If I did, indeed, believe 100% in god, how would I act?
Pretend for a moment that you are absolutely sure- not a bone in your body has doubt- of the truth in christianity.
EVERYTHING has absolute truth. Everything that happened in the bible happened, and everything that was foretold, will come to be. How would one act?
Well, the first important idea is this life determines my post-earth life’s eternity. That is a long time. No one wants an eternity of suffering. So I am going to order every activity in THIS life, at trying to avoid this horrible fate. I will at all times, every second of everyday, be trying to NOT sin- thinking that every second could have an eternity of consequences. It is a pretty scary thought- but I am 100% faithful so I am up to the task.
I would never cuss. I would never steal, or hurt people, or murder, or cheat. No one would EVER, EVER, EVER do these things, if real eternity were at risk. No one would ever intentionally step on a bug, or stay out with their friends drinking (because of a risk of sinning being increased). No one would try anything fun per-se because no matter how much fun you have- if it is at all risking a small sin- it is not worth it- because 1 millisecond of sin could very well destroy eons of infinity of unimaginable joy- so there would at no point be fun. I would simply live a completely ascetic, prayer-filled life in a white room. Unless someone needed help- in which case I would carefully not-sin and help them.
I would never watch TV, in case I might fill my head with bad thoughts. I would never look at a woman- unless it is a sin to not marry.... in which case I would choose the first virgin I see, and then whisk her away, after marriage, to my ascetic hut in the woods- to ensure that at no point are we at risk of adultery.
My entire life would be dedicated to not sinning. It would be spent praying, loving my wife, embracing nature. I would never eat big meals (for risk of being called gluttonous). I would never eat shellfish, or wear two different types of fibers (as are ordained in leviticus). If in my town, anyone was caught adulterating I would pelt them with stones- as is ordained in deutromony, and ensure they are killed at the town gate. Although this isn’t murder per-se because it is required by the bible. Every breath I take, every move I make, i’d be watching... my soul’s report card.
Everything in this life is utterly useless, but at the same time absolutely important. On one hand- no joy or happiness or love I could ever have on earth remotely- AT ALL compares to an eternity being under god. Yet every little sin I do, might actually ruin my chances for eternity- so every single act of sin would be met with the thought that it very well might have cut-off my chance in ETERNITY! ETERNITY! my god.
As a 100% believer I would pray everyday that I would die of natural causes, so that this life could be over as soon as possible- and I could start my eternity. There is nothing worse than having a long-life, because it is simply a bigger risk of sinning. Children who die of leukemia are some of the luckiest humans ever. They don’t have much time to risk sinning- whereas me, with my horribly healthy and long-lasting body have to endure countless trials until god blesses me with death, and hopefully eternal joy. I would wish everyday for the rapture to happen and destroy this earth. PLEASE PLEASE let it happen tomorrow. PLEASE PLEASE let a nuclear holocaust occur- to kill everyone as soon as possible, so we can get off of this rock of a pit-stop called earth, on our trip to eternity.
Please god, let me die on a good sinless day, and not a bad sinning day. Although I was such a bad kid when I was 3 and 4. I always pulled my sisters hair, and never prayed at bedtime- Oh I am going to have to be SO, SO, SO, SO good from now on- to make up for when I was 3 and 4. God, how could I have been so STUPID back then?!
7/27/07
7/15/07
Religion is bad, m'kay?
Many christians wonder why some atheists are so fervently against christians.
Live and let live.
Well not quite... there are numerous reasons that people should be wary of false premises that lead to bad conclusions, and eventually bad acts. It is our responsibility to prevent these people from hurting people or our planet. Religion, as I have tried to argue has very false premises. Faith is a big one. Also trying to convince people it exists, through scientific evidence (these conclusions using the evidence tends to be ill-supported) is another false premise to believe. But what are the real reasons I fight christianity? And please note many of my christian friends do not believe in any of these, but I am speaking of a world-wide Christian population.
Well lets look at some real-world situations where faith has directly hurt or changed something for the worse. I will leave if up to the reader to decide if said action should be called immoral.
Stem cell research is in large part prevented from religious doctrine. Thousands of people could be potentially helped by the utilization of human embryos. Pro-life groups, together with christian organizations have rallied, lobbied and acted to prevent the utilization of stem cells to for therapy (because their belief that a human embryo has the exact same value as a living-breathing human’s life). Stem cells would help thousands of people. Religious thought is preventing people from receiving stem cell treatment.
Religious doctrine requires the denial of evolution in schools. Commonly held theories about the origin of our species, natural systems of change and astronomical observations are constantly being hampered, harassed, and slowed by religious organizations and people whom doubt fact on false premises. Religious groups deny factual science to the detriment of our societies public awareness, scientific funding/support and public thought on any number of levels.
President Bush and many other horrible politicians (MANY democrats included) are supported by people of faith. Good political theory, and sound judgement takes a back-seat to ideology and faith when elections occur. Many otherwise promising candidates are hampered by the religious one-issue voters (whom otherwise would be voting based on their analysis of character and policy). Religion supports one-issue political candidates to the detriment of our effective democratic political landscape.
Homosexual men and women are seen as sinners in the eyes of religious people. Equal rights are denied by the majority of religious people, and in so are denying equal civil liberties to fellow humans. This conclusion is almost never based in statistical evidence or social science, instead their decisions are often based entirely in the biblical view of homosexuality. Homosexuals people are denied equal civil rights because of religious support of intolerance.
Shall I go on?
Environmental damage (among other world-issues) is viewed by many fundamentalist Christians as unimportant due to the biblical prophecy of the end of the world. If this world is temporary, they thereby have less-reason to ensure its sustained existence. Religious people often do not recognize the significance of living sustainable to the detriment of our planet.
Religious faith supports a passive acceptance of any number of other topics. Such passive acceptance of what otherwise would be challenged issues are meeting less and less intellectual and logical criticism. Politicians, businesses and religious groups are utilizing this same ideology of blind-faith to forward their often immoral practices to an often imbecilic public. Religious faith supports blind-acceptance, and many bad people utilize this to their advantage (the catholic church was once the richest and most powerful entity in all the world).
Many historical events corroborate the present position of religion being an evil. Throughout human history one can see thousands upon thousands of times religion was utilized as a method of evil. General examples include the crusades, the treatment of Jews, the inquisitions, and various Holy Wars. In addition on should note the indirect deaths attributable to religious superstition or thinking. Thousands of scientists and thinkers were hampered, persecuted and stopped by various religious groups throughout history. Imagine if scientists could have found a cure to the black plague, or if slavery was condemned in the bible, or if the spanish never defined what a heretic was (as perhaps would have saved thousands and millions of native americans). Many of these historical events have reverberations to present day, and many contemporary happenings echo of this evil influence to this day.
And that is only the very tip of the horrible iceberg that is potentially sinking our ship.
Live and let live.
Well not quite... there are numerous reasons that people should be wary of false premises that lead to bad conclusions, and eventually bad acts. It is our responsibility to prevent these people from hurting people or our planet. Religion, as I have tried to argue has very false premises. Faith is a big one. Also trying to convince people it exists, through scientific evidence (these conclusions using the evidence tends to be ill-supported) is another false premise to believe. But what are the real reasons I fight christianity? And please note many of my christian friends do not believe in any of these, but I am speaking of a world-wide Christian population.
Well lets look at some real-world situations where faith has directly hurt or changed something for the worse. I will leave if up to the reader to decide if said action should be called immoral.
Stem cell research is in large part prevented from religious doctrine. Thousands of people could be potentially helped by the utilization of human embryos. Pro-life groups, together with christian organizations have rallied, lobbied and acted to prevent the utilization of stem cells to for therapy (because their belief that a human embryo has the exact same value as a living-breathing human’s life). Stem cells would help thousands of people. Religious thought is preventing people from receiving stem cell treatment.
Religious doctrine requires the denial of evolution in schools. Commonly held theories about the origin of our species, natural systems of change and astronomical observations are constantly being hampered, harassed, and slowed by religious organizations and people whom doubt fact on false premises. Religious groups deny factual science to the detriment of our societies public awareness, scientific funding/support and public thought on any number of levels.
President Bush and many other horrible politicians (MANY democrats included) are supported by people of faith. Good political theory, and sound judgement takes a back-seat to ideology and faith when elections occur. Many otherwise promising candidates are hampered by the religious one-issue voters (whom otherwise would be voting based on their analysis of character and policy). Religion supports one-issue political candidates to the detriment of our effective democratic political landscape.
Homosexual men and women are seen as sinners in the eyes of religious people. Equal rights are denied by the majority of religious people, and in so are denying equal civil liberties to fellow humans. This conclusion is almost never based in statistical evidence or social science, instead their decisions are often based entirely in the biblical view of homosexuality. Homosexuals people are denied equal civil rights because of religious support of intolerance.
Shall I go on?
Environmental damage (among other world-issues) is viewed by many fundamentalist Christians as unimportant due to the biblical prophecy of the end of the world. If this world is temporary, they thereby have less-reason to ensure its sustained existence. Religious people often do not recognize the significance of living sustainable to the detriment of our planet.
Religious faith supports a passive acceptance of any number of other topics. Such passive acceptance of what otherwise would be challenged issues are meeting less and less intellectual and logical criticism. Politicians, businesses and religious groups are utilizing this same ideology of blind-faith to forward their often immoral practices to an often imbecilic public. Religious faith supports blind-acceptance, and many bad people utilize this to their advantage (the catholic church was once the richest and most powerful entity in all the world).
Many historical events corroborate the present position of religion being an evil. Throughout human history one can see thousands upon thousands of times religion was utilized as a method of evil. General examples include the crusades, the treatment of Jews, the inquisitions, and various Holy Wars. In addition on should note the indirect deaths attributable to religious superstition or thinking. Thousands of scientists and thinkers were hampered, persecuted and stopped by various religious groups throughout history. Imagine if scientists could have found a cure to the black plague, or if slavery was condemned in the bible, or if the spanish never defined what a heretic was (as perhaps would have saved thousands and millions of native americans). Many of these historical events have reverberations to present day, and many contemporary happenings echo of this evil influence to this day.
And that is only the very tip of the horrible iceberg that is potentially sinking our ship.
7/12/07
Does science require faith?
Science is the alternative to religious faith... yet perhaps, even itself may require one to take a leap of faith.
Is believing, and putting ones full belief and faith into science the same as putting ones faith into christianity? Is it one in the same?
Science requires a lot of faith. You have to ‘believe’ and have ‘faith’ in the things that scientists write have been proven true in a laboratory. Say that gravity pulls, that light travels very fast or that fire is hot. You can go out and prove a lot of these and witness them (through sensory experience) directly. But, inevitably we run out of time, or lack the ability to test every little thing we read or hear and so we have to take a leap of faith that some things, in science, are true- simply based on another persons word. We have to trust that scientists are telling us what is and isn't true. (given they already passed whatever personal-criteria we may need to give the stamp of legitimacy).
So have I ever seen light travel as fast as it does in actuality? Well no, because when I turn on a light in my room it is around me, seemingly, immediately. I have to trust the inventor of the speed of light that my seeing this appearance instantly is simply an error on my brains ability to recognize things as fast as his scientific instruments did and that light does indeed travel at 186,000 miles per second. Or, perhaps, I could infer from other experiments that used his results, that indeed the findings have shown to be true, in a different but similar test. Say light traveling in laser-signals over astronomical distances. (when NASA sends a command to Opportunity rover on Mars it can take 20 minutes to get there, and 20 more minutes for it to get back, even at 186,000 miles per second)!
Yet science is a grand-structure and if you knock out one of the foundational pillars parts of the building collapse. If someone proves that indeed light DOESN’T travel fast, and is slow- you would have to observe, first of all, why previous experiments showed otherwise, and also that every science utilizing the previous wrong-conclusion are indeed wrong. So something like alchemy has to eventually be proven faulty, because lead cannot turn into gold (although oddly enough one could turn lead into gold if they had access to some real nifty scientific technology), and all previous science using alchemy's conclusions has to be in some-part wrong. Alchemy's pillar broke, and with it all science using it’s support. Sometimes these collapses can be devastatingly wide-spread (such as Newton’s laws being proven ‘wrong’ with relativity theory, or the onset of quantum indeterminism).
Yet science is robust and is openly awaiting these devastating foundational rumblings, indeed embraces them as a central strength (although these shifts, themselves are always met with exceeding cynicism). The monument of science was always built to be moveable, and breakable, and adaptable (dare I say evolutional).
Yet, this is not blind faith in science. I do not believe 100% in anything because so much has been proven wrong in the past. So we, as critical scientists, look at the world with concern and dis-belief with the hope our conclusions will prove to be of a much more sound base than other systems of conclusion (religion). So my faith is non-existent in a sense, because I do not have 100% faith in anything. I will never undyingly profess my belief in Newton’s mathematics, even though they have proven true every-time I try and dis-prove them(i.e.: use them). For example, by using his theory that a square has four sides and seemingly finding it occurs to be true every-time so far in my 25 years.
Yet are christians willing to change their foundation?
Well, picture a christian whom believes that the bible is the direct word of God. If the bible is ever shown to be wrong (although faith and belief needs no proof so it technically could never be shown.... but hold your cynicism), if somehow I could convince this christian that indeed one little passage in the bible, lets take leviticus 11:12 "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you..”, is wrong, and she was convinced that indeed eating shellfish is not a sin- than I have shown that the bible is only 99.999999% true and not 100%. Well if I had dis-proven the word of god, then the entire bible is to be viewed as not 100% true. the entire world of christianity would collapse if anything in the bible is proven wrong to these devout christians.
Of course no all Christians take the bible to be the direct word of god, or perhaps it is the direct word of god, but our translation or interpretation of it is wrong. Or perhaps the bible was simply written for all-ages and that what worked for them doesn't work for us... I don’t know.
To these non-traditional/fundamental believers. To the ones that admit stoning people is ludicrous (Leviticus 20:13) or that sacrificing your son because you hear gods word is kind of crazy (Issac) or any other insane story of the bible, MIGHT be wrong- well than you have already taken a huge leap towards enlightenment. You have already tossed aside the un-movability of the shackles of 100% truth belief, and are now steadily building speed on the slippery slope you just evoked.
Because if you are saying your interpretation of the bible is different and better than this immovable fundamentalist interpretation you are saying the bible is open to debate. God only gave us a hint in the bible- and it is up to humanity to use its brain-power to find the true meaning of the book. Some parts are wrong. Some stories aren’t true. And now we have a pock-marked foundation. and pock-marked foundations collapse, as will theirs if we press them hard enough to define who,what,when,where and why there faith has come to be what it is. If we ask them to discover any concession in the bibles 100% truth, this will lead to an irrevocable collapse of their highest beliefs.
Then we can start fixing this planet using reason and not crap.
Is believing, and putting ones full belief and faith into science the same as putting ones faith into christianity? Is it one in the same?
Science requires a lot of faith. You have to ‘believe’ and have ‘faith’ in the things that scientists write have been proven true in a laboratory. Say that gravity pulls, that light travels very fast or that fire is hot. You can go out and prove a lot of these and witness them (through sensory experience) directly. But, inevitably we run out of time, or lack the ability to test every little thing we read or hear and so we have to take a leap of faith that some things, in science, are true- simply based on another persons word. We have to trust that scientists are telling us what is and isn't true. (given they already passed whatever personal-criteria we may need to give the stamp of legitimacy).
So have I ever seen light travel as fast as it does in actuality? Well no, because when I turn on a light in my room it is around me, seemingly, immediately. I have to trust the inventor of the speed of light that my seeing this appearance instantly is simply an error on my brains ability to recognize things as fast as his scientific instruments did and that light does indeed travel at 186,000 miles per second. Or, perhaps, I could infer from other experiments that used his results, that indeed the findings have shown to be true, in a different but similar test. Say light traveling in laser-signals over astronomical distances. (when NASA sends a command to Opportunity rover on Mars it can take 20 minutes to get there, and 20 more minutes for it to get back, even at 186,000 miles per second)!
Yet science is a grand-structure and if you knock out one of the foundational pillars parts of the building collapse. If someone proves that indeed light DOESN’T travel fast, and is slow- you would have to observe, first of all, why previous experiments showed otherwise, and also that every science utilizing the previous wrong-conclusion are indeed wrong. So something like alchemy has to eventually be proven faulty, because lead cannot turn into gold (although oddly enough one could turn lead into gold if they had access to some real nifty scientific technology), and all previous science using alchemy's conclusions has to be in some-part wrong. Alchemy's pillar broke, and with it all science using it’s support. Sometimes these collapses can be devastatingly wide-spread (such as Newton’s laws being proven ‘wrong’ with relativity theory, or the onset of quantum indeterminism).
Yet science is robust and is openly awaiting these devastating foundational rumblings, indeed embraces them as a central strength (although these shifts, themselves are always met with exceeding cynicism). The monument of science was always built to be moveable, and breakable, and adaptable (dare I say evolutional).
Yet, this is not blind faith in science. I do not believe 100% in anything because so much has been proven wrong in the past. So we, as critical scientists, look at the world with concern and dis-belief with the hope our conclusions will prove to be of a much more sound base than other systems of conclusion (religion). So my faith is non-existent in a sense, because I do not have 100% faith in anything. I will never undyingly profess my belief in Newton’s mathematics, even though they have proven true every-time I try and dis-prove them(i.e.: use them). For example, by using his theory that a square has four sides and seemingly finding it occurs to be true every-time so far in my 25 years.
Yet are christians willing to change their foundation?
Well, picture a christian whom believes that the bible is the direct word of God. If the bible is ever shown to be wrong (although faith and belief needs no proof so it technically could never be shown.... but hold your cynicism), if somehow I could convince this christian that indeed one little passage in the bible, lets take leviticus 11:12 "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you..”, is wrong, and she was convinced that indeed eating shellfish is not a sin- than I have shown that the bible is only 99.999999% true and not 100%. Well if I had dis-proven the word of god, then the entire bible is to be viewed as not 100% true. the entire world of christianity would collapse if anything in the bible is proven wrong to these devout christians.
Of course no all Christians take the bible to be the direct word of god, or perhaps it is the direct word of god, but our translation or interpretation of it is wrong. Or perhaps the bible was simply written for all-ages and that what worked for them doesn't work for us... I don’t know.
To these non-traditional/fundamental believers. To the ones that admit stoning people is ludicrous (Leviticus 20:13) or that sacrificing your son because you hear gods word is kind of crazy (Issac) or any other insane story of the bible, MIGHT be wrong- well than you have already taken a huge leap towards enlightenment. You have already tossed aside the un-movability of the shackles of 100% truth belief, and are now steadily building speed on the slippery slope you just evoked.
Because if you are saying your interpretation of the bible is different and better than this immovable fundamentalist interpretation you are saying the bible is open to debate. God only gave us a hint in the bible- and it is up to humanity to use its brain-power to find the true meaning of the book. Some parts are wrong. Some stories aren’t true. And now we have a pock-marked foundation. and pock-marked foundations collapse, as will theirs if we press them hard enough to define who,what,when,where and why there faith has come to be what it is. If we ask them to discover any concession in the bibles 100% truth, this will lead to an irrevocable collapse of their highest beliefs.
Then we can start fixing this planet using reason and not crap.
7/10/07
The real problems
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07062007/watch.html
E. O. WILSON: "...We are a species exquisitely well adapted to this planet and that we originated here and that our peculiarities including the ones that threaten us all the time, that threaten your own-- threaten our own existence are-- can be understood by the history of the way we originated in that living world. And if we could just place ourselves realistically in that context and stop thinking of ourselves as semi angels, you know, on the way that this is just a weigh station on a way on up to-- an idealized existence-- change that. Then, I think we would get pretty serious about peace and long term security and saving the rest of life. And-- and-- keeping our options open for the future."
if we do ever get over our personal shortcomings, and disagreements and can begin to grasp science and reason as a society, perhaps even undertake understanding of this amazing world we live in- we could live up to E.O. Wilson's idea of the true potential of humans.
watch it.
E. O. WILSON: "...We are a species exquisitely well adapted to this planet and that we originated here and that our peculiarities including the ones that threaten us all the time, that threaten your own-- threaten our own existence are-- can be understood by the history of the way we originated in that living world. And if we could just place ourselves realistically in that context and stop thinking of ourselves as semi angels, you know, on the way that this is just a weigh station on a way on up to-- an idealized existence-- change that. Then, I think we would get pretty serious about peace and long term security and saving the rest of life. And-- and-- keeping our options open for the future."
if we do ever get over our personal shortcomings, and disagreements and can begin to grasp science and reason as a society, perhaps even undertake understanding of this amazing world we live in- we could live up to E.O. Wilson's idea of the true potential of humans.
watch it.
Dragons
Did you know that dragons exist?
They fly through the sky. They can shoot fire from their mouths to attack prey. They can land on mountaintops and roar amongst the trees and valleys. They like to eat cattle, fish, some insects, and even the occassional un-lucky traveller. Some of them have been seen as tall as 60 feet! They can be red, green, blue, but not yellow. Yellow pigment of the scales never happens because long ago all the yellow dragons mis-took the sun for their mates, and so would spend all day flying towards the sun, though to no avail. They exhausted themselves to death, and so you never find yellow dragons flying about anymore.
dragons can even shoot down jets if they feel their territory is being invaded.
You cannot tell me dragons do not exist because I have a piece of paper that says they exist. It was written over 12 years ago by a young child- who saw them in a dream. He said that he knew his dream was true.
Even the Romans had been known to use dragons in combat against the various barbarian tribes they once fought. Although some of these dragons were caught and in-turn used against the very owners that once had them. I read this in a book about chariots. The book said that the barbarians could launch fire from the air into the roman phalanxes. And after thinking about it for a little while I discovered that it was in fact dragons launching that fire. Amazing. I am amazed that dragons don`t get more coverage on the discovery channel.
so next time someone asks for proof of dragons- tell them about the child who wrote about them 12 years ago. And if they want pictures tell them that almost noone ever survives seeing a dragon, and that they dont show up on film. or digital video cameras (this is why you dont see paintings of them in recent times).
I dont need proof of dragons. I have my faith and noone can dis-prove my faith- otherwise it would be a theory and not faith.
So make whatever claims you want today. And if someone calls you stupid, or dumb, or crazy, or insane, or silly just tell them that you read it in a book, or feel it in your heart, or were told in a dream and that is always enough evidence to show something is true.
cause a world without dragons isnt as fun or nice as a world with dragons, so obviously that shows again that they exist.
Thank you.
They fly through the sky. They can shoot fire from their mouths to attack prey. They can land on mountaintops and roar amongst the trees and valleys. They like to eat cattle, fish, some insects, and even the occassional un-lucky traveller. Some of them have been seen as tall as 60 feet! They can be red, green, blue, but not yellow. Yellow pigment of the scales never happens because long ago all the yellow dragons mis-took the sun for their mates, and so would spend all day flying towards the sun, though to no avail. They exhausted themselves to death, and so you never find yellow dragons flying about anymore.
dragons can even shoot down jets if they feel their territory is being invaded.
You cannot tell me dragons do not exist because I have a piece of paper that says they exist. It was written over 12 years ago by a young child- who saw them in a dream. He said that he knew his dream was true.
Even the Romans had been known to use dragons in combat against the various barbarian tribes they once fought. Although some of these dragons were caught and in-turn used against the very owners that once had them. I read this in a book about chariots. The book said that the barbarians could launch fire from the air into the roman phalanxes. And after thinking about it for a little while I discovered that it was in fact dragons launching that fire. Amazing. I am amazed that dragons don`t get more coverage on the discovery channel.
so next time someone asks for proof of dragons- tell them about the child who wrote about them 12 years ago. And if they want pictures tell them that almost noone ever survives seeing a dragon, and that they dont show up on film. or digital video cameras (this is why you dont see paintings of them in recent times).
I dont need proof of dragons. I have my faith and noone can dis-prove my faith- otherwise it would be a theory and not faith.
So make whatever claims you want today. And if someone calls you stupid, or dumb, or crazy, or insane, or silly just tell them that you read it in a book, or feel it in your heart, or were told in a dream and that is always enough evidence to show something is true.
cause a world without dragons isnt as fun or nice as a world with dragons, so obviously that shows again that they exist.
Thank you.
7/6/07
Kierkegaard on pleasure...
Most people rush after pleasure so fast they rush right past it. They are like that dwarf who guarded a kindapped princess in his castle. One day he took a noon nap. When he woke up an hour later, she was gone. hastily he pulls on his seven-league boots; with one step he is far past her.
Faith as proof
One of the root problems in the christian (or any other religious person`s) idea of faith is that they SOMETIMES use science, and at other times deny science (utilizing faith as proof for their denial).
We should hold Christians to the same standards across the board. You either believe in science, and feel that its many achievements have helped the world in innumerable ways (and hurt a bit too), OR you think that biblical doctrine and belief has precedent to all things and that science is wrong.
Well most Christians take the stance that science is usually correct, EXCEPT when it disagrees with doctrine. So essentially they posit faith above science. This is where we thereby have a right, indeed a responsibility to challenge their views. This grey area- the area where religious doctrine wants to challenge known scientific-claims is of the utmost controversy- and rightly so. Real people are being hurt by Christian dogma. Real peoples lives are being ruined through the prevention of amazing treatments, like stem cells, because biblical doctrine forbids its utilization of the human embryo.
So lets argue with these Christan on these points. Right?
What system of argumentation would you utilize. Ive said it before, faith is not: reasonable, logical or rational. You cannot use logical arguments to counter faith- because the very nature of faith necessitates that you deny logic at times. That you ignore reason or overstep rational discourse.
There does not need to be proof of stem-cells being wrong, it simply needs to be inferred from the bible.
indeed- this very inference is quite subjective. Who is this all-knowing interpreter of ancient text? Is it based on consensus opinion of a certain translation (metaphorical analysis) of a passage? Why are there disagreements among the sects of Christianity. Not ALL Christians think homosexuality is evil or sin. Not ALL Christan's believe stem cell research is evil. Perhaps we should ask these more moderate Christians to argue with the less moderate ones- but then again that is asking too much. We are asking them to utilize rational, logical, reasonable discourse over a topic that cites faith as proof. You can now see the area of frustration.
Religious faith requires no physical or logical evidence to support its claims. They are amazingly out-of-proof when it comes to countering some of sciences` most fundamental claims. Evolution, geological time, plate tectonics, astronomy etc. are all contrary to literal bible readings.
Religion does not need proof. So their stance on any issue is in effect either null and void, or it is complete and inarguable. Either you reject faith- and every claim that counters science, or you accept faith and thereby throw out any respect you have for scientific methodology. You've negated the intelligent achievements of the entire human species by saying a 2000 year old book (not even that old. and written by farmers and nomads) knows more about astronomy than Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman,Edwin Hubble or any other amazing thinker who has contributed to our knowledge of the universe.
We should hold Christians to the same standards across the board. You either believe in science, and feel that its many achievements have helped the world in innumerable ways (and hurt a bit too), OR you think that biblical doctrine and belief has precedent to all things and that science is wrong.
Well most Christians take the stance that science is usually correct, EXCEPT when it disagrees with doctrine. So essentially they posit faith above science. This is where we thereby have a right, indeed a responsibility to challenge their views. This grey area- the area where religious doctrine wants to challenge known scientific-claims is of the utmost controversy- and rightly so. Real people are being hurt by Christian dogma. Real peoples lives are being ruined through the prevention of amazing treatments, like stem cells, because biblical doctrine forbids its utilization of the human embryo.
So lets argue with these Christan on these points. Right?
What system of argumentation would you utilize. Ive said it before, faith is not: reasonable, logical or rational. You cannot use logical arguments to counter faith- because the very nature of faith necessitates that you deny logic at times. That you ignore reason or overstep rational discourse.
There does not need to be proof of stem-cells being wrong, it simply needs to be inferred from the bible.
indeed- this very inference is quite subjective. Who is this all-knowing interpreter of ancient text? Is it based on consensus opinion of a certain translation (metaphorical analysis) of a passage? Why are there disagreements among the sects of Christianity. Not ALL Christians think homosexuality is evil or sin. Not ALL Christan's believe stem cell research is evil. Perhaps we should ask these more moderate Christians to argue with the less moderate ones- but then again that is asking too much. We are asking them to utilize rational, logical, reasonable discourse over a topic that cites faith as proof. You can now see the area of frustration.
Religious faith requires no physical or logical evidence to support its claims. They are amazingly out-of-proof when it comes to countering some of sciences` most fundamental claims. Evolution, geological time, plate tectonics, astronomy etc. are all contrary to literal bible readings.
Religion does not need proof. So their stance on any issue is in effect either null and void, or it is complete and inarguable. Either you reject faith- and every claim that counters science, or you accept faith and thereby throw out any respect you have for scientific methodology. You've negated the intelligent achievements of the entire human species by saying a 2000 year old book (not even that old. and written by farmers and nomads) knows more about astronomy than Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman,Edwin Hubble or any other amazing thinker who has contributed to our knowledge of the universe.
7/5/07
7/4/07
FIRE!
I emailed a christian friend of mine and asked her “do you believe in Noahs Arc?”
My reason for asking such a question is I wanted to know if she would ever take a position to actually defend the claims that two of all the animals on earth joined an old man on a boat to survive a world flood. A seemingly preposterous idea.
How come some christians can believe such a whopper? They actually can pickup this thousands of years old book and immediately curtail and ‘dis-prove’ libraries of historical research. They deny evolution, plate tectonics, geological time meteorology, etc. And all of their necessary proof of this flood was found through a simple paragraph or two in the old-testament.
The problem lies in what religious people, and non-religious people use for proof of a position. This is the age old question of science versus faith.What system of proof does one need to show that something is genuine or reasonable or fact? Some use science, some use faith.
Say I’m at a movie with my friend. All of the sudden someone in the dark room yells “FIRE!” Immediately we are forced to use our system of proof to determine if this unknown person’s claim is true or not. I’d notice there is no fiery light being emitted in the dark room (besides, perhaps from the screen), I would notice there is no smell of smoke. I could look around and see that other people, closer to the origin of the scream, aren’t running. Whatever methods one would use- eventually you would assure yourself it was a false-alarm and that some asshole is being himself. perhaps there was a fire, perhaps not- I simply mean to illustrate our system of check and balances we use to make an action.
One system of proof are those things we need to run through our head or checkout in order to decide. I think religious people and non-religious people can agree on some levels of proof. Neither a religious person, nor a non-religious person would probably get scared and run from the theatre- they would use their best judgment to determine it was a bad-joke.
Yet, how come they are so quick to support Noah- when more reasonable people would simply point to the obvious disparity in the method of coming to that conclusion. They denied a lot of good scientific-reasoning to get there.
Yet faith in the bible is their only system of proof needed for the belief in Noah’s Arc, or Adam and Eve, or any other amazing biblical story . No other evidence could ever dis-prove it. Nothing. Ever. No matter how conclusive, or how obvious- if the bible says it is true- it is true.
So what is faith?
My reason for asking such a question is I wanted to know if she would ever take a position to actually defend the claims that two of all the animals on earth joined an old man on a boat to survive a world flood. A seemingly preposterous idea.
How come some christians can believe such a whopper? They actually can pickup this thousands of years old book and immediately curtail and ‘dis-prove’ libraries of historical research. They deny evolution, plate tectonics, geological time meteorology, etc. And all of their necessary proof of this flood was found through a simple paragraph or two in the old-testament.
The problem lies in what religious people, and non-religious people use for proof of a position. This is the age old question of science versus faith.What system of proof does one need to show that something is genuine or reasonable or fact? Some use science, some use faith.
Say I’m at a movie with my friend. All of the sudden someone in the dark room yells “FIRE!” Immediately we are forced to use our system of proof to determine if this unknown person’s claim is true or not. I’d notice there is no fiery light being emitted in the dark room (besides, perhaps from the screen), I would notice there is no smell of smoke. I could look around and see that other people, closer to the origin of the scream, aren’t running. Whatever methods one would use- eventually you would assure yourself it was a false-alarm and that some asshole is being himself. perhaps there was a fire, perhaps not- I simply mean to illustrate our system of check and balances we use to make an action.
One system of proof are those things we need to run through our head or checkout in order to decide. I think religious people and non-religious people can agree on some levels of proof. Neither a religious person, nor a non-religious person would probably get scared and run from the theatre- they would use their best judgment to determine it was a bad-joke.
Yet, how come they are so quick to support Noah- when more reasonable people would simply point to the obvious disparity in the method of coming to that conclusion. They denied a lot of good scientific-reasoning to get there.
Yet faith in the bible is their only system of proof needed for the belief in Noah’s Arc, or Adam and Eve, or any other amazing biblical story . No other evidence could ever dis-prove it. Nothing. Ever. No matter how conclusive, or how obvious- if the bible says it is true- it is true.
So what is faith?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)