is the strength of their belief.
I want to believe everything my kids tell me. If I am going to doubt them, I so far have had the guts to let them know directly that I doubt them. I tried for a while to ridicule their belief that a guy is living in our basement, but it only pissed them off. I don't do that any more. (Man! There are so many great analogies here to how I've debated religion in the past!)
So, with them standing at the top of the stairs, I took one of those million candlepower flashlights, and looked all over the basement for him. I shone a light into every corner--even in the crawlspace under the mudroom (where, I am firmly convinced, we've got some Mafia guys buried--but that's another story). I looked for evidence that we have a guy living in our basement--candy wrappers, piles of poop, things put in places that I didn't put them there, footprints in the sand (I'm sorry--dust), you name it.
I have never been able to find the guy supposedly living in our basement. That would be a lack of direct evidence. I have also been unable to find any indirect evidence of a guy living in our basement (candy wrappers, etc.).
It's not enough to say that "I don't believe that there's a guy living in my basement," that's like saying "I don't believe it's not butter." Of course it's not butter--I just don't believe it. This statment implies that there may be a guy living in our basement, but I just don't believe it. That would scare my kids.
It is far more acurate to say that "I believe that there isn't any guy living in my basement."
Because, you know, there isn't.
How many of you believe (I almost said "think"--sorry) that there's a guy living in my basement? Also, how many of you believe that I should act as if there's a guy living in my basement?
After all, just because I cannot find any evidence that he's living in my basement doesn't mean that he's not living in my basement!
How much faith do I need to have to feel comfortable in my belief that there isn't any guy living in my basement?
What if my kids thought that a horse, or an elephant, was living in my basement?
And, just to screw up my argument--what if my kids thought that a snake was living in my basement? Because, at one point, there was.
posted
fallow -- I'm with you. I don't even know why. My father loved watching football. I just never picked it up. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, eslain, since your link does not say whether it's a science or not, what is your point? How about this or, better yet, this one? I don't necessarily agree with it, but creationism has been adequately worked down to a science. Even they think so. How convenient (yet again!) that atheists deny it vehemently.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?
Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.
Judaism? Mohammedism? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")
Earth-on-the-back-of-a-million-turtleism? You'll find I'm a strict A-Turtlist, too.
The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.
But, I'm more than happy to be correted on this. Because, even so, my point still holds.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much faith do I need to have to feel comfortable in my belief that there isn't any guy living in my basement?
What if my kids thought that a horse, or an elephant, was living in my basement?
And, just to screw up my argument--what if my kids thought that a snake was living in my basement? Because, at one point, there was.
And yet again, you show conclusively the contempt atheism holds for Christianity by comparing their concept of a divine creator with a human in the basement (or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or choose your imaginary-being-of-a lesser-cosmic-scale). I'm sure all Christians thank you for your contempt and disregard.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I propose a small, but significant, difference between belief and faith. Faith is believing in something enough that you act according to those beliefs. I have faith in God. That means I believe in Him enough to confidently act as though He exists. I pray regularly. A true atheist (and I think there are far fewer atheists than agnostics) believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God. A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.
An agnostic chooses the middle of the road, usually leaning towards non-belief (reminds me of Dog's guy in the basement) because they generally believe it is more likely that God does not exist than that he does, but their actions can vary a great deal from individual to individual. Do some agnostics pray? I would assume so. Probably not often and only in times of great stress, but they do not rule out the idea of God's existence, so they might (at times) act as though He does exist. (Prayer being used as my example.)
quote:But you believe God-based morals to be superior. Am I right? That is only natural, given your belief system. Seems to me that is the heart of the disagreement.
Well, no, I don't think God-based morals are superior. I'm a theist, but I don't believe anyone should do anything just because someone tells you God said to do it. Maybe if God tells you Himself, but that rarely happens. Otherwise, I think you should do, first and foremost, what seems right to you.
And I don't really think this has to do with the disagreement. I'm just saying any moral views entail assumptions about the universe, meaning anyone with moral views must be to some extent religious - which Leto disagrees with, although possibly only because he thinks I'm saying something I'm not saying.
quote:A theist believes they can know absolute truth through info from God.
I'm a theist and I don't believe that, and I think many theists don't believe that. I do not believe in very much absolute knowledge. However, I trust what I can judge for myself, and I judge for myself that God probably exists - thus I am a theist.
quote:An agnostic trusts what they can judge for themselves and does not believe that absolute understanding of absolute truth can be reached.
Well, no, I think an agnostic (if they are actually agnostic) does NOT trust what they can judge themself - at least not when it comes to God. They don't judge either way - exist or no exist. To do so and trust it would be faith, and agnosticism is the rejection of believing things just based on trust or faith - not taking a stance at all instead.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, everyone has faith. I wouldn't turn on my light switch if I didn't have faith that the light would turn on. Even agnostics have faith that the sun will rise in the east each morning.
Edit for clarification: My point being, I don't think having faith in the sun rising is religious. Faith does not need to be religious. You can make judgements on the universe around you with out being religious.
In all fairness, love, and honesty, please feel free to bite me.
It's a true story--it really is. It can be discussed on its own merits. It does make a lovely analogy to the theory that God exists, but when I started telling the story, I wasn't thinking of how closely I might make it fit the analogy.
It was not an attempt to show contempt or disregard for the Christian (or any) faith.
I will, however, express my contempt for your response.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?
In case you didn't know it, modern astronomy is based on the work of many faiths. Mathematics owes much to work done by Islamic peoples. Science has been tied to many faiths throughout its whole existence.
quote:Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.
There is a divine existence inherent in Buddhism. Maybe your not being an expert has something to do with this, but your inability to separate "the divine" from "the Christian concept of God" is your problem here, not the way the religion defines the nature of the universe (which does contain more than simply scientific resources to define).
quote:Judaism?
Are you seriously saying you don't know? I find this incredibly hard to believe.
quote:Mohammedism?
How very insulting. It's called Islam. Islam. And yes, there is an Islamic view, as well.
quote:Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")
Actually, you've shown that you don't just hold Christianity in contempt. Your "Mohammedism" remark shows you neither care to understand nor have any understanding of Islam, while making a judgement on it before understanding. Are you seeing your dogma yet?
quote:The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.
Only because you don't understand the origins of most sciences.
So, are you really able to stand corrected, or are you just blowing smoke? Science is not separate from religion, nor does it exist to disprove any religion. Most religions don't have their own offshoots of science, but Cristianity isn't the only one. Just because it's the most easily arguable does not make it the only one.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was not an attempt to show contempt or disregard for the Christian (or any) faith.
No, it was your attempt to equate the Christian faith in their god to your child's fear of the unknown. You are implying that atheism is better, more "adult," and more intelligent than Christianity. That is a sign of contempt. I'm sure you hold no open contempt, because it's too thoroughly ingrained in your dogma.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, everyone has faith. I wouldn't turn on my light switch if I didn't have faith that the light would turn on. Even agnostics have faith that the sun will rise in the east each morning.
Yes, well, this is just what I would say to agnostics. Why have faith in that other stuff but not in God (or in God's nonexistence)?
I suppose, though, that they would answer that some small leaps of faith is reasonable, whereas other big leaps of faith can be just jumping to weak conclusions.
posted
Oh, and Tres, I believe that everyone believes their morals are superior to anyone who has differing morals. Otherwise, why would we disagree? When we disagree it's because we think, "I'm right, you're wrong." You can think your morals are superior without having any contempt for someone else's morals. (It is difficult, but possible.)
When it comes to preferences, that is another matter entirely. I like blue best, someone else likes red best. Do I have to think my preference is superior in order to disagree? No, it is just a preference.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, here's a thought from an agnostic I know. He says that he believes there is not enough evidence to think the existance of God is likely. So he lives his life as though it is unlikely. He believes the sun rising is far, far more likely. In the same way, agnostics create their own morals based on what they believe is most likely to be true. God is pretty far down on their list.
I think agnostics are far closer followers of logic than atheists.
I never said that I didn't think ther was a "divine existence" in Buddhism. I said that I didn't believe that Buddhists made any strong claims as to how the physical world was created, or how it works. To be honest, neither did you state how Buddhists believe the world was created, and how it developed. I'm not going to give you grief if you don't know--I'm just saying that I'm not aware of any claims.
Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith." I tried--so shoot me. And I know that a lot of astronomy and numerical methods were developed in the Arab world. And you're still not answering my question. These ancient Muslims believed that one way to honor Allah was to learn as much as possible about the wonderful world He created. And I have not read the Koran (or Ku'ran, or whatever the PC transliteration of its name is these days). Do followers of Islam have a non-scientific belief system as to how the world was created, or how life developed and changed over time? (Something to compare with "Creationism", let's say). I tend to think, "not."
Biologically, I am a reformed Jew. Heck, some of my best friends are Jewish! Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.
quote:Science is not separate from religion
Care to expound upon that? Just because religious groups tried hard (and sometimes succeeded) at various scientific explorations does not mean that the two are inseparable. The creation of the Arabic numbering system works just as well in the hands of an atheist as it does in the hansda of a theist. Newton praised God in the forward of his Principia Mathematica, but Newton did all the work (well, not really--he stole a lot of it from others. He was the Bill Gates of his time). And some say that Newton added that dedication just to keep from being imprisoned for heresay.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It does make a lovely analogy to the theory that God exists, but when I started telling the story, I wasn't thinking of how closely I might make it fit the analogy.
Then why did you post it in a thread where we were talking about the belief/nonbelief that God exists?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
My parable (ooh! Gotta love that Freudian slip!) was intended to explore the depth of a-religious faith, nothing more.
[edit--"nothing more" is probably incorrect--but you still refuse, apparently, do discuss the issue. You're spending most of your energy calling me "contemptuous"]
You read my "contempt" into it, I'm afraid.
Here, let me help you, I think you have something in your eye...
Yeah, this is one of those "special" threads that stays laser-focused on its topic.
I do believe that people were discussing the meaning of "faith" and "belief", both in the context of God and religion, and outside of that context.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I can only participate up to a point. I'm a devout apatheist -- "don't know, don't care" -- and watching everyone split hairs gets repetitive after a while.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:nor does it [science] exist to disprove any religion
I never said that science "exists" to disprove any religion. That implies intent. Science "exists" to figure out how the universe works (and engineering "exists" to help make a profit from it...)
Science would work just fine in a world without religious belief. Maybe better. Ask Galileo.
posted
I just follow what fascinates me most, fallow. Parts of this discussion are a lot more fascinating than others.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because I live in Portland and have a wife, doesn't make me a she. I'm not even a she-male, just a plain old male. Sorry to burst your bubble.
quote: Since creationism is a science, you must agree with me
Reminds me of a joke I heard in grade school:
Q: If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, why is a cat like a sidewalk?
A: Because neither one can play the piano.
Science is a term used to describe the process of accumulating data, then forming an idea based on the data. Then collecting more data, and modifying the idea to fit the data. Then trying to figure out a way to test the data, in case any of the data were wrong through some kind of error. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually you reach a point where new data doesn't change the idea too much and you can say with some degree of certainty that the basic idea is probably right. Despite decades of research into all types of biological science, no data has been observed which contradicts the basic idea that living things change over time. When an extraordinary claim is made (cold fusion comes to mind), it is subject to testing by large numbers of independent investigators.
Creationism starts from the assumption that the world was created in a finite amount of time by a sentient supernatural being. Everything a creationist does is an attempt to prove that. Facts which can be "reinterpreted" to support the preexisting assumption are retained, and those which do not support the preexisting assumption are rejected or ignored.
What advances in biology, medicine, technology, or any other science have come about as a result of practical applications of creation science? If disease is caused by evil spirits and not bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites and prions, as the scientists would have us believe, then why does medicine work? Shouldn't prayer and exorcism work better?
I'll close by saying that while I loved the Star Wars movies as a kid (Yes, I stood in line on opening day to see Episode 4, which was then called, simply, Star Wars), when I went to the theater to see the "enhanced edition" and Luke Skywalker shuts off his computer because a voice says "trust your feelings, Luke", I found myself wanting to yell "What a crock of S***! Turn your computer back on, you idiot!" Posts: 173 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
And Reform Jews are biologically different from other Jews how, exactly? Perhaps you mean you were born Jewish? Or come from a Reform Jewish family?
quote: Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.
You might want to learn about more about the very WIDE spectrum of beliefs in Judaism.
Start by googling Gerald Schroeder. While I personally have issues with both his science and his theology, he is proof that your statement simply indicates that you need to meet more Jews.
Hi, I'm Jewish and I believe that the Torah has quite a lot of good science in it -- and a fair amount of allegory. Figuring out which parts are which is what makes it fun!
"You heard it here folks. Intrigue. CUrioSITY. FAsciNATION!"
*approaches DOG*
"Mr. DOG?, or can I call you K-9?"
*DOG spews frothing saliva on fallow. wipes jowels on jersey and pysches-out the competition*
"Mr. DOG? It's been a long hard season of training sir. I understand you've even given up toilet-bowl lapping in favor of preparation for tonight's event. What do you visualize as the outcome of this game?"
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and to those of you who can't imagine why we would argue over such a silly topic, I think Dagonee put it rather well.
quote: Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.
You see, when people argue over seemingly trite issues either they just love to argue or they have an agenda. If I may be so bold, I think the agenda of the theists is: If declaring there is a God is religion and therefore can be removed from the government, than anything that states there is no God should be treated exactly the same way. To repeat Dag, if wearing a T-shirt that says "God is dead" or such is freedom of speech and therefore protected in schools, than so is wearing symbols of faith in God.
I am not one to fight tooth and nail to keep the 10 commandments on schoolhouse walls because, well, the whole separation of church and state thingy. While I would personally love to see them stay up, I think it represents a time when Judaism/Christianity ideals were more widely accepted, I believe in following the Constitution.
Oh, and I guess I'll throw in that while I think it may be inappropriate for someone to say a public prayer in school, I think that private prayers should be just fine, along with the whole freedom of speech thing.
posted
Lucky for everyone then that symbols of non faith are protected and not protected just as much as symbols of faith in schools.
Actually, symbols of faith are more protected, but only slightly (a school can ask students to take off specific items which do not violate a particular general rule, but not if those items are faith related).
edit to add: and private prayers are fine and legal.
posted
Fugu, that is a good thing. But the recent change in law in France, ugh. That just shows such contempt for what many hold sacred. As we all know, France is not America.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While symbols of faith may be more protected than symbols of non-faith, the ideas of faith certainly are not protected more than the ideas of non-faith.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not the government's job to protect the ideas of religion. For one thing, trying to protect all religious ideas would certainly exhaust the resources of the government.
It just doesn't make sense.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, here's a thought from an agnostic I know. He says that he believes there is not enough evidence to think the existance of God is likely. So he lives his life as though it is unlikely. He believes the sun rising is far, far more likely. In the same way, agnostics create their own morals based on what they believe is most likely to be true.
In my view, that's not agnosticism. That's just what everyone does.
Your friend, I would say, is an atheist, because he lives his life as though it is unlikely that God exists. The fact that he admits the possibility that God might exist does not make him an agnostic, any more than my admittance that I may be wrong about God existing would make me an agnostic - it just makes him an open-minded atheist.
I think an agnostic would have to say that there is no evidence one way or another, and live life as if he or she truly had no idea whether or not God existed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*cough* Um... wow, so many replies and, unless i missed it, still not one answer to the original question. God, I love Hatrack, where else can we get into such intense theological debate about a story someone mentioned to me in brief passing over a week ago and only in vague memory.
So, has anyone actually heard anything about this reclassification proposal?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hi, I'm Jewish and I believe that the Torah has quite a lot of good science in it -- and a fair amount of allegory. Figuring out which parts are which is what makes it fun! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
