No, Christianity Should Not ‘Welcome’ or ‘Include’ Your Sinf

[Amused_despair]

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

There really cannot be any "default" belief, humans are not machines, computers or software. If you think that, then you are supporting design, not creation.

Well, after all, his God did create Man by committee.

 

[Radiant1]

There is no ideology of atheism, no doctrine of atheism, so nothing to teach. Yes Atheists teach kids to be open minded, to use reason and critical thinking, to be skeptical of claims for which there is no proof. But these concepts, one would hope, would be taught to all kids. The sad truth is this is not the case in many religious homes, especially fundamentalist religious homes where the emphasis is on myth and dogma.

Whether atheism is an ideology or not is not relevant. You say there's nothing to teach and then go right into saying that "Atheists teach...". What do you say to those who are open minded, do use reason and critical thinking, and are skeptical (skeptical actually meaning skeptical, not automatic rejection) who choose to be theists in one way, shape, form or another? Are you truly going to tell me that these people are stupid or are in such a minority as to not matter? Is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore that anomalous minority?

A straw man argument on your part and you missed the point. The vast majority of Atheists were not influenced by an atheist upbringing, as is the case with theism and its tendency to indoctrinate children from a young age in religious dogma. These same Atheists are college educated at a significantly higher rate than the general population, including scientists - which I didn't bring into the argument, you did - but in doing so, you only add more confirmation that atheists are among the more highly educated among us. This does not imply that all highly educated scientists must therefore be atheist.

Nor does it imply that all theists are uneducated, which was my point because that's what you seem to be implying.

Mirriam Webster:
Full Definition of INDOCTRINATE
transitive verb

1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

I don't know where you get your definition of the term from, but it looks to me as if atheism very well can be indoctrinated, perhaps especially in higher education. Face it, it's not just a matter of teaching someone critical thinking. Even those highly educated atheistic professors can't keep from putting a bit of subjectivity or partisanship into their work or lessons any more than parents or elementary school teachers.

I came across this article that I thought was interesting. I'd like your opinion on it. After the first few paragraphs I actually had to make sure this wasn't a spoof site.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...s_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Seems to ring a bell, and would be happy to discuss in its own thread. But religion is not "searching for the truth", it has already defined it according to its writings and dogma. The RCC has moderated its views, for example the RCC's acceptance of evolution, and that's all well and good but as long as it sticks stubbornly to archaic beliefs, such as it's stance on homosexuality, opposition to birth control, opposition to stem cell research, etc,, there can be no true alignment.

Although I was talking in generalities, maybe so, for now. Both scientific knowledge of the universe and our spiritual understanding of it changes as time goes on.

Hope your mom does well. That's infinitely more important than this.

Thanks.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Whether atheism is an ideology or not is not relevant. You say there's nothing to teach and then go right into saying that "Atheists teach...". What do you say to those who are open minded, do use reason and critical thinking, and are skeptical (skeptical actually meaning skeptical, not automatic rejection) who choose to be theists in one way, shape, form or another? Are you truly going to tell me that these people are stupid or are in such a minority as to not matter? Is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore that anomalous minority?

Theists can be highly intelligent, skeptical, and rational in every area of their lives except when it comes to their religion.

Nor does it imply that all theists are uneducated, which was my point because that's what you seem to be implying.

No, that was not my intent. You're reading intent between the lines that's not there. Atheists/Agnostics as a demographic is associated with higher education and scientists/academics. That fact in no way implies that theists are uneducated.

I don't know where you get your definition of the term from, but it looks to me as if atheism very well can be indoctrinated, perhaps especially in higher education. Face it, it's not just a matter of teaching someone critical thinking. Even those highly educated atheistic professors can't keep from putting a bit of subjectivity or partisanship into their work or lessons any more than parents or elementary school teachers.

"Indoctrination" is most often used in conjunction with religions/cults. But I will grant that Atheists will often advocate for skepticism with respect to religion and religious beliefs, in a parental or school setting.

I came across this article that I thought was interesting. I'd like your opinion on it. After the first few paragraphs I actually had to make sure this wasn't a spoof site.
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...s_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

It's not a 'spoof' site but I would be skeptical of anything you read on this site. This is written by a journalist for science20 who references an article in Nature magazine written by a Cognitive Anthropologist. However, this journalist completely perverted the conclusions of the Nature article, no doubt to spin it in a direction he wanted.

The Nature article describes the evolution of cognitive mechanisms that began to develop with our hominid ancestors for basic survival and social survival skills, but now result in modern day humans having a pre-disposition to mythical/religious belief. By the way, cognitive neuroscience has been looking at this for the past decade, so this is by no means not a new revelation.








Although I was talking in generalities, maybe so, for now. Both scientific knowledge of the universe and our spiritual understanding of it changes as time goes on.



Thanks.[/QUOTE]

 

[Radiant1]

Theists can be highly intelligent, skeptical, and rational in every area of their lives except when it comes to their religion.

Everything except? Again, is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore an anomaly? Are not theories abandoned when anomalies occur?

The Nature article describes the evolution of cognitive mechanisms that began to develop with our hominid ancestors for basic survival and social survival skills, but now result in modern day humans having a pre-disposition to mythical/religious belief. By the way, cognitive neuroscience has been looking at this for the past decade, so this is by no means not a new revelation.

It was new to me, one of those "do what??" kind of reactions. I'll dig up the Nature article. I showed my daughter the article last night, but haven't seen her yet to know her response. She plans on going into cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology and is aiming for Johns Hopkins. She was raised with Christian principles, so it will be interesting to see if she reconciles the two along the way. In either case, we can be assured she rationally chose for herself. :ahem:

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Everything except? Again, is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore an anomaly? Are not theories abandoned when anomalies occur?

No, but presence of an anomaly will warrant re-examination of the data that supports the theory. My statement is not a theory in the scientific sense, it’s just an assertion backed only by observation and personal experience, so from a scientific standpoint it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. As an example of my 'assertion' though, consider Ben Carson - you and I seem to have the same opinion on this - a seemingly very intelligent and rational human being, except when it comes to his ridiculous religious beliefs that have called into question his overall mental stability.

Another political example that comes to mind is Mitt Romney. He once performed a Mormon ritual (with his wife) over his atheist scientist father-in-law’s grave, posthumously baptizing him into the Mormon faith, and still nearly became our president. You and I probably consider many Mormon beliefs irrational, no? But I admit that Romney seemed the less fanatical of the two, even though it's unknown what he would have done had he won the white house.

I'm not implying that all Christians are bat-#### crazy. Most Catholics I know don’t hold many of the dogmatic beliefs of Catholicism so they essentially are what I would term 'cultural' Catholics. They view transubstantiation as myth and don’t hold many of the RCC’s stances on birth control, abortion, etc. You appear to be a more devout traditionalist, no? So I’m curious to know just how intelligent people are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with reason - can you shed any light on that? My assertion is they somehow rationalize away any conflicts, but in doing so are not intellectually honest with themselves; or is it that after a myth that you know to be a myth, is rationalized so many times, it becomes truth within one's psyche?

It was new to me, one of those "do what??" kind of reactions. I'll dig up the Nature article. I showed my daughter the article last night, but haven't seen her yet to know her response. She plans on going into cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology and is aiming for Johns Hopkins. She was raised with Christian principles, so it will be interesting to see if she reconciles the two along the way. In either case, we can be assured she rationally chose for herself. :ahem:

Yeah, neuroscience is very interesting stuff, and btw, congrats on your daughter’s ambitions, she must have a very good mom. It will be interesting how she reconciles her faith with science. And if she becomes a scientist, you could very well lose her to the dark side.

 

[Radiant1]

My statement is not a theory in the scientific sense, it’s just an assertion backed only by observation and personal experience, so from a scientific standpoint it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

That's all I needed to hear, enough said.

You appear to be a more devout traditionalist, no?

No.

So I’m curious to know just how intelligent people are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with reason - can you shed any light on that? My assertion is they somehow rationalize away any conflicts, but in doing so are not intellectually honest with themselves; or is it that after a myth that you know to be a myth, is rationalized so many times, it becomes truth within one's psyche?

Some things are reconciled immediately, for example when in school and taught evolution big bang, etc it was like a revelation to me. The science enlightened me to what the story means in once sense, which in turn led me to understand that myths are not without a grain of truth and are a way of trying to explain something that at the time is inexplicable or ineffable. Why else would a myth be started if not for a purpose? I mean, no rational thinking person is going to believe the story literally, right? Other things are reconciled as time goes on and others haven't yet, as there are still many conflicts, but I think they probably will given time, maybe a lot of time or maybe not. I think perhaps you and I have a different understanding of what "myth" is.

I think that science as it continues to grow will explain a good many of the metaphysical aspects that religion teaches. Science will confirm what religion has known all along. In other words, religious doctrine is absolute truth; however, our understanding of how we get to that truth can change and I think science will have a large impact on that. I think the entirety of human endeavor is a search for truth, whether that be through spirituality or science, personal or public, it's the same attempt albeit from different angles. I also think that human endeavor will never cease and that's the reason why I believe in God. God will always be the something more, or the something out there, or the something sensed but not fully known, or whatever you want to call it. As long as humans have the desire to know something outside of themselves there is God.

Yeah, neuroscience is very interesting stuff, and btw, congrats on your daughter’s ambitions, she must have a very good mom. It will be interesting how she reconciles her faith with science. And if she becomes a scientist, you could very well lose her to the dark side.

Thanks. I think she'd be agnostic at worse, but I don't particularly believe that atheists earn an automatic stay in hell so as long as she follows her own path... :shrug:

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Some things are reconciled immediately, for example when in school and taught evolution big bang, etc it was like a revelation to me.

Lucky for you the RCC has put its stamp of approval on both evolution and the big bang. I wonder what their true motivation is for this? After all it only took the RCC 350 years to pardon Galileo (1992)
Just realize though, that Darwinian Evolution is an autonomous process; i.e., a creator is unnecessary. The big bang, to the chagrin of astrophysicists, gives theists a theory that seems to infer a creator.

The science enlightened me to what the story means in once sense, which in turn led me to understand that myths are not without a grain of truth and are a way of trying to explain something that at the time is inexplicable or ineffable. Why else would a myth be started if not for a purpose? I mean, no rational thinking person is going to believe the story literally, right? Other things are reconciled as time goes on and others haven't yet, as there are still many conflicts, but I think they probably will given time, maybe a lot of time or maybe not. I think perhaps you and I have a different understanding of what "myth" is.

Why do myths (and religious beliefs) evolve and take hold? As touched on before, the evolution of certain neural cognitive mechanisms pre-dispose the brain for belief in myth and religion. We can get in to the details of this maybe at another time. It's a lengthy discussion.

I think that science as it continues to grow will explain a good many of the metaphysical aspects that religion teaches. Science will confirm what religion has known all along. In other words, religious doctrine is absolute truth; however, our understanding of how we get to that truth can change and I think science will have a large impact on that. I think the entirety of human endeavor is a search for truth, whether that be through spirituality or science, personal or public, it's the same attempt albeit from different angles. I also think that human endeavor will never cease and that's the reason why I believe in God. God will always be the something more, or the something out there, or the something sensed but not fully known, or whatever you want to call it. As long as humans have the desire to know something outside of themselves there is God.

Quite a statement. There is so much here I disagree with that I really don't know where to start. The logic you use is certainly alien to me. Thanks for thinking that science plays a role...unfathomably though in confirming iron age wisdom as "truth". Have you ever heard of Deepak Chopra? This sounds like something he would write. And this seems to match with a popular contemporary religious meme held by many 21st century Christians. Melding science with religion can never happen, in my estimation. Sorry I just don't get it, can't relate to it at all. It would require a long discussion for me to truly understand what you're reasoning is. So maybe someday we could get into it in more depth.

I'll leave you with this quote which at least gives some indication of my reasoning, but doesn't begin to encompass my thinking in-total...

“In the face of God's obvious inadequacies, the pious have generally held that one cannot apply earthly norms to the Creator of the universe. This argument loses its force the moment we notice that the Creator who purports to be beyond human judgment is consistently ruled by human passions— jealousy, wrath, suspicion, and the lust to dominate. A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow—capricious, petulant, and cruel—and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness. If these are the characteristics of God, then the worst among us have been created far more in his image than we ever could have hoped.”

"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods

 

[Radiant1]

Lucky for you the RCC has put its stamp of approval on both evolution and the big bang. I wonder what their true motivation is for this? After all it only took the RCC 350 years to pardon Galileo (1992)
Just realize though, that Darwinian Evolution is an autonomous process; i.e., a creator is unnecessary. The big bang, to the chagrin of astrophysicists, gives theists a theory that seems to infer a creator.

Lucky for me? Why do you question the motivation? Do you think that stamp of approval has some big conspiracy behind it other than simple truth? The whole point of my responding to you was to show you that Catholics do indeed think for themselves in which you claimed they didn't due to indoctrination and then later said your opinion wasn't worth the paper it would be written on. At t

Why did the Church take so long to pardon Galileo? Who knows, I suppose JPII decided it was time and he threw Galileo in with the apology to Jews, women, and all the rest. It was like one big apology for past cultures that those of us today had nothing to do with. Probably done just to get people to shut up because acquiescing to the whiney is part of the current culture we live in, I don't know.

You may call Darwinian evolution an autonomous process but something kick-started that process. What's interesting to me is that religion says God just is, He was there in the beginning with no creator because He is the creator. Atheists scoff at that; however, they don't scoff at the same premise when referring to the Big Bang. If you want to call God "Big Bang" I don't give two craps. Why do atheists get their panties in a wad if theists call the Big Bang "God"? I mean, what is Big Bang anyway but a point where the law of physics stops? And, I know this may be hard for you to swallow, but *maybe it really does* infer a creator.

Why do myths (and religious beliefs) evolve and take hold? As touched on before, the evolution of certain neural cognitive mechanisms pre-dispose the brain for belief in myth and religion. We can get in to the details of this maybe at another time. It's a lengthy discussion.

Because they're supposed to, or just to make you cringe, because God made us that way! Much like our natural inclination for reproduction, which is a real thing that can't be denied, so too is mankind's inherent inclination for God. It's not going away, so get used to it.

(By the way, on principle I didn't want to pay $4 to rent the Nature article for two days, so I can't really say much more about it from here. Four bucks to read one short article, seriously?)

Quite a statement. There is so much here I disagree with that I really don't know where to start. The logic you use is certainly alien to me. Thanks for thinking that science plays a role...unfathomably though in confirming iron age wisdom as "truth". Have you ever heard of Deepak Chopra? This sounds like something he would write. And this seems to match with a popular contemporary religious meme held by many 21st century Christians. Melding science with religion can never happen, in my estimation. Sorry I just don't get it, can't relate to it at all.

Unfathomably! Although I realize that humans get smarter with successive decades, that doesn't particularly mean that Iron Age peoples were stupid. What you called wisdom actually really is wisdom.

It would require a long discussion for me to truly understand what you're reasoning is. So maybe someday we could get into it in more depth.

Maybe, but probably not. I don't care if you don't agree and my life doesn't hinge on making you understand.

I'll leave you with this quote which at least gives some indication of my reasoning, but doesn't begin to encompass my thinking in-total...

“In the face of God's obvious inadequacies, the pious have generally held that one cannot apply earthly norms to the Creator of the universe. This argument loses its force the moment we notice that the Creator who purports to be beyond human judgment is consistently ruled by human passions— jealousy, wrath, suspicion, and the lust to dominate. A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow—capricious, petulant, and cruel—and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness. If these are the characteristics of God, then the worst among us have been created far more in his image than we ever could have hoped.”

"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods

Apparently, Mr. Ingersoll didn't understand the progressive revelation of God as found throughout the OT and that not all Christians believe that non-believers automatically earn a stay in hell. As far as I'm concerned, The Great Agnostic's reasoning in which you espouse is based on a straw man.

 

[PsyOps]

Lucky for you the RCC has put its stamp of approval on both evolution and the big bang.

In my estimation, most Christians do not discount evolution or the big bang. They just believe that those events are by design and not the result of random chemical events. And Christianity isn't used to discount these things, unlike what people like you try to do... use science to discount God.

Here's the thing... Most Christians I know will say that the existence of God and this creation doesn't make a lot of sense when trying to apply any sort of logic to it. Without God, the existence of our universe doesn't make sense either. There really is just no explaining the 'why' of it. The one thing that God does (outside of faith and hope) is puts order in it. Science relies strictly on chaos and randomness; which puts even less sense into something that already makes no sense.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Lucky for me? Why do you question the motivation? Do you think that stamp of approval has some big conspiracy behind it other than simple truth?

The same 'simple truth' the RCC uses to claim that a cracker turns into the body of jesus? Are you really so naïve to think that the RCC is the final arbiter of 'truth'? Give some objective thought, unfettered by your religious thinking, as to why the RCC throughout its history has adopted scientific knowledge - as it sees fit. You may find it an enlightening experience.

The whole point of my responding to you was to show you that Catholics do indeed think for themselves in which you claimed they didn't due to indoctrination...

Nothing of the sort was "claimed". I see you haven't changed much rad1

...then later said your opinion wasn't worth the paper it would be written on.

Really rad1? The context was with respect to scientific theory. And by the way, you conflated scientific theory with an opinion post I made. My reply at the time did not call you out on your ignorance regarding the difference between assertions/opinions based on anecdotal evidence and scientific theory. So it was either your ignorance, or just a blatant attempt to conflate the two to support your straw-man arguments - please, your smarter than that, aren't you?

You may call Darwinian evolution an autonomous process but something kick-started that process. What's interesting to me is that religion says God just is, He was there in the beginning with no creator because He is the creator. Atheists scoff at that; however, they don't scoff at the same premise when referring to the Big Bang. If you want to call God "Big Bang" I don't give two craps. Why do atheists get their panties in a wad if theists call the Big Bang "God"? I mean, what is Big Bang anyway but a point where the law of physics stops? And, I know this may be hard for you to swallow, but *maybe it really does* infer a creator.

Right, and this creator would be your god I suppose. So the creator of the known universe just happens to condone slavery, murder, and genocide. And he watches your every move, especially taking a keen interest in your sexual behavior, and will torture you for all eternity at his discretion. But, other than that, I hear he's a really nice guy.

Because they're supposed to, or just to make you cringe, because God made us that way!

Of course, why didn't I know that...now it all makes sense.

Much like our natural inclination for reproduction, which is a real thing that can't be denied, so too is mankind's inherent inclination for God. It's not going away, so get used to it.

Don't worry, my inclination for reproduction is still strong (how's yours?), but not my inclination for god. Given a choice, I'm happy to retain the former and jettison the latter! By the way, inclination for god is 'going away', that is to say currently declining in our country...guess you haven't been keeping up with the latest polls?

 

[Radiant1]

The same 'simple truth' the RCC uses to claim that a cracker turns into the body of jesus? Are you really so naïve to think that the RCC is the final arbiter of 'truth'? Give some objective thought, unfettered by your religious thinking, as to why the RCC throughout its history has adopted scientific knowledge - as it sees fit. You may find it an enlightening experience.

Yes, and I'm enlightened by both the metaphysical and the physical. Truth is what it's all about and since the Church comes at the truth from a different angle than science of course it's going to pick and choose which scientific theory of the day is to be believed or not. Science does the same but in reverse. Big deal.

Nothing of the sort was "claimed". I see you haven't changed much rad1

Would you prefer I said that you made "an assertion"? It doesn't make much difference, pick your word. :shrug:

Really rad1? The context was with respect to scientific theory. And by the way, you conflated scientific theory with an opinion post I made. My reply at the time did not call you out on your ignorance regarding the difference between assertions/opinions based on anecdotal evidence and scientific theory. So it was either your ignorance, or just a blatant attempt to conflate the two to support your straw-man arguments - please, your smarter than that, aren't you?

Your accusation of a straw man is a straw man. Good Lord, this is getting tedious. I was simply telling you I was responding to your "assertion" about Catholics, not about evolution or anything else. And, I'm smart enough to know that you should be smart enough to know that when it comes to indoctrination and Catholics you should just say, "You were right R1, and I was wrong."

Right, and this creator would be your god I suppose. So the creator of the known universe just happens to condone slavery, murder, and genocide. And he watches your every move, especially taking a keen interest in your sexual behavior, and will torture you for all eternity at his discretion. But, other than that, I hear he's a really nice guy.

Well duh, the Creator is everybody's Creator. We learn different things about the Creator at different times, just like scientists learn different things about the physical world at different times. People believe different things about the Creator just like scientists believe different things about global warming.

Of course, why didn't I know that...now it all makes sense.

It's about time you came around.

Don't worry, my inclination for reproduction is still strong (how's yours?), but not my inclination for god. Given a choice, I'm happy to retain the former and jettison the latter! By the way, inclination for god is 'going away', that is to say currently declining in our country...guess you haven't been keeping up with the latest polls?

My sex drive is fully intact and I've done my duty on the reproduction part, thank you. I never once felt I had to choose one over the other. You create a dichotomy where none exists.

More like the inclination for religion is going away, not the inclination for God per se. Whether it be by intuitive knowledge or by evolutionary grooming, it's not going away so get used to it.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Yes, and I'm enlightened by both the metaphysical and the physical. Truth is what it's all about and since the Church comes at the truth from a different angle than science of course it's going to pick and choose which scientific theory of the day is to be believed or not. Science does the same but in reverse. Big deal.

How nice for you that the Vatican chooses what science you will adopt and believe in. But apparently you don’t find it ironic that the RCC burned at the stake those who espoused science for over 500 years. And would still be doing this had the reformation and awakening not taken place enabling science to come to fore.

...you should just say, "You were right R1, and I was wrong."

Get used to disappointment.

Well duh, the Creator is everybody's Creator.

Well duh, the "Creator" may not exist. But if he/she/it does exist, it might not be the god you just happen to believe in. I wonder, do you ever let yourself entertain these thoughts?

We learn different things about the Creator at different times, just like scientists learn different things about the physical world at different times. People believe different things about the Creator just like scientists believe different things about global warming.

A poor analogy. Don't draw parallels between metaphysical *beliefs* and scientifically based theory. There is no evidence for a creator. A 'creator' is merely a 'belief'. On the other hand, there is substantial empirical evidence for global warming, scientifically based theory.

More like the inclination for religion is going away, not the inclination for God per se. Whether it be by intuitive knowledge or by evolutionary grooming, it's not going away so get used to it.

Sorry, but I suppose you’ll just have to excuse me for continuing to expose this nonsense that persists into the 21st century. The nonsensical belief in a god that condones homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, and all manner of hatred for those who worship another god or no god at all. And a god belief that allows one to kill others happily in the name of their god.

 

[Radiant1]

How nice for you that the Vatican chooses what science you will adopt and believe in. But apparently you don’t find it ironic that the RCC burned at the stake those who espoused science for over 500 years. And would still be doing this had the reformation and awakening not taken place enabling science to come to fore.

No, the Magisterium decides what science holds true with revelation, but that doesn't discount the rest of scientific discovery. Remember, a lot of persons such as myself don't see a dichotomy between the two. Everyone follows their conscience and either agrees or not, nobody is forced into believing anything. It's really quite simple. You may be college educated and consider yourself quite smart, but you really are rather ignorant about what you protest.

Get used to disappointment.

You already conceded on the indoctrination issue. Is it really so hard to say, "You were right R1"? It's ok if your pride won't let you, we both know I was right.

Well duh, the "Creator" may not exist. But if he/she/it does exist, it might not be the god you just happen to believe in. I wonder, do you ever let yourself entertain these thoughts?

God is God, Proxima, so there is no "not the god you believe in" at stake.

A poor analogy. Don't draw parallels between metaphysical *beliefs* and scientifically based theory. There is no evidence for a creator. A 'creator' is merely a 'belief'. On the other hand, there is substantial empirical evidence for global warming, scientifically based theory.

I'll draw that parallel all I want, thank you. What's your theory worth if it's debunked later (which they often are), and what does that leave you with but a "belief"? As for global warming specifically, scientists disagree about it, apparently the empirical evidence is contradictory. Oh, and what's the deal with dark energy? It can't be seen and is only known by inference but yet science says it exists anyway and calls it a mystery. That sounds kind of like what we say about God jet and it sounds like a "belief" to me. You can call it whatever you want, it's mere semantics as far as I'm concerned. Your "empirical" foundation isn't as strong as you think.

Sorry, but I suppose you’ll just have to excuse me for continuing to expose this nonsense that persists into the 21st century. The nonsensical belief in a god that condones homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, and all manner of hatred for those who worship another god or no god at all. And a god belief that allows one to kill others happily in the name of their god.

I don't have to do anything. I might excuse you for being trapped in a mindset that is so restrictive as to withhold you from the fullness of what life on this earth can offer, or not.

I kind of feel like this has devolved into a less than edifying discussion and I made the points I wished to, so I'll leave it. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I don't have to do anything. I might excuse you for being trapped in a mindset that is so restrictive as to withhold you from the fullness of what life on this earth can offer, or not.

I kind of feel like this has devolved into a less than edifying discussion and I made the points I wished to, so I'll leave it. Feel free to have the last word.

One of us gets up every morning open to what the universe may reveal about itself while the other takes their cues from unchanging religious bronze age / early iron age writings. This should give you a hint as to which one of us is stuck in a mindset.

And btw, I have lived and continue to live a very rich and full life, spiritually, ethically, and compassionately. And contrary to your pious and flawed viewpoint, belief in an invisible deity and its attendant dogma is not only unnecessary to living a good life, but often detrimental to the individual and injurious to humanity as a whole.

Imagine a world in which children were not taught the exclusive and divisive dogmas of the various religions and religious sects of the world. Now imagine instead that children were taught only to use reason and fearless inquiry to learn about their world and the universe. Science transcends religious tribalism, racism, and even nationalism. Muslim mathematics, Christian chemistry, Italian quantum mechanics, American neuroscience? These things do not exist.

Science is the way humans advance the collective knowledge of humanity. And quite possibly, the only thing that unites humanity in a singular purpose.