True, we may never have to find out how we originated, but that's not very open-minded. The reason I would like to do so is because it's human nature; anything unknown to us is fascinating. If we turn a blind eye to the creation of our universe, then we've given up the pursuit of one of the greatest things you could discover. Just because the Bible tells you to go out and spread God's word doesn't mean that you have more right to do so than an atheist. And if an atheist were to try and spread their beliefs, that doesn't mean they'd be making a mockery of religion.
You're still missing the point. Its a Christian's nature to spread the word, and if an atheist does, feel free, but there's no atheist "bible" that tells them to spread their beliefs. The problem with your last statement is that I'm revolting someone's disrespect towards a religion, and you're addressing that disrespect as spreading your word.
1) You missed my point. You just said "there's no atheist "bible" that tells them to spread their beliefs" when I just said that having a Bible doesn't give you more of a right. 2) Obviously I'm referring to a respectful spreading of ideas. Not a "You religion peoples are dumb life-wasters lololol."
Crap, you guys don't hang around do you? I come back to this thread expecting maybe a single response, but fine, I'll read through, I guess it's fair enough considering my rant. Lol, I know, and for that I apologise, but thank you for reading it, many don't as you can probably guess. Now this is something I can get on board with completely. The origin of life, of existence, and other philosophical matters which can be approached from either a religious or a scientific stand point, are really cool and interesting imo, as well as beneficial for understanding one another better and yourself. But I completely agree that it can be considered irrelevant in terms of teaching in schools in that context. But this is where I'm gonna stand up for teaching, say, the big bang theory, or evolution also: It's not taught (or at least it shouldn't be taught) in terms of a philosophical basis for understanding the universe, it's taught as an essential basis for a plethora of other scientific principles, methods and conclusions. In this way it pertains to the idea of 'practical knowledge', insofar as any knowledge can be universally practical once it passes a certain point of academia, in that it is taught as a basis for further teaching, not (or once again, it shouldn't be) as some kind of definitive statement on the philosophical matter of the origins and nature of existence and humanity. It is essential for the furthered teaching of our scientific understanding as a whole, especially in terms of physics if you consider the big bang theory, and biology if you consider evolution theory, and that is why I think it is included and valid as part of established syllabi. I would like to see more of a focus on exactly what science is being taught in schools though, so much misunderstanding on this point has negative ramifications in discussion across the board. It should be pointed out time and again that science is not a definitive answer, it never has been, never will be, and never made any pretense of being. It is a collection of models that, for our purposes, mimic the events and situations we observe in the universe. Each scientific theory can be thought of as a machine if you will, it may not mirror exactly what it is describing in nature, but we put the right numbers in and we get the right numbers out, so for our purposes it works. This is the nature of science, and those who forget that are the ones who give science as an approach a bad name, walking around acting high and mighty because 'they have science on their side'. Well if you truly think like that, then you don't really understand science, so gtfo. You're right, there isn't. But your wording here has put you firmly in a little hole, solely by your own doing. On one count you put forward religious conversion as what you are told to do, morally vindicated by your instruction from above. Yet on the other, you put the mirror act in terms of "mockery". This only serves to demonstrate the point I made earlier about the perceptions of conversion BOTH ways. You make assumptions on the intention of someone wishing to convince others of scientific answers to these questions over, say, christian ones. You assume that our intention is to mock, not that it just might be the same desire to convey to others something which makes so much sense to us and, in our eyes, could potentially benefit them massively, that I afforded to christian conversion earlier. Hell, maybe I was being too generous there. If you're only doing it because you've been instructed, maybe I was unfounded when I said I saw the moral and personal good intention in doing so, that a genuine desire to save in your eyes was there, not just that the big guy upstairs told you to and you were following orders. Also, don't get me started on scripture as a religious basis for literally anything, just don't. And even then, using that as a justification for why it's OK is fundamentally flawed. As is so often the case in such arguments, you support your argument with a basis of reasoning that we do not hold in common. I can understand why that serves as a justification in your eyes, but you must be able to see how it does not serve the same role in my eyes. Basically, much as that may be the reason you support it, you gotta understand that there's no way that it's gonna convince me that it's OK. If you want to justify it in terms of human interaction then you have to do it in widely appreciable terms, this argument relies on an uncommon premise, and seeing as the viewpoint you are opposed to is specifically that which debates said premise, is it really a wise choice as a basis for your condoning such conversion? EDIT: I see you and EonsAgo already got in to this one. But I'm still with him on this one. Why exactly did you choose an example of atheist mockery of religion to compare with divinely condoned religious conversion. Why do you not afford any possible positive motive to someone who isn't christian? And if this is a conscious effort to denounce the atheist perspective as somehow morally inferior, as opposed to a misconstructed comparison, then your rhetoric is pretty weak. I got to kind of agree with you here and kind of not. First off hypocrisy is dangerous and stupid, I can agree with your points wholeheartedly there. I can also note, much as you are probably more than aware of this, what I have above, in that the same can be true of some scientists too. Those who misunderstand the nature of scientific theory as it has been established and understood, and basically use science as a basis on which to become self righteous. The same is true with religion, and I guess the message here is that people are people, and some will always use various things and ideas to facilitate being assholes. You might want to read John Locke's 'Of Enthusiasm', it's not a massively long section, but came from one of his collections of essays published at the end of the 17th century. He's got seriously fascinating views on the nature of logic, christian revelation, and human enthusiasm, even bloodymindedness, masquerading as both. It's typically densely written, it's 17th C and it's Locke, the man is frustrating at times, but I think you'd really identify with what he puts forward in there, I do a lot and I approach life from a fundamentally different perspective than him, in that he was deeply christian. One thing I'd note though, your terminology here is dangerous. When you define a christian as, more or less, one who fits in to your perception of christianity, and any one else as not a real christian, you make a very dangerous move. I can see where you're coming from certainly, and there's definitely a parallel between those who miss fundamental points in religion and those who do the same in science, the latter being those I ranted about just a bit ago. But there is a difference. The basis on which this misunderstanding can be identified as such differs vastly, in religious terms the different schools and even minor personal interpretations can be attributed as exactly that, interpretations of what has become the established doctrine and basis for christian sects. Most notably The Bible, but other scripture is also noteworthy in this respect. But the basis on which a misunderstanding of science is appreciated as such is a logic that can be pinned down much more firmly, there is little room for interpretation here, as the nature of that which would be 'interpreted wrongly' is a basic form of logic, more comparable to numbers and mathematics than it is to religious scripture as a basis. Anyone who thinks that science is literally and fundamentally right clearly just doesn't know that much, all it would take is a brief but detailed lesson on, say, nuclear physics, to show them that even our most complex scientific models for this situation don't match up to even the minute perspective we have on what is actually going on in there. Scientific theories have been proven wrong and replaced time and again, that's the nature, even the beauty of the scientific method. So yeah, anyone who misunderstands this can be more clearly labelled as having misunderstood, whereas what you're talking about is differing interpretations of that which has the capacity to be interpreted, not just comprehended. So your accusations against those who are not 'real christians' don't hold so much weight as you make out. Again, where are you getting this 'what a christian should be like' from?. I can identify with some of the things you say, but I'm still irked by this unshaking belief you seem to have that you are inherently and fundamentally right. Now I know that is imbued within religion, I'm honestly not mocking that, I get that it's a logical part of the whole thing. But you seem to have it specifically directed within your own faith, and I honestly can't see where you're getting the basis from. I'm gonna come back again to Locke's essay that I talked about earlier, you're dangerously close to falling in to his apt categorisation of those who believe things to be a revelation simply because they believe them to be a revelation. Seriously, I suggest you read that and look at your own assertions in that light, you're close to doing exactly what I said before and basically always falling back on "Yeah, but I'm right", a principle which, no matter how much you believe it, holds no weight in discussion, nor in terms of logical or even religious justification. It has to be borne in mind that humans are flawed creatures under the teaching of christianity at large, thus putting too much faith in one's own perspective is foolish in itself, even in the eyes of a christian subject. Again this is touched on in Locke, I think it's quite amazing how much it pertains to so much that I see after reading it, that dude writes in the most impenetrable style, but he was a genius fo sho.
How is the bible evidence of anything? If that is evidence of Christianity then Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is counter-evidence. But, just saying the Bible is really stupid and the fact is, you can't come up with evidence, while there IS evidence for of evolution.
Allow me to use some copypasta from the God thread. Quote: Originally Posted by Pigglez First of all, all opinions are biased. It should be known and recognized this way. To say the Bible is not proof of anything is to say because something is a religious book it proves nothing. In the same way you shun the Bible I could just the same way shun Darwin's book "the origin of life" and it would show more validity. The Bible was written by more than 1 person (something like 40, I think) and all of those men claimed to be witnesses of Jesus/God's miraculous works. Now because one man, Darwin, witnessed finches on an island, and it is scientific its considered true? That's a terrible understanding of principles. Now if one man with scientific evidence can strap it in a book and call it truth, whereas the Bible doesn't use any science, you're terribly wrong. Let me show you some examples of science in the Bible: Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.” Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes. Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. Jonah 2:5-6 The engulfing waters threatened me, [a] the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head. To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor. Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea. Luke 17:34-36 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. Oh, and I can gladly provide more if you're still not convinced.
Wow, Well first to address the red sentence, his book and writings provide ACTUAL evidence and scientists prove and proof is given to them time and time again. And to your whole post, just because the bible INFERS to a spherical Earth, means it is right about EVERYTHING? So many ancient philosophers such as Socrates and Galileo, got a lot right about the Earth today, but they also got a lot wrong as later scientists and Philosophers disproved them. Also when Galileo first proposed a Spherical Earth, not a flat one, like many other before him did, he wasn't beleived at all. Why? because of the Bible and the dominating Catholic church even forced him to take back what he thought.
1)You're proving my point even further. I said that red sentence when referring to author ship, and the Bible does in fact show evidence, as aforementioned. 2)Whoa whoa whoa buddy. Did you even read what I said? I specifically had a sentence or two in there just so something like that wouldn't be said. "To say the Bible is not proof of anything is to say because something is a religious book it proves nothing." Read over that. I even stated previously that using the Bible as evidence for anything is false, as well. No need to bring up your point. You're sadly mistaken on a few of your points, and you're going to dig yourself into a whole of misconception if you don't get these simple points: *The Bible cannot force anyone to do anything *If you read my spiel about denominations in the church, you will understand this clearly. Here it is, directly from when I quoted peg:
Indeed, I didn't get that before, apologies, looks like we agree on that one at least in principle. Then I must ask: why were you arguing on such a basis? Why not follow the logical train of thought and pertain to what my point actually was by assuming an equally positive motivation for the 2 comparable acts? If you don't even assume that it is our intention, why do you use it as a basis in argument? I never said anything about a sole purpose, so no, I would not say that you should take my point there as an affirmative answer to that question. The purpose of debate is complex, but I'll try to communicate my perspective on it (the emphasis being on 'try' as fits in with the logic I'm about to follow). I see 'purpose' as an unsuitable term here, even a singular term in itself being a flawed principle. The way I see it there are 2 aspects of what you class as purpose, those being possible benefit produced by debate and possible motivations for entering in to a debate which comply with the possible benefits. The possible benefits as I see them are greater understanding of those you debate with, both on a personal level, and in terms of your understandings of the perspective they hold on the matter. Understanding one another and differing perspectives than one's own is beneficial to social interaction and progression as a whole. Debate can also have the possible benefit of increased understanding of one's own perspective, since questions posed in the depths of debate posed by an opposing viewpoint often bring up ways of looking at your own perspective that you may not have addressed in your own thought. Understanding one's own perspective better gives more basis for that perspective, frankly, and can also tell you about the emotional and human creature you are, as well as the logical one. Last is the possible benefit of being convinced. It may not be a motivation for going in to debate, as I'll get to in a second, quite the opposite, but if you are convinced then the viewpoint to which you are persuaded must obviously make sense to you after the debate, again it must fit in with how you perceive the universe or topic at hand, however small, thus I consider it a benefit to be shown a new way of looking at something which reveals that it does indeed fit in with how you view the context in which it is discussed. Remembering this is an important part of debate, which I'll also get to in a second. Next are the possible motivations, those that ideally fit with the perceived benefits otherwise they are not concordant with the abstract sense of beneficial 'purpose', since they hinder the possible beneficial outcomes and only serve to bring a selfish purpose to engaging in debate, what is by a nature a communal activity. I'd say the key here is a desire to introduce others to viewpoints which you feel they might identify with and benefit from, and also to expand your own wider perspective and to be shown new ways of looking at your own viewpoints, possibly even being shown a new one. To properly engage in such debate, you must not only come with the right intentions but go about it the right way, you must want to converse, not attack, to hold mutually beneficial discussion even if neither party is convinced to the other's viewpoint. I think this last bit may be pertinent to some directions that you're taking in here, but that's for below. Can I ask exactly you mean by that? As I stated above, I think a key part of debate in terms of harmonious discussion is the desire to convey your perspective to others in mutually appreciable terms, or simply, to convince, or have the best chance of doing so. I try to make my perspective as clear as is possible within my own linguistic confines, and I think that too is an important part of debate. If you aren't trying your hardest to make your perspective easily and widely appreciable, then you have to ask yourself if you, deep down, actually want to convince people and give them credit as thinking human beings. Or whether you just want to talk at people, and have them smile and nod. You talk very high and mighty for someone putting forward absolutely no justification or basis for your perception of being objectively right. You haven't even outlined your strict beliefs on what is 'truly christian', let alone began to justify them with any sort of basis. That is apart from one: Pretty general statement there, "The Bible". And on that note, implying in a rather patronising tone that I don't know what this 'true Christianity' you keep speaking of is, and those rather smug little quote marks, are rather unfounded. I've read The Bible dude, trust me (as a book, I actually quite like it. I mean this in no offensive terms to those that hold it as holy scripture, honestly, I mean no disrespect to it's true purpose in the eyes of those who follow it. I just happen to think it's quite a good read as well), I was brought up a Christian. As I said above, a key part of debate is a desire to learn as well as to impart perspective, so it helps to know as much as possible about the viewpoint that you are debating with before you even make up your mind. If you come in to a debate not knowing the facts that the other side base their opinion on, then you're gonna be made to look pretty stupid. More than that, it's pretty stupid making up your mind before you know both sides well, you might even agree with the other side once you're more informed about it. So yeah, I know The Bible, and I'm familiar with a good deal of Christian doctrine from varying churches, much as you may deride said doctrine in your nameless, 'right' church. So maybe you should start actually giving me some detail here, what exactly do you disagree about with all these 'hypocrites' masquerading as christians? What in detail does your belief hold to be 'true Christianity'? And more importantly, where is your specific basis for it in this 'Bible' you speak so authoritatively of? By the way, just as a heads up: One of my biggest gripes with pretty much all established religious followings is their reliance on biblical texts or scripture, the Big B being the most notable example, and the one most relevant to my own life and probably the majority of people here. So yeah, even if you come up trumps with this watertight and very specific definition of what a 'true christian' is, along with detailed references of where you draw each specific detail from as a belief, then I'll have words. Start thinking about your personal relationship with God, the difference between faith in God and faith in other people, and your own perspective as a single, confined, flawed human.
Biology is the study of life, and evolution is the progression of life, they interconnect. Religion has a small part in creating, but it does not delve completely on the subject, while evolution is only, and will only be about progression of life. Religion classes can be found in history, because you cannot teach a religion in school, since there are so many. You can however teach the history of different religions.
OK then why did you originally contradict me because my original post was You just said, as I made red, that using the Bible as evidence for anything is false, which was all I was posting about because the person before me used the Bible as simple evidence for everything. For the Green statement, people live there lives by the Bible. People look to it for guidance. People die for what they believe in, even if that is Christianity. Longer ago, Catholicism was EVERYTHING and it did force people to do everything and the Church did too. What ever the Priests and Bishops said, everyone did, so that applies to the Bible too. To the blue statement, you said the Bible provides evidence but, it only provides Inferences to things... not evidence, there is a huge difference. If I say I just got my driver's license you can infer that I am 30 learning to drive for the first time, but the more probable conclusion would be I am 16. And finally to the yellow sentence *grin* that is exactly what your so-called "open-mindedness" IS NOT AT ALL
Again, the red text. I don't mean to sound harsh, but since you didn't understand my original point, I'll just let this entire argument drop. You're false on a lot of things, things which I would go over, however even if I did prove the validity of my point you still misunderstood my original point, bringing us back to another useless argument. Good day.
So what you are saying is, "I am right, you are wrong, even though we both gave evidence and mine didn't even make sense and was just using Bible references as evidence which I said that all statements using the Bible as evidence are false." Which is bubbled down to a simple "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG" Do you still advocate open-mindedness? Seriously all you say about my posts are that you don't need to get into detail and that I am wrong. You do that to everyone in all debate threads, or you just redirect them back to irrelevant evidence.
Wow. What a horrid metaphor. You've basically attributed the Atheist interpretation of the universe as "seeing nothing", literally total ignorance. You also just completely missed my point. Having more followers doesn't mean your cause is *more* correct. If 90% of the world was Atheist or Agnostic I still wouldn't use that argument, it's lazy and proves nothing. "I'm so smart that everything I explain to you wouldn't make sense". That's pretty much what you implied just then, and it's a fine example of circular logic. "I'm right because I know i'm right because i'm right".
He was perfectly within his rights to be there and you are perfectly within your rights to respect and either ignore or confront him peacefully and sensibly.
Hm, maybe if you read my post you would understand what I was going for in the first place. However after you misunderstood my first point, I didn't really expect you to understand ANYTHING after that. Never in my post did I state I was more superior or smarter, I never suggested circular logic or closed mindedness. Have you noticed my trend about what I post to you? That's not something I should be ashamed of. Its just that your arguments are constructed poorly, and many things I try to say don't get across. If you would like to see an understanding debater, look at Pegasi. He understood my points fully (almost all of them) and replied in a clear way. You however, are not worth my time, and debating with you is nonsensical at best, not because I am superior, nor because either one of us was right, its simply because the original point I want to get across, you ignore entirely. And with that I will not bother to continue this time consuming mess of entirety. You know and its funny because I'm not discriminatory and I'm not arrogant or mean (as best as I try at least) but I choose not to argue with due to your lack of knowledge of the matter, understanding of my points, and generalization of my beliefs. Case closed. You shouldn't be the one replying, its his fault he didn't understand the original point in the argument, not your's. You have no place in this debate I have already promised to end. I told him that I had my OWN evidence, however no matter if I WON OR NOT (key word RIGHT THERE, maybe if you read one sentence) he would miss the intent of my posting.
Firstly the big bang is not taught, it's mentioned. Secondly, they don't teach a creator because the preference of a specific creator voids someones freedom of religion. The teaching of an ambiguous creator voids freedom from religion which is also guaranteed by the constitution. The public system does not teach the big bang was caused by no creator. It teaches the big bang was caused, you as a person within a secular society are left to choose whether you want to believe a god caused the bang or nature caused the bang. The state is not legally allowed to endorse a specific religion or any religion over no religion. Thirdly, let's face it, kids get their faiths from their family and a high school teacher is not going to change that. Children are too immature to handle any form of argument in their teen years against their established belief. Lastly, the school system isn't biased. The school system contains people and from statistics we can gather that roughly 75% of the staff are Christian, at a particular school, and that 75% of the school board are Christian. They are not being biased, they are intentionally omitting details pertaining to religion so that you, the individual, can make your own decision. What is biased is the allowance of under god in the pledge, the allowance of religious symbols to be displayed on public property, and the ability for those in power to use god as a political force.