Be Afraid

[mike]

Quoted for the truth of it

I've looked at both sides and I'm comfortable where I'm at, the side that relies on reason and evidence, not magical thinking and denial.

There is no hate in my position either, i just see the absurdity that should be obvious to any rational mind, and make my case for that POV.

The world is full of immature and as yet under educated minds that have faith in Santa, But we know he isnt real.
There is not a shred of evidence god is real, using arguments like "oh well the earth is real, we are real thats proof god is real", is like saying presents under the tree is proof of santa.

The biblical creation myths have been disproved by science, Perfect word of god ?

 

[exo_doc]

I do not want to get involved in this discussion, but my hands have other ideas.

There's an old saying that I have found to be one of the greatest truths in existence:
.............................. If religious people could be reasoned with,....there would be no religion.

That's usually why I stay out of these pointless exchanges,........usually.
.
.
.

 

[Randall]

You see, I HAVE done my homework and I HAVE looked into these things and I HAVE reached a solid conclusion.

Like I recently pointed out to another member here who claimed the same thing ( ironically in the name of sketicism and science ), merely repeating your position or proclaiming it to be valid without supplying examples that rationally address and nullify the points of others does not qualify as valid counterpoint. Others here have made numerous points supported by evidence that contradict your views, and you have yet to provide sufficient counterpoint. With this in mind let's look at another one of your statements:

• Christianity was never intended to be a forced state religion.

First of all, who are you to say what was "intended"? The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with more than one billion members worldwide and the people who interpret the Bible within it are the ones at the top of that hierarchy, particularly the Pope who is of "divine" status. We also find that the belief in the god-given authority of monarchs ( Kings or Queens ) was central to the Roman Catholic vision of governance in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Ancien Régime. Today the Pope serves dual roles as Sovereign of the Vatican City State and leader of the Catholic Church. So what you are really saying is that in your view Christianity was never intended to be a forced state religion. Many other people in positions of church authority in the past and present would however disagree.

But for the sake of argument let's see what the Bible itself has to say ( keeping in mind that the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, is considered by Christianity to be canonical ). What examples might we find of God punishing ( forcing ) his ways ( religion ) on humanity?

1. Noah and the Great Flood ( destruction of all humanity )
2. Destruction of Sodom & Gamorah ( destruction of two cities )
3. Tower of Babel ( disruption of human cooperation )
4. Destruction of Jericho
5. Most conspicuously, the demand that the rulers ( government ) of Egypt either obey God or suffer his wrath, and who according to the story killed every first born Egyptian ( including innocent children ) as punishment.

Now you might claim that Jesus himself didn't do these things, it was God. So what? Jesus is portrayed as the son of God and the one who should be followed in order to gain that same God's favor and Jesus never condemns God for these actions. Furthermore Jesus and his Dad were notorious for getting themselves involved with these petty primitive tribal wars ... Wars about who should do what according to who. You can't get much more political than that. So again, you can believe whatever you want to believe by cherry picking your examples and denying and dismissing the rest, but all you're really doing is creating your own belief system based on your own personal biases and preferences. I'll admit that it's a good thing that you want to pick examples that seem to exemplify the good, but why bother? You can do that without all the religious baggage that goes along with it.

 

[Randall]

OK ... I know this video isn't about religion, ​

but it unnerves me so much I can barely watch it.​

​

​

 

[stonehart]

 

[starise]

Thanks Muadib,Hope you guys had a great holiday. I am back to the grind again after a nice time off.

I could make the same argument about your atheist post couldn't I? That clearly the author is biased against the idea of atheism so he attributes horrible acts to people that weren't really atheists, they were tyrannical sick individuals who committed terrible acts that had absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

In this case I think it can be absolutely confirmed that these people were atheists. In your posts many of the instigators were clearly not Christian by the definition of Christian as someone who believes Christ and who follows His teachings. I will admit that there is some room here for grey. I can't absolutely say that ALL of the people in ALL of these examples were not Christian. What I can say is that the resolve of the leadership that resulted in the loss of life was clearly not a Christian directive. Wars have been fought for centuries in the name of some religion while at the same time disregarding the real teachings of that religion. Some people would say that the US is a Christian nation. I would argue that the US is based on a legal system that came from Judeo Christian roots,however that system is in reality a republic and not a democracy and that many of the people here living under the system are not Christian. So to call any nation of people Christian or muslim or whatever is always a miss in the extreme. It might be safe to say that a nation is predominately something although in the case of the US this is not true any longer.

The sheer numbers of deaths at the hands of country leaders to their own people and others can be attributed to an agenda that was predominately humanist/atheist in belief. We are talking about 259,000,0000 people here.Nothing done by so called "christian activities" comes anywhere close to that.

When most of you here mention religion I'm not sure if we are looking at the same thing the same way. In my definition of religion which includes anything like sect cults and extremes that go far away from the core teachings of something. If that is your definition it probably excludes true Christianity. I have been guilty of interchanging the terms and maybe contributed to the misunderstandings. I can see why some people have formed the negative opinions about religion that they have.

Like I recently pointed out to another member here who claimed the same thing ( ironically in the name of sketicism and science ), merely repeating your position or proclaiming it to be valid without supplying examples that rationally address and nullify the points of others does not qualify as valid counterpoint. Others here have made numerous points supported by evidence that contradict your views, and you have yet to provide sufficient counterpoint. With this in mind let's look at another one of your statements:

Here is where I am not entirely understanding you , and I want to know what it is exactly that you require as evidence. Since many of the things that you rest on as proof to support your claims are indeed theories themselves what is it you expect from me? You apparently need a more substantial explanation than the ones in which you yourself already accept. How is it that you continue to call a theory evidence and maybe I should be the one here who is demanding more proof of your claims? What is a sufficient counterpoint for you? For the record none of the views expressed from the evolution camp are solid enough and need more supporting evidence in order to be considered true. If you want to go over specific points just tell me which ones.

You did use one example here- I said,

Christianity was never intended to be a forced state religion

I base this comment on the Book which Christianity was written after. Where in the book is Jesus commanding Christians everywhere to get behind an earthly leader? In fact a further look reveals that Jesus said that the only mediator between God and man was Jesus. Does this disqualify the Pope as some kind of a necessary mediator? Yep. According to Jesus we don't need a pope.Any serious study into the Bible will reveal that much of Catholicism is a man made construct.They used what they liked and built a system around it to gain control of people.The pope is no more holy than anyone else has the potential to be.

But for the sake of argument let's see what the Bible itself has to say ( keeping in mind that the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, is considered by Christianity to be canonical ). What examples might we find of God punishing ( forcing ) his ways ( religion ) on humanity?

1. Noah and the Great Flood ( destruction of all humanity )
2. Destruction of Sodom & Gamorah ( destruction of two cities )
3. Tower of Babel ( disruption of human cooperation )
4. Destruction of Jericho
5. Most conspicuously, the demand that the rulers ( government ) of Egypt either obey God or suffer his wrath, and who according to the story killed every first born Egyptian ( including innocent children ) as punishment.

Now you might claim that Jesus himself didn't do these things, it was God. So what? Jesus is portrayed as the son of God and the one who should be followed in order to gain that same God's favor and Jesus never condemns God for these actions. Furthermore Jesus and his Dad were notorious for getting themselves involved with these petty primitive tribal wars ... Wars about who should do what according to who. You can't get much more political than that. So again, you can believe whatever you want to believe by cherry picking your examples and denying and dismissing the rest, but all you're really doing is creating your own belief system based on your own personal biases and preferences. I'll admit that it's a good thing that you want to pick examples that seem to exemplify the good, but why bother? You can do that without all the religious baggage that goes along with it.​

Do you really want my answer to this or do you already know the answer? I think you feel that God is this cruel tyrant don't you? Will anything I say make you feel any differently?

A.) Would God be a better God if He- Made everyone with no will like robots so that His plan would always be according to His will?

B.) Made beings with their own wills to do whatever they wanted to do,although being made in His image they have conciences so they will know when things are not quite right.

God chose B for reasons I don't entirely understand. For one, I like that He chose B.) because He knows the truly loyal ones and He knows who His true followers are. He gave the option to rebel but in His holiness He can't allow a counter creation within His plan constructed by those who choose to go away from Him.

As a person who seems to be into exact information,fact figures and either black or white explanations,at least I see you that way.....how is it that right, wrong and judgment evade you?

 

[Muadib]

Lol, Starise, c'mon man, give me a break. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian, you have to realize that you will be lumped in with all of the people who self identify as Christians, not just those that fit your limited definition of what makes a Christian. So, Westboro Baptist nutcases=Christians, psychos who murder doctors at abortion clinics= Christians, and so on and so forth.

If you get to make up your own personal definition for Christians then I get to make up my own personal definition for who was and was not an atheist and in that case everyone you mentioned in your "I'ma crap on atheists" post is not an atheist by my decree. Do you see how ridiculous you sound now?

 

[stonehart]

Here is where I am not entirely understanding you , and I want to know what it is exactly that you require as evidence. Since many of the things that you rest on as proof to support your claims are indeed theories themselves what is it you expect from me? You apparently need a more substantial explanation than the ones in which you yourself already accept. How is it that you continue to call a theory evidence and maybe I should be the one here who is demanding more proof of your claims? What is a sufficient counterpoint for you? For the record none of the views expressed from the evolution camp are solid enough and need more supporting evidence in order to be considered true. If you want to go over specific points just tell me which ones.

Actually this is a very simple concept to grasp and is not hard to understand what ufology is getting at here.

Put simply if you make a claim then one must provided evidence to support such a claim that is testable by others who wish to see that this claim can hold water so to speak (Atheists are not exempt to a degree when it comes to this either).

We can break down the order of the Burden of proof for in essence this is what we are discussing, thus to debate any issue (and I mean any issue) the person making the claim has implicit burden of proof when they are asserting a claim.

Therefore they are said to be the "Holder" of the burden as they are the one making the claim.

For example:

I make the claim that there are pink and blue gnomes that live on the sun.
Thus as I am the one making such a claim I must provided evidence to support such a claim as I am the "Holder" and as such it is up to me to provided evidence to support this claim that others may use to test this claim to see if it is either true or false.

Really it is simple as hell to get your head around.

So lets say you make the claim that the Christian God is the only true god....

You are now the "Holder of the burden" and it is up to you to provide evidence to support such a claim, on the flip side if one then engages in debate with this claim they must provided counter arguments to it but the burden of proof has in no way shifted to them.. Why? Well they are not the one making the original claim.

You can see why religious discussions can become very cyclic and boring very fast.

Atheists need to be wary of this trap as well if they start an argument against the existence of said god for they are then left as the "Holder" and must provided evidence as well.

Having said all that remember that this is Philosophy and as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it if you know the rules to the game then you can play.

 

[mike]

But for the sake of argument let's see what the Bible itself has to say ( keeping in mind that the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, is considered by Christianity to be canonical ). What examples might we find of God punishing ( forcing ) his ways ( religion ) on humanity?

1. Noah and the Great Flood ( destruction of all humanity )
2. Destruction of Sodom & Gamorah ( destruction of two cities )
3. Tower of Babel ( disruption of human cooperation )
4. Destruction of Jericho
5. Most conspicuously, the demand that the rulers ( government ) of Egypt either obey God or suffer his wrath, and who according to the story killed every first born Egyptian ( including innocent children ) as punishment.

Now you might claim that Jesus himself didn't do these things, it was God. So what? Jesus is portrayed as the son of God and the one who should be followed in order to gain that same God's favor and Jesus never condemns God for these actions. Furthermore Jesus and his Dad were notorious for getting themselves involved with these petty primitive tribal wars ... Wars about who should do what according to who. You can't get much more political than that. So again, you can believe whatever you want to believe by cherry picking your examples and denying and dismissing the rest, but all you're really doing is creating your own belief system based on your own personal biases and preferences. I'll admit that it's a good thing that you want to pick examples that seem to exemplify the good, but why bother? You can do that without all the religious baggage that goes along with it.

Do you really want my answer to this or do you already know the answer? I think you feel that God is this cruel tyrant don't you? Will anything I say make you feel any differently?

A.) Would God be a better God if He- Made everyone with no will like robots so that His plan would always be according to His will?

B.) Made beings with their own wills to do whatever they wanted to do,although being made in His image they have conciences so they will know when things are not quite right.

God chose B for reasons I don't entirely understand. For one, I like that He chose B.) because He knows the truly loyal ones and He knows who His true followers are. He gave the option to rebel but in His holiness He can't allow a counter creation within His plan constructed by those who choose to go away from Him.

As a person who seems to be into exact information,fact figures and either black or white explanations,at least I see you that way.....how is it that right, wrong and judgment evade you?

Another classic dodge, which we see over and over with apologists.

The quote was about gods clear and obvious cruelty, but instead of addressing that, you make a case regards free will verses no free will.
As if somehow making a case apples taste good, refutes the example that shit tastes bad.

In each of the 5 examples of gods cruelty there was no free will on the part of the victims, God imposed his value system on them at the cost of their very lives.

 

[Muadib]

Here is where I am not entirely understanding you , and I want to know what it is exactly that you require as evidence. Since many of the things that you rest on as proof to support your claims are indeed theories themselves what is it you expect from me? You apparently need a more substantial explanation than the ones in which you yourself already accept. How is it that you continue to call a theory evidence and maybe I should be the one here who is demanding more proof of your claims? What is a sufficient counterpoint for you? For the record none of the views expressed from the evolution camp are solid enough and need more supporting evidence in order to be considered true. If you want to go over specific points just tell me which ones.

So, to answer this question now that you've read stonehart's post, you're making the claim that evolution doesn't hold up to scrutiny, yet the only evidence that you've provided was an article from a laughable idiot who clearly doesn't understand very basic principles of evolutionary theory. Your points were then dealt with and dismissed by myself and RennaisanceLady, who showed exactly where the mistakes were made and why they were wrong. So why don't you address that and admit that you've dismissed evolution without bothering to clearly understand the arguments and proof in favor of it? You could, without having to renounce your belief in God, incorporate the fact of evolution into your world view, but this would require that you admit that you were wrong and admit that you recognize the value of new information, something fundamentalists have trouble doing. Simply stating over and over that it's a theory doesn't work, like I've said before and will continue to say, gravity is a theory that doesn't mean that gravity isn't an ironclad fact. General relativity is a theory, that doesn't mean that the idea that the speed of light is the universal speed limit is any less valid because it's a theory.

 

[stonehart]

Really I think I should expand on what I am saying here for those interested and to do some justice to having dropped the name of Mr Wittgenstein into all of this.

The concept again is not that hard to understand and is very important to remember when one gets into a debate on Religion.

Here is a wiki on the idea: Language-game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a bad overview of the concept and a good introduction to it.

The overall idea is that you tend to "think" in the language that you speak believe it or not, so if you are debating say Buddhist concepts of Karma then to truly grasp what the debate is about you in essence need to think in Sanskrit not in English or you risk missing the point entirely.

Language is a cultural carrier of thoughts and ideas, therefore you can understand why anyone who takes on the task of studying Buddhist philosophy for example would spend a very large amount of their time learning to read and write in Sanskrit and Pali. For to approach these concepts from a pure say English speaking angle would mean you would miss the subtle points of language and risk missing the point of the debate as I said before.

Relate this to Christianity and remember the language you think and speak in 2013 is nothing like that which was spoken 2000 years ago.... just an idea to keep in mind.

Anyway I am now getting off topic and rambling... just for interest sake like I said.

Peace all

 

[mike]

But on that point of free will

The bible contains countless examples where gods will must be done, even the lords prayer says "thy" will be done, not "my" will be done.

10 commandments.....
and

At the heart of halakhah is the unchangeable 613 mitzvot (commandments) that G-d gave to the Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).

Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Free will ?

Clearly god has sought to impose his rules on mankind , the bible and torah are chock a block full of evidence attesting to this fact.

Now you can claim, you dont have to obey these rules thus you have free will......

But if you dont obey, you burn for eternity in torment......

Thats like putting a gun to a bank tellers head, and then claiming she gave me the money of her own free will, i didnt steal it, it was a gift.

If the scenario was obey my rules or not, there is no reward no penalty for the choice you make thats free will.

But NOTHING in the texts or philosophy of your religion speaks to me of free will.

Just the opposite in fact, It points to a cruel character who uses threats and intimidation to have you do what he wants.

Its patently absurd to extrapolate "free will" from the facts of the matter

 

[stonehart]

But on that point of free will

The bible contains countless examples where gods will must be done, even the lords prayer says "thy" will be done, not "my" will be done.

10 commandments.....
and


Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Free will ?

Clearly god has sought to impose his rules on mankind , the bible and torah are chock a block full of evidence attesting to this fact.

Now you can claim, you dont have to obey these rules thus you have free will......

But if you dont obey, you burn for eternity in torment......

Thats like putting a gun to a bank tellers head, and then claiming she gave me the money of her own free will, i didnt steal it, it was a gift.

If the scenario was obey my rules or not, there is no reward no penalty for the choice you make thats free will.

But NOTHING in the texts or philosophy of your religion speaks to me of free will.

Just the opposite in fact, It points to a cruel character who uses threats and intimidation to have you do what he wants.

Its patently absurd to extrapolate "free will" from the facts of the matter

Yes sure you can have free will... BUT!!! if you do not do as I say you burn in hell.

Free will?

Yeah right

 

[Muadib]

Just to lighten the mood in here a little bit, I present one of my favorite comedians Jim Jefferies describing what would happen if God showed up at a party:

 

[exo_doc]

But on that point of free will

The bible contains countless examples where gods will must be done, even the lords prayer says "thy" will be done, not "my" will be done.

10 commandments.....
and


Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Free will ?

Clearly god has sought to impose his rules on mankind , the bible and torah are chock a block full of evidence attesting to this fact.

Now you can claim, you dont have to obey these rules thus you have free will......

But if you dont obey, you burn for eternity in torment......

Thats like putting a gun to a bank tellers head, and then claiming she gave me the money of her own free will, i didnt steal it, it was a gift.

If the scenario was obey my rules or not, there is no reward no penalty for the choice you make thats free will.

But NOTHING in the texts or philosophy of your religion speaks to me of free will.

Just the opposite in fact, It points to a cruel character who uses threats and intimidation to have you do what he wants.

Its patently absurd to extrapolate "free will" from the facts of the matter

That has been a major sticking point I've had with Christianity as a whole.....the entire "Love Me or BURN" thing.

BUt hey, if you feel you need to follow this, who am I to stop you? If Christianity gives you what you need, go for it.
Just leave me out of it.

 

[starise]

Lol, Starise, c'mon man, give me a break. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian, you have to realize that you will be lumped in with all of the people who self identify as Christians, not just those that fit your limited definition of what makes a Christian. So, Westboro Baptist nutcases=Christians, psychos who murder doctors at abortion clinics= Christians, and so on and so forth.

I think that this is a large part of the problem. I think it is reasonable to identify a thing based on the book that created it, which is all I have done to identify it. The true belief is cause and effect and the outcome can be seen and determined to be genuine.I agree with you on this one. We ARE all identified under much too large an umbrella and villified because of a few nut jobs.When we do well we aren't noticed but if one of us screws up the whole world is watching and its probably on the evening news..........so yeah, I do realize that the definition is wider than it should be and I am in a small way attempting to set the record straight. Matt 7:15-20 in our book is a clear passage that fully eliminates many of todays so called "religious" people,and 12-23 clearly shows that being a "good" person is not a substitute for what is required to get there. Maybe you see my definition as limited. That's part of the problem.

Stoneheart says-

Lol, Starise, c'mon man, give me a break. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian, you have to realize that you will be lumped in with all of the people who self identify as Christians, not just those that fit your limited definition of what makes a Christian. So, Westboro Baptist nutcases=Christians, psychos who murder doctors at abortion clinics= Christians, and so on and so forth.

I think that this is a large part of the problem. I think it is reasonable to identify a thing based on the book that created it, which is all I have done to identify it. The true belief is cause and effect and the outcome can be seen and determined to be genuine.I agree with you on this one. We ARE all identified under much too large an umbrella and villified because of a few nut jobs.When we do well we aren't noticed but if one of us screws up the whole world is watching and its probably on the evening news..........so yeah, I do realize that the definition is wider than it should be and I am in a small way attempting to set the record straight. Matt 7:15-20 in our book is a clear passage that fully eliminates many of todays so called "religious" people,and 12-23 clearly shows that being a "good" person is not a substitute for what is required to get there. Maybe you see my definition as limited. That's part of the problem.

Stoneheart says-

You are now the "Holder of the burden" and it is up to you to provide evidence to support such a claim, on the flip side if one then engages in debate with this claim they must provided counter arguments to it but the burden of proof has in no way shifted to them.. Why? Well they are not the one making the original claim.

You can see why religious discussions can become very cyclic and boring very fast.

I agree Stoneheart. I simply see things in a different light. Let me show you what I mean............ If someone here engages in a discussion on a subject that assumes something as fact when there is reason to believe that what is being discussed leaves room for another view, even though in the course of your discussion your assumptions seem so sure that the whole thing is passed over as if unnoticed by anyone else....but to me it might be the white elephant in the room. Should I pretend that I didn't notice it and keep going to keep the peace or derail the discussion in order to dig a little deeper on the issue?........... did these people make a claim? Not really, they were simply carrying on a discussion about another topic.Who should be on the defensive here? Should the parties happily discussing another topic immediately pull out of their discussion to pacify me? of should I do the same if one of you suddenly decides that I said something totally off base ? Should we forget the original intention of the thread and simply derail threads and demand answers on totally unrelated subjects?

So it could be asked objectively who has the upper hand here or the burden of proof in this thread? Someone started a discussion on a politically charged subject. With a subject line like" Be Afraid" who wouldn't check it out? Be afraid of what exactly? In my mind the burden of proof rests on the poster to show me what they are afraid of and why. I might then counter with my own views on the subject.

Ugh......just got a call and need to go. Hope to get back here soon. Have a good one!

 

[Muadib]

I think that this is a large part of the problem. I think it is reasonable to identify a thing based on the book that created it, which is all I have done to identify it. The true belief is cause and effect and the outcome can be seen and determined to be genuine.I agree with you on this one. We ARE all identified under much too large an umbrella and villified because of a few nut jobs.When we do well we aren't noticed but if one of us screws up the whole world is watching and its probably on the evening news..........so yeah, I do realize that the definition is wider than it should be and I am in a small way attempting to set the record straight. Matt 7:15-20 in our book is a clear passage that fully eliminates many of todays so called "religious" people,and 12-23 clearly shows that being a "good" person is not a substitute for what is required to get there. Maybe you see my definition as limited. That's part of the problem.

Holy bejeebus are you kidding me? What was your first clue? What you've done here is write an entire paragraph without saying anything of consequence. The problem is you're a blatant hypocrite when it comes to your definition, you think Christianity and Christians deserve special treatment, but you don't. So if you're going to lump Stalin in with the rest of the atheists you shouldn't be at all surprised when we bring up the nutjobs on your side of the fence. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian based on one obscure bible verse, you have to accept that many things are said and done in the name of your religion, you don't have to like them, but you do have to acknowledge them. I couldn't care less about what's required to get to your imaginary special place in the sky, that's not what this is about, it's about your inability to hold yourself to the same standards that you hold everyone else to, and that is the very definition of a hypocrite sir.

I'm not even going to address you dodging the burden of proof or your refusal to acknowledge the facts, as they've been clearly shown, when it comes to evolution. I can tell that's a losing battle. Y'know starise, you're really the first person I've ever considered ignoring on this forum, and it's not because I don't like you, it's because you aren't worth the time and effort it takes to try and explain something to you, only to have you disappear for a couple days and then come back and start from square one like nothing was ever said, when you aren't doing that you're completely missing the point and addressing something that has nothing to do with what was said to you, the classic dodge. You really are the most obtuse person I've ever engaged in conversation, and that's not a compliment.

 

[Muadib]

Stoneheart says-




I agree Stoneheart. I simply see things in a different light. Let me show you what I mean............ If someone here engages in a discussion on a subject that assumes something as fact when there is reason to believe that what is being discussed leaves room for another view, even though in the course of your discussion your assumptions seem so sure that the whole thing is passed over as if unnoticed by anyone else....but to me it might be the white elephant in the room. Should I pretend that I didn't notice it and keep going to keep the peace or derail the discussion in order to dig a little deeper on the issue?

Except this is exactly what we did, we looked at your side of the issue, saw where your mistakes were made, pointed out those mistakes, and as a consequence of your obvious misunderstanding of how evolution works, we discarded your argument. You didn't offer any counterpoint or try to defend your view, you just pretended it never happened and came back with some bs about how you were worried about us and how we should do some reflecting on what you've said, take the atheist challenge , and then change our opinions to yours, even though your opinion was clearly shown to be mistaken when it comes to the basic facts. You made no move to address or assimilate the new information that showed your opinion to be in error, you just pretended it never happened and even went as far as to say, "nobody has proven me wrong, far from it." See what I mean by obtuse?

 

[RenaissanceLady]

So it could be asked objectively who has the upper hand here or the burden of proof in this thread? Someone started a discussion on a politically charged subject. With a subject line like" Be Afraid" who wouldn't check it out? Be afraid of what exactly? In my mind the burden of proof rests on the poster to show me what they are afraid of and why. I might then counter with my own views on the subject.

Seriously?

Seriously?!

OK, let's say a Jihadist decides to start a "Christian" church, telling everybody his Jihadist beliefs are based in Christianity and that all actual Christians are liars because they do not accept his version of Christianity. One by one, he gets his Jihadist buddies to do the same thing in an attempt to suppress any other versions of Christianity as these are not his views of "Christianity". They slowly take over many churches, the boy scouts and other various Christian organizations while insisting that their views are the only true "Christian" views - even relying upon blatant lies and half-truths to dismiss differing Christian views and those who do not follow his strict interpretation of "true Christianity." All of this is done to eradicate what has been accepted as Christianity - and eventually eradicate all others who consider themselves Christian but are opposed to this new "Christianity".

If this happened, might you take a bit of umbrage? Would you say that this Jihadist, who is truly a radical Islamist pretending to be a Christian in order to derail and destroy a religion he doesn't like, might actually succeed in doing some damage to "real" Christianity while oppressing or destroying real Christians? Could such a person change the future of Christianity, until it's no longer even remotely based on Christianity even while it's still pretending to be Christian?

Reread that first paragraph but now let's change certain words: "Jihadist" should be replaced with "Radical Fundamentalist Uneducated Nut Job", "Christian" and "Christianity" should be replaced with either "science", "scientist" or "scientific". "Church" should be replaced with "class". The "Boy Scouts"organization can instead be "NASA".

It will read something like this:

OK, let's say a Radical Fundamentalist Uneducated Nut Job decides to start a "science" class, telling everybody his Radical Fundamentalist Uneducated Nut Job beliefs are based in science and that all actual scientists are liars because they do not accept his version of science. One by one, he gets his Radical Fundamentalist Uneducated Nut Job buddies to do the same thing in an attempt to suppress any other versions of science as these are not his views of "science". They slowly take over many classes, NASA and other various scientific organizations while insisting that their views are the only true "scientific" views - even relying upon blatant lies and half-truths to dismiss differing scientific views and those who do not follow his strict interpretation of "true science." All of this is done to eradicate what has been accepted as science - and eventually eradicate all others who consider themselves scientists but are opposed to this new "science".

Do you understand it now?

Someone in a position in power but without ANY background in science - or even a basic understanding of science - considers science as a threat to his religion and is trying to derail it by taking over anything that has to do with science and replacing it with his own narrow interpretation of Christianity. He does this while insisting that his views are the only true scientific views. (Much like the Jihadist trying to derail Christianity and replace it with a narrow interpretation of Islam while pretending it's Christianity.)

The reality is that this is much more pernicious than one religion taking over another. In this case, science, reason and demonstrable facts are being replaced with blind allegiance to one person's invisible friend. America cannot be the leader in anything (other than violence, mass shootings, etc.) if we take the foundations of scientific principles out of science class. What we're left with is.... An Americanized version of a Middle Eastern theocracy. When science is oppressed and religion is inserted into all aspects of life, what you're left with is Afghanistan on steroids.

Yes, you should be afraid. We and any future generations will have no future if this race to the bottom continues. Science should be taught by those who have actually studied science (from accredited universities), not dictated by those who think it is a threat to their narrow interpretation of one religion.

We don't need a Christian Taliban. We need an educated populace.

 

[Randall]

There are a lot of people who consider themselves to be of one religion or another but tend to pick and choose what parts of that religion apply to their preference. At one time I remember the census forms up here having a section asking what religion we were, and there was no choice for "none" or "other". We were either Christian, Protestant, Catholic or one of the other available choices. Consequently the country became viewed as a primarily "Christian nation". That has since changed here, but I suspect there are probably a lot of Muslims who are in a similar situation elsewhere in the world.

I think we need to be careful not to be too judgmental or put everyone with a spiritual belief into the same camp. People who pick and choose what they believe is good from religion are actually searching for something greater than the religion. They are seeking to elevate themselves, but that just hasn't dawned on them yet. They're actually much further ahead than those who blindly obey the book. It shows an element of analysis and discretion that has the potential to elevate them above religion altogether. When that happens, they will realize that no deity is needed in order to make morally good choices, and that their "religious period" was merely one step along the path toward a greater ( for lack of a better term ) spiritual understanding.

All that being said, where we run into problems is when organized groups who believe one thing or another want to enforce adherence to their beliefs on others. Those beliefs may be religious, but they could just as easily be political or philosophical or even scientific. Sure we may have more of a rationale for forcing science on people than we do religion, but either way I'm not a big fan of forced beliefs, no matter what they are. I'm more a fan of rational thinking, compassion, and voluntary cooperation.