America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

A long one. The issue isn’t religion, it’s faith and what comes with it. Believing in something that resonates with each individual without 100% facts.  Many people on this site almost see government in a faith context - some as the salvation, fix-all to society, others as deep state evil.  Fox and msnbc - good vs evil. Pick your side and believe. The church of Hannity or maddow.

No one on this site really understands the physics of the Big Bang theory, they have faith in the people that say it’s anchored in observation and science.  Even though recent observations by the J Webb telescope has now found inconsistencies in the theory. But you were taught it, it’s rooted in “science”, so you believe. 

Imo Religion isnt flawed, faith isn’t flawed, people are.  The religious pick and choose the passages they want to justify their own value system. ie Where in Bible does it specifically address abortion? 2000 years ago. Show me.  How does an atheist pro choice person (“choice” isn’t the point) know the moment life begins? Show me the science. Where in the gospels just it justify any violence? Show me. The bad news, you can’t - just the interpretations/ rationalizations you choose to see to justify… you.

Imo We are a species of faith. To believe in something. Just different ones.  Again, science theory is a lot of faith. And anything that isn’t my faith must be wrong and makes people evil.  In the future I believe there will be a time when religions and science begin coalescing (ie who/what caused the Big Bang, multiverses, ect - religion addresses questions science can’t). If people choose to blame faith itself, go for it. But in reality the blame is simply the human condition. And we need to grow beyond it.

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

7 hours ago, Leftfield said:

How is it "telling"? There are plenty of books on mythology for children that don't go into the gory details. I had a few books myself when I was a kid. Was fascinated by the illustrations and depictions, and enjoyed many of the stories. Why do you assume she's reading them The Iliad?

And maybe she doesn't have "normal" kids. There are plenty of children who are advanced readers and understand more than their peers at an early age. Maybe you don't like that it's "telling" that they're an intelligent family?

I'm not Coffee, by the way.

I am sure there are some kiddie books with neat pictures of Greek mythology characters. Doubt the little ones need to be advanced to enjoy them.

I can see you are not Coffee. You are in his amen corner on the need for atheists I suppose.

 

[Leftfield 2,601]

57 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am sure there are some kiddie books with neat pictures of Greek mythology characters. Doubt the little ones need to be advanced to enjoy them.

I can see you are not Coffee. You are in his amen corner on the need for atheists I suppose.

 

You're pretty lousy when you get called out for faulty logic, you know that?

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You're pretty lousy when you get called out for faulty logic, you know that?

Yes, it is pretty lousy.

[homersapien 11,379]

23 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

No one on this site really understands the physics of the Big Bang theory, they have faith in the people that say it’s anchored in observation and science.  Even though recent observations by the J Webb telescope has now found inconsistencies in the theory. But you were taught it, it’s rooted in “science”, so you believe. 

 

I think you are overlooking an important distinction between a faith in science and religious faith.

Belief in science is based on the belief in an objective methodology - a self correcting methodology - not just "facts".  Religious faith is based on emotional subjectivity and myth.

Science is all about consideration of whatever information (data) is available - even if contradictory to expectations.  Religion rejects all contradictory information or explains it away as metaphysical "miracles".

Bottom line, science is a study of reality. While the perception of this reality can change, actual reality does not. 

Religion is a hopeful/emotional belief in metaphysical myth. It changes with - and is defined subjectively by - individuals according to their indoctrination.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The problem is not God.  The problem is religion.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I think you are overlooking an important distinction between a faith in science and religious faith.

Belief in science is based on the belief in an objective methodology - a self correcting methodology - not just "facts".  Religious faith is based on emotional subjectivity and myth.

Science is all about consideration of whatever information (data) is available - even if contradictory to expectations.  Religion rejects all contradictory information or explains it away as metaphysical "miracles".

Bottom line, science is a study of reality. While the perception of this reality can change, actual reality does not. 

Religion is a hopeful/emotional belief in metaphysical myth. It changes with - and is defined subjectively by - individuals according to their indoctrination.

My background is in engineering. I promise I get it.  My main point was religion or science doesnt make people crazy - imo they already were. Ie Why can 2 different people read the Quran and one sees peace and the other a violent jihad? I got into a debate earlier about whether Christ was a pacifist.  To me an obvious yes, to another no. People see what they want. Again, religion isn’t the problem, people are.

Btw Einstein was able to fuse science and religion in his own beliefs - though his visualization of God was much more abstract.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by auburnatl1

[creed 1,637]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think you are overlooking an important distinction between a faith in science and religious faith.

Belief in science is based on the belief in an objective methodology - a self correcting methodology - not just "facts".  Religious faith is based on emotional subjectivity and myth.

Science is all about consideration of whatever information (data) is available - even if contradictory to expectations.  Religion rejects all contradictory information or explains it away as metaphysical "miracles".

Bottom line, science is a study of reality. While the perception of this reality can change, actual reality does not. 

Religion is a hopeful/emotional belief in metaphysical myth. It changes with - and is defined subjectively by - individuals according to their indoctrination.

Current science relates back to some "big bang". What can live through a big bang? Even if something like a single cell life form made it, the "every thing" science folks think it some how, some way, morphed "evolved" into a four legged, upright walking human. What are the odds in that happening? Is it reality?

So questions. Where and how did "life" begin? In what form? Is this where you put your faith? Does this faith make sense?

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by creed

[auburnatl1 4,935]

1 minute ago, creed said:

Current science relates back to some "big bang". What can live through a big bang? Even if something like a single cell life form made it, "every thing" science folks think it some how, some way, morphed "evolved" into a four legged, upright walking human. What are the odds in that happening? Is it reality?

So a question. Where and how did "life" begin? In what form? Is this where you put your faith? Does this faith make sense?

 

The main scientific response to that will be virtually infinite planets with infinite conditions offer infinite possibilities. Hydrocarbons are very common in space - and hydrocarbons are the basis for organic chemistry that becomes life. It’s requires its own leap of faith but it’s reasonable. 

Now if you really want to challenge atheists, an impossible question to answer is why/what/“who” started/created the bang. Also, there are concepts such as dark matter and energy which try to explain observations we can’t begin to justify. Completely mathematical conjecture - or faith.

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Btw Einstein was able to fuse science and religion in his own beliefs - though his visualization of God was much more abstract.

I'd say it was a very loose fusion there. Einstein rejected organized religions, and somewhat harshly referred to the Bible as a collection of primitive and childish tales . 

Einstein's religion, as it were, didn't really seem to have much impact on his life, thinking or science IMO. He didn't really believe in direct divine influence, he didn't believe in prayer, he didn't believe in the afterlife, he didn't believe in personal relationships with any God, he didn't believe in any divine code of conduct or rules he had to live by. He certainly didn't believe in any holy book or divinely inspired earthly writings. 

He was pretty far away from what most people would consider a 'religious' person. Especially in America where protestant Christianity is the dominate religious thinking. 

 

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Now if you really want to challenge atheists, an impossible question to answer is why/what/“who” started/created the bang. Also, there are concepts such as dark matter and energy which try to explain observations we can’t begin to justify. Completely mathematical conjecture - or faith.

What if the answer an atheist gives to that is "We don't know right now and that's ok "?

Is it still operating in 'faith' for someone to say they don't believe in any God, but that they also do not have any firm or absolute beliefs in how the earth/universe/galaxy formed?  Is there a middle ground between ' Everything was created by God' and 'No God exists, and I believe that our current science fully and accurately explains our creation and existence' 

Edited October 11, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[auburnatl1 4,935]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'd say it was a very loose fusion there. Einstein rejected organized religions, and somewhat harshly referred to the Bible as a collection of primitive and childish tales . 

Einstein's religion, as it were, didn't really seem to have much impact on his life, thinking or science IMO. He didn't really believe in direct divine influence, he didn't believe in prayer, he didn't believe in the afterlife, he didn't believe in personal relationships with any God, he didn't believe in any divine code of conduct or rules he had to live by. He certainly didn't believe in any holy book or divinely inspired earthly writings. 

He was pretty far away from what a traditional Religious person in America believes or operates.  

 

What if the answer an atheist gives to that is "We don't know right now and that's ok "?

Is it still operating in 'faith' for someone to say they don't believe in any God, but that they also do not have any firm or absolute beliefs in how the earth/universe/galaxy formed?  Is there a middle ground between ' Everything was created by God' and 'No God exists, and I believe that our current science fully and accurately explains our creation and existence' 

I said Einstein believed in god in an abstract way. As for a science/religion middle ground. Yes, that’s imo where this all ultimately ends up. Both need to mature further first.

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

On 10/9/2023 at 8:05 PM, AUFAN78 said:

I was raised in a Baptist Church environment, but never taught not to learn and grow. Quite the opposite actually. But quite curious your religious upbringing that taught you these lessons. If you choose not to share I understand. 

Church of Christ . The lesson wasn't literally, never learn or experience anything, but the lesson was that the only for sure truth in life is the Bible and God's word, and that while there is a lot of information and knowledge in the outside world "ie outside the church" that is contradictory to the Bible, it is all false and sinful in nature. 

Your church never taught you against the perils and dangers of humanism, sin, and outside influences? Your church never taught you that the Bible and God's word are the only important truths in the world and that any contracticting information should be immediately dismissed in favor of your Churches' teaching? Your Church never warned you of the sinful influences in public discourse, schooling/University education, or modern science that would try to tempt you away from the faith and from God? I've found These are all pretty common talking points, not only in the churches i gre up in, but in most Southern Protestantism in general. 

I don't see how being taught all of this type of stuff from gradeschool up until adulthood in Church doesn't foster an aversion for learning and exploration of life in most people. If 'God' is the answer and reason for everything....then what else would you need or want to know? 

 

 

 

[auburnatl1 4,935]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Church of Christ . The lesson wasn't literally, never learn or experience anything, but the lesson was that the only for sure truth in life is the Bible and God's word, and that while there is a lot of information and knowledge in the outside world "ie outside the church" that is contradictory to the Bible, it is all false and sinful in nature. 

Your church never taught you against the perils and dangers of humanism, sin, and outside influences? Your church never taught you that the Bible and God's word are the only important truths in the world and that any contracticting information should be immediately dismissed in favor of your Churches' teaching? Your Church never warned you of the sinful influences in public discourse, schooling/University education, or modern science that would try to tempt you away from the faith and from God? I've found These are all pretty common talking points, not only in the churches i gre up in, but in most Southern Protestantism in general. 

I don't see how being taught all of this type of stuff from gradeschool up until adulthood in Church doesn't foster an aversion for learning and exploration of life in most people. If 'God' is the answer and reason for everything....then what else would you need or want to know? 

 

 

 

I was raised Episcopalian. Regardless, the Old Testament was written for a people 3400 years ago. The New Testament 2000 years. And obviously not in modern English.  Ive always believed it was meant to guide and evolve as we do (ie I doubt a 4.5 million planet would make much sense in the Stone Age).  

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

33 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I was raised Episcopalian. Regardless, the Old Testament was written for a people 3400 years ago. The New Testament 2000 years. And obviously not in modern English.  Ive always believed it was meant to guide and evolve as we do (ie I doubt a 4.5 million planet would make much sense in the Stone Age).  

yeah, the idea of an evolving understanding of the Bible is a big no-no in my denomination. We of course try to interpret the Bible according to what the words and context was to the people and time period they were written in, but our denomination believe in a more literal, entirely divine Bible where all stories, commands, lessons, etc are universally valid and relevant to all people, for all cultures, for all time till the end of the earth. 
 

This teaching likely had an influence on my conversion to agnosticism. I eventually reached a place where I couldn’t believe some aspects of the Bible, and I concluded that if I couldn’t believe everything in the Bible then I couldn’t really believe in any of it. 
 

if I was raised in a Church that believed in a less literal and more evolving Bible and Religion then perhaps my personal religious journey would have led me somewhere different.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

41 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

yeah, the idea of an evolving understanding of the Bible is a big no-no in my denomination. We of course try to interpret the Bible according to what the words and context was to the people and time period they were written in, but our denomination believe in a more literal, entirely divine Bible where all stories, commands, lessons, etc are universally valid and relevant to all people, for all cultures, for all time till the end of the earth. 
 

This teaching likely had an influence on my conversion to agnosticism. I eventually reached a place where I couldn’t believe some aspects of the Bible, and I concluded that if I couldn’t believe everything in the Bible then I couldn’t really believe in any of it. 
 

if I was raised in a Church that believed in a less literal and more evolving Bible and Religion then perhaps my personal religious journey would have led me somewhere different.

I understand. The episcopal  church is a formal catholic-like service but it has a more liberal doctrine. Ie allowed for gay and women clergy decades ago (many left due to that)

Edited October 12, 2023 by auburnatl1

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I was raised Episcopalian. Regardless, the Old Testament was written for a people 3400 years ago. The New Testament 2000 years. And obviously not in modern English.  Ive always believed it was meant to guide and evolve as we do (ie I doubt a 4.5 million planet would make much sense in the Stone Age).  

Always considered the Old Testament not “for” people 3400 years but about people 3400 years ago and their continued failure in obeying and trusting God. I think you have to know the Old Testament to understand what the New Testament is about. I am with you on “guide” but do not see how the Bible could evolve but people can adapt todays problems to yesterdays. 

 

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

This teaching likely had an influence on my conversion to agnosticism. I eventually reached a place where I couldn’t believe some aspects of the Bible, and I concluded that if I couldn’t believe everything in the Bible then I couldn’t really believe in any of it. 

Can understand to a degree. I detest anyone that points to Bible as means of pointing out the errs of your ways. I try to read the Bible once yearly through a systematic program. More in the mindset of interest/education than an avenue of worship. See it more as a guideline than a set of do and don’t. 

 

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The problem is not God.  The problem is religion.

Of course, religion comes from humans. Most are flawed…..realize you are the exception.

[homersapien 11,379]

5 hours ago, creed said:

Current science relates back to some "big bang". What can live through a big bang? Even if something like a single cell life form made it, the "every thing" science folks think it some how, some way, morphed "evolved" into a four legged, upright walking human. What are the odds in that happening? Is it reality?

So questions. Where and how did "life" begin? In what form? Is this where you put your faith? Does this faith make sense?

 

The big bang resulted in matter - elements. It preceeded biology by billions of years.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The big bang resulted in matter - elements. It preceeded biology by billions of years.

True. 6 days vs 13ish billion years. And how would you have explained it 2500bc?

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The big bang resulted in matter - elements. It preceeded biology by billions of years.

So is the science to young and untried to tell what caused the Big Bang? 

[creed 1,637]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The big bang resulted in matter - elements. It preceeded biology by billions of years.

Okay....but not sure your rationale here.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

9 hours ago, creed said:

Okay....but not sure your rationale here.

Wouldn’t the Law of Conservation of Mass conflict with homers statement that the Big Bang resulted in matter? 

[homersapien 11,379]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

So is the science to young and untried to tell what caused the Big Bang? 

Yes, it's way too early for existing or emerging  theories to be proven (IMO).

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,379]

11 hours ago, creed said:

Okay....but not sure your rationale here.

You referred to "cells" surviving it as if they existed concurrently with it.

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,379]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Wouldn’t the Law of Conservation of Mass conflict with homers statement that the Big Bang resulted in matter? 

The big bang was not a "chemical" reaction.

[homersapien 11,379]

13 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

True. 6 days vs 13ish billion years. And how would you have explained it 2500bc?

Not sure where the "6 days" came from, since "days" didn't exist at the time of the big bang.

Presumably, it was a biblical reference.

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien