Atheism

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, some people think they have "hard evidence" but people say those are just plausible parallels, but not direct evidences (i.e., the "Mormon Blog"😉

Some say that they have first hand evidence/knowledge (IE, Joseph Smith and old school prophets/apostles).

Still, further, personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law.

So it's not like we don't have evidence, it's whether or not you choose to believe it or draw the connections.

You're confusing things here. Personal witnesses can be deemed credible in a court of law because of the nature of what they're reporting. They aren't reporting on intangible faith-based ideas, they're reporting causal, physical occurrences in our universe. It's potentially credible because we as humans have the tools to analyze and reproduce physical phenomenon in the world.

Personal witnesses are not credible when it comes to matters of the spirit, because no one has reliably demonstrated the ability to truthfully discern such things in a way that makes rational sense.

It's like saying a seismometer is reliable for earthquake predictions, so if it predicts a tornado, it's "our personal choice" whether or not we believe in.

This isn't a real argument. Don't tell me you don't see the difference, I know you're smarter than that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I never listen to the radio. I was talking about youtube channels which get tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of views per video: sometimes more than any Christian Talk radio station program will get in an entire year.

Ok, let's run with this, because you have a point here. My problem at this point is context. Youtube allows for more freedom. We're more forgiving of it. What would happen if NBC ran a program that was specifically atheist? Not a show with an atheist character, but with specifically atheist agendas. And they ran it alongside The 700 Club. What would happen?

Now apply that answer to your "youtube hits" comment. If we're gauging outrage, we can't just count "hits." We have to count the severity of the hits. How hard is societal backlash against theism? How hard is it when atheism hits mainstream? Remember when I said I went my whole life without once feeling marginalized for my faith, and have lost count since becoming atheist? Try to guess how much more atheists feel put upon, even if the "hits" are the same number.

So even if you prove equal numbers (still a tall order, imo, given facts cited earlier) you have to analyze context. It's the same reason open atheists are far less likely to gain political office (there's 1-2 exceptions, notable only because of how rare they are). Can hardcore theists lose office because of their beliefs? Sure, look at some of the Republican outliers. But it's far less likely. Which is why, say, Romney could potentially be President, but even a soft atheist couldn't sniff the office. Same "hit" but different severity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know. It's just anecdotes.

I do admit that I may be blind due to my theism, to some of the anti-atheistic hate. But you may also be more sensitive to the anti-atheistic hate due to looking from outside in.

Well, hold on. I'm happy to accept my shortcomings, but the gist of my argument was "It's not proof, but it's reasonable based on the factual premises I'm using." You just took the first part and ignored the second. Let's at least acknowledge the entire argument, not just the parts we want to use to make a point.

I'm happy to say I have a little bias, but I don't think it's so pronounced that I'm wrong here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm secretely your internet stalker. 😐

😆

Nah, you told me a couple of years ago that you used to be a stalwart Christian but fell to the dark si...I mean become atheist. lol

I would like to become a stalwart Christian, to be honest. I'm just not.

Heh. I'm more moral than when I was a Christian, and I'm far more accepting of reality. It really is better over here. I was raised Catholic though, and was until about age 22.

Originally posted by Digi
You're confusing things here. Personal witnesses can be deemed credible in a court of law because of the nature of what they're reporting. They aren't reporting on intangible faith-based ideas, they're reporting causal, physical occurrences in our universe. It's potentially credible because we as humans have the tools to analyze and reproduce physical phenomenon in the world.

Personal witnesses are not credible when it comes to matters of the spirit, because no one has reliably demonstrated the ability to truthfully discern such things in a way that makes rational sense.

It's like saying a seismometer is reliable for earthquake predictions, so if it predicts a tornado, it's "our personal choice" whether or not we believe in.

This isn't a real argument. Don't tell me you don't see the difference, I know you're smarter than that.

I obviously disagree.

The items I listed are forms of evidence. It is whether or not you choose to believe those evidences work for you.

The "no evidence" argument has always been dishonest from the anti-theistic side.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, let's run with this, because you have a point here. My problem at this point is context. Youtube allows for more freedom. We're more forgiving of it. What would happen if NBC ran a program that was specifically atheist? Not a show with an atheist character, but with specifically atheist agendas. And they ran it alongside The 700 Club. What would happen?

I guess you don't see the subtle "anti-theistic" plugs that I do, all the time, from the media.

It's passive, subtle, and not obvious unless you look for it.

At the same time, mentioning "god" is not the same thing as laughing at a Christian scientist that believes in an literal Adam and Eve (real story I heard on the radio).

Originally posted by Digi
Now apply that answer to your "youtube hits" comment. If we're gauging outrage, we can't just count "hits." We have to count the severity of the hits. How hard is societal backlash against theism? How hard is it when atheism hits mainstream? Remember when I said I went my whole life without once feeling marginalized for my faith, and have lost count since becoming atheist? Try to guess how much more atheists feel put upon, even if the "hits" are the same number.

No, not hits, watches. Make sure you get the right terms. 😄

And then look at the youtube comments to see how hard the "backlash" is against them.

The radio? None. I mean, how often have you ever heard a follow up story receiving backlash? Only those programs that allow that to happen, can it occur.

And, for me, I get constant anti-theistic bombardment, like I mentioned earlier: Media, friends, interwebz.

Originally posted by Digi
Even if you prove equal numbers (still a tall order, imo, given facts cited earlier) you have to analyze context. It's the same reason open atheists are far less likely to gain political office (there's 1-2 exceptions, notable only because of how rare they are).

I don't see equal numbers.

And, yes, it's hard to get elected in a nation like the US because of how theistic everyone is.

Norway? Not so much.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, hold on. I'm happy to accept my shortcomings, but the gist of my argument was "It's not proof, but it's reasonable based on the factual premises I'm using." You just took the first part and ignored the second. Let's at least acknowledge the entire argument, not just the parts we want to use to make a point.

I wasn't interested in the next part, obviously.

I only quoted what information I was interested in discussing. If I don't do that, our posts will become pages and pages long. I don't want to do that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I obviously disagree.

The items I listed are forms of evidence. It is whether or not you choose to believe those evidences work for you.

The "no evidence" argument has always been dishonest from the anti-theistic side.

You don't believe your own argument. If someone were to tell you they saw a goat outside their house, and that they "sensed" a moose outside as well, you'd inherently give more credence to the goat and be less likely to believe the moose is there. One type of evidence is clearly different from the other. That's literally the difference between eyewitness testimony in court and arguments for God.

You can believe in the moose if you want. Personal choice, as you say. But we all know it's less likely.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you don't see the subtle "anti-theistic" plugs that I do, all the time, from the media.

It's passive, subtle, and not obvious unless you look for it.

At the same time, mentioning "god" is not the same thing as laughing at a Christian scientist that believes in an literal Adam and Eve (real story I heard on the radio).

There are degrees, yes. Maybe you get more as a....Mormon, yeah? More so than, say, Protestants or Catholics. So I can see we're you're coming from. But as before, there's data to refute you. More severe than I'm painting it, perhaps. And a great case for making impassioned pleas for removing ALL forms of such animosity. But still not worse than atheists receive.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not hits, watches. Make sure you get the right terms. 😄

And then look at the youtube comments to see how hard the "backlash" is against them.

The radio? None. I mean, how often have you ever heard a follow up story receiving backlash? Only those programs that allow that to happen, can it occur.

Clearly I meant watches when I said hits. They mean the same thing in youtube lingo. I just used the term 'hits' so I could apply it to other realms later in the discussion. Let's not get catty about semantics here.

Again, youtube's a more free environment. There's little to no chance of legitimate real world consequences. Backlash exists on both sides, I've said that from the beginning. Yet there exists a point of societal tolerance for either, and you're wrong if you think it's as harsh for theists.

Again, we have evidence spanning decades for this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Norway? Not so much.

We haven't been talking about Norway at all. Once or twice I specifically mention the US and even specific states. Straw man.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I only quoted what information I was interested in discussing. If I don't do that, our posts will become pages and pages long. I don't want to do that.

Ok. But then you aren't actually refuting my logic, you're just reiterating your side. You can acknowledge a point and respond to it without quoting it.

Originally posted by Digi
You don't believe your own argument. If someone were to tell you they saw a goat outside their house, and that they "sensed" a moose outside as well, you'd inherently give more credence to the goat and be less likely to believe the moose is there. One type of evidence is clearly different from the other. That's literally the difference between eyewitness testimony in court and arguments for God.

You can believe in the moose if you want. Personal choice, as you say. But we all know it's less likely.

Your examples are wrong.

If someone said that they heard a goat that sounded just like their own goat, by a well, then, yes, that's what I'm referring to.

Versus someone who said they didn't see the goat standing 2 miles away (but still looking for it).

But those examples fail because there should be nothing like the God stuff....

Originally posted by Digi
There are degrees, yes. Maybe you get more as a....Mormon, yeah? More so than, say, Protestants or Catholics. So I can see we're you're coming from. But as before, there's data to refute you. More severe than I'm painting it, perhaps. Still not worse than atheists receive.

In my personal experience, atheists are more agressive and mean spirited than any of theistic people I know. This includes youtube celebs, news, message boards, etc.

Originally posted by Digi
Clearly I meant watches when I said hits. They mean the same thing in youtube lingo. I just used the term 'hits' so I could apply it to other realms later in the discussion. Let's not get catty about semantics here.

I included a smilie for a reason. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
Again, youtube's a more free environment. There's little to no chance of legitimate real world consequences. Backlash exists on both sides, I've said that from the beginning. Yet there exists a point of societal tolerance for either, and you're lying if you think it's as harsh for theists..

I see all of this as irrelevant to the actual point: more media, more penetration, more people.

Originally posted by Digi
We haven't been talking about Norway at all. Once or twice I specifically mention the US and even specific states. Straw man.

No, not strawman.

There's more than one country in this world. You may want to only talk about the US, I don't.

Norway is mostly atheists.

The conclusion you WERE supposed to draw is this: majority demographics sometimes choose people like the majority.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your examples are wrong.

If someone said that they heard a goat that sounded just like their own goat, by a well, then, yes, that's what I'm referring to.

Versus someone who said they didn't see the goat standing 2 miles away (but still looking for it).

But those examples fail because there should be nothing like the God stuff....

I think you need to be more clear here, I didn't understand it.

I don't see how it could invalidate my analogy though. You're talking about sensing something in the abstract (God/moose) as opposed to sensing something in a physical sense (court/goat). We can believe one. But no rational person, with no outside influences, would believe someone "sensing" a moose.

Testimony of the moose wouldn't hold up in court, either. 😉 If you are going to keep using that, so will I.

I can hear the person living above me taking a shower. I think she's wearing earrings. In fact, I'm sure she is, though I can't see it. Which statement do you believe? Which would hold up in court?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my personal experience, atheists are more agressive and mean spirited than any of theistic people I know. This includes youtube celebs, news, message boards, etc.

I agree, they can be vehement as hell. But I'd like to hear your take on my earlier question: Why do you think that is? No one would be that incensed because of an academic disagreement and nothing else. No, the angry ones are that way because they were pushed there by societal pressures. It's defensive behavior. Pointing out how angry they can be is a valid point...but it's one for either side of our debate here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I included a smilie for a reason. 😐

Ah. 🙂 I get tunnel-vision in religious debates.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not strawman.

There's more than one country in this world. You may want to only talk about the US, I don't.

Norway is mostly atheists.

The conclusion you WERE supposed to draw is this: majority demographics sometimes choose people like the majority.

I don't know the first thing about Norway. I don't "want" to talk about any one country, but tend to only debate about that which I can say I am informed about. Atheist stereotyping is a legit problem in the US. In prevalence much more so than severity, as I outlined the terms earlier. That should be irrefutable. It might not be in Norway. That would be an entirely different discussion.

Also, the last line in that quote, amusingly, makes my point for me. Yes, in-groups and majorities tend to marginalize those outside themselves. That is true of many social groups in any country. I never said atheists are immune to such tendencies (though it would be harder for them to do so on a large scale since there is no built-in infrastructure to them as a group, as there is with religions and political factions). But atheists are the most mistrusted cultural group in the country, period, and have been since they recorded such data (or rather, 3rd currently and 1st at every other point we've recorded). When have you refuted that in an empirical manner?

Originally posted by Digi
I think you need to be more clear here, I didn't understand it.

I don't see how it could invalidate my analogy though. You're talking about sensing something in the abstract (God/moose) as opposed to sensing something in a physical sense (court/goat). We can believe one. But no rational person, with no outside influences, would believe someone "sensing" a moose.

Testimony of the moose wouldn't hold up in court, either. 😉 If you are going to keep using that, so will I.

I can hear the person living above me taking a shower. I think she's wearing earrings. In fact, I'm sure she is, though I can't see it. Which statement do you believe? Which would hold up in court?

I think the one about hearing the goat bleating by the well, recognizing it's "voice" but not actually seeing the goat works best.

But, still, I don't like any of the analogies because I think God speaks to/through our spirits and then our spirits to our brains.

Originally posted by Digi
I agree, they can be vehement as hell.

Let me clear something up: I was not talking about you. I think you're awesome to talk to about this stuff.

Originally posted by Digi
But I'd like to hear your take on my earlier question: Why do you think that is? No one would be that incensed because of an academic disagreement and nothing else. No, the angry ones are that way because they were pushed there by societal pressures. It's defensive behavior. Pointing out how angry they can be is a valid point...but it's one for either side of our debate here.

I didn't know you asked (I skim read most posts).

To answer the question, I think for the same reasons that theists (mainly Christians and Muslims) get so preachy are the same reasons atheists do as well: they don't want their fellow man to wallow in ignorance. They think they can "save" them.

For the atheist, it's beacuse it's very silly stuff and these people are wasting years of their life on hokey pokey.

For the theists, it's because they think the other can live their life so much better with more God in it because the enternities are what matters most.

I think there's a happy middle ground: I have only known one atheist turn theist in my entire life. My personal experience has been "once you go atheist, you really don't go back."

So what's the middle ground? Don't try to preach to atheists and atheists should leave the religion bashing to the religions.

The exceptions:

1. A particular mean-spirited theist preaching and insulting. Don't hold back.
2. A decent "theist" being moved upon by the Spirit (rare exception).

I see #2 as being rare...very rare. So rare that you would have better luck seeing a "healing miracle". I may be jaded but I don't think the Spirit would prompt some (legitimately) to preach to an atheist. Even if gently or lovingly, I don't see how it would do any good.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah. 🙂 I get tunnel-vision in religious debates.

No worries: I was trying to go out of my way to be a smartass about it because it seemed we were getting too serious.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't know the first thing about Norway. I don't "want" to talk about any one country, but tend to only debate about that which I can say I am informed about. Atheist stereotyping is a legit problem in the US. In prevalence much more so than severity, as I outlined the terms earlier. That should be irrefutable. It might not be in Norway. That would be an entirely different discussion.

Also, the last line in that quote, amusingly, makes my point for me. Yes, in-groups and majorities tend to marginalize those outside themselves. That is true of many social groups in any country. I never said atheists are immune to such tendencies (though it would be harder for them to do so on a large scale since there is no built-in infrastructure to them as a group, as there is with religions and political factions). But atheists are the most mistrusted cultural group in the country, period, and have been since they recorded such data (or rather, 3rd currently and 1st at every other point we've recorded). When have you refuted that in an empirical manner?

It was my fault because I didn't make my point very clear. I was trying to make the point, indirectly, that humans tend to like people in public office that are most like them (the "have a beer with them" effect). I don't fully agree that it's that simple, but I do think that is does play a role.

Since I am very adamant about not talking about things I don't want to, there's no way I could continue to talk about Norway (I do not want to make myself hypocritical).

And I don't remember even caring/discussing about atheists being distrusted in America. I would be willing to wager that the majority of Americans don't come close to understanding American History. So it does not surprise me that Americans are "scared" of "amoral materialists."

Originally posted by King Kandy
But their whole objection to science is a literal interpretation of those beliefs. Obviously if Christianity presented ideas that were scientific, they would not be anti-science; they would be all for it. Since it would validate their beliefs. The reason fundamentalist christians are against science is because it invalidates their interpretation. How this could be considered "off topic" blows my mind.

You are choosing specific beliefs that differ even between individuals of the same belief system. I was talking about the belief system itself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You are choosing specific beliefs that differ even between individuals of the same belief system. I was talking about the belief system itself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the one about hearing the goat bleating by the well, recognizing it's "voice" but not actually seeing the goat works best.

But, still, I don't like any of the analogies because I think God speaks to/through our spirits and then our spirits to our brains.

You're kinda contradicting yourself hear. God speaks to our spirits but you can "hear" the goat's voice. It's mixing analogies. My first one still works well, it explains the relationship of the two methods of "knowing" and how one is more believable than the other.

My point is this: there isn't a tangible, demonstrable, testable, or logical way way we perceive God. If you "hear" a goat, that's still an appeal to verifiable data. In no way, chemically or psychologically, is "hearing God's voice" any different than simply having an intuition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me clear something up: I was not talking about you. I think you're awesome to talk to about this stuff.

You too. Keeping religious discussion civil is hard and I'm not the greatest at it even after so much practice. I generally have a hard time engaging theists for any length of time, so this is a bit refreshing.

I think you're completely wrong, of course, and believe in archaic hoo-doo, but I respect your approach to it. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
To answer the question, I think for the same reasons that theists (mainly Christians and Muslims) get so preachy are the same reasons atheists do as well: they don't want their fellow man to wallow in ignorance. They think they can "save" them.

For the atheist, it's beacuse it's very silly stuff and these people are wasting years of their life on hokey pokey.

For the theists, it's because they think the other can live their life so much better with more God in it because the enternities are what matters most.

I think there's some projection here. Atheists aren't really "saving" them, because there's no salvation in their belief system. There's less incentive to bring people in, because you aren't sparing them from anything resembling eternal damnation or salvation.

Dispelling ignorance, sure. That can and is sometimes a motivation. But I think such justifications fail utterly in explaining the central question: why are angry atheists so angry, and why does there seem to be a lot of them? I think it's clear that it's a response to how they have been treated socially. Pure academic disagreement and/or altruistic intentions of teaching don't account for such reactions. Thus, "angry atheists" are actually just as much evidence for societal intolerance of atheists as it is for atheist intolerance of religion, and perhaps more so.

Anyway, there's also ample data to suggest that civility, and first beginning with what you and an opponent agree upon, lead to an increased likelihood of changing another person's mind. If such atheists were truly out to dispel ignorance in a purely academic manner, they'd eventually adopt different tactics. The fact that "yelling from the mountaintop" seems to be the status quo means that it's fulfilling a social need in them, not actually trying to achieve results.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think there's a happy middle ground: I have only known one atheist turn theist in my entire life. My personal experience has been "once you go atheist, you really don't go back."

So what's the middle ground? Don't try to preach to atheists and atheists should leave the religion bashing to the religions.

The exceptions:

1. A particular mean-spirited theist preaching and insulting. Don't hold back.
2. A decent "theist" being moved upon by the Spirit (rare exception).

I see #2 as being rare...very rare. So rare that you would have better luck seeing a "healing miracle". I may be jaded but I don't think the Spirit would prompt some (legitimately) to preach to an atheist. Even if gently or lovingly, I don't see how it would do any good.

Agreed for the most part. I don't pull punches about certain aspects of religion that I feel are harmful to other people. I feel that vehemence is deserved in such cases. The unfortunate caveat there, however, is that it's usually impossible to detach an attack on a belief from an attack on the person believing it. At least, to the person whose belief it is (since I can do this rather easily, but I'm the "attacker"😉.

I don't see it as a religious attack if I go after someone who is being a dick, to put it bluntly. That's just not abiding jerks, and has very little to do with religion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I don't remember even caring/discussing about atheists being distrusted in America. I would be willing to wager that the majority of Americans don't come close to understanding American History. So it does not surprise me that Americans are "scared" of "amoral materialists."

But it remains central to my point that they are unequivocally more put-upon in the US than theists. Not only is it one of the more religious nations, but that data proves that mistrust of atheists is more widespread than any other religion or cultural group. It also plays back into why "angry atheists" surface with such regularity, since it's as a defense mechanism.

...

On a related note, I do want to return to an earlier point from our discussion about the approach and methodology of many non-religious or even particularly atheist groups. Dating back to the earliest works of Carl Sagan, the modern non-religious or skeptical "movement" (I use the term loosely) dips its hand into more than just religion, and generally approaches things in a civil manner. Any outrage you see is usually from either individuals or very small groups. No "church of atheism" exists, so we have to find sociological equivalents, and the closest are to be found in many country, state, county, and city Scientific or Skeptical Societies. A simple google search will turn up dozens, and this is where organized non-religiosity happens. These groups sponsor talks, discussions, debates, produce educational materials, and when specifically engaged in debates of claims, it ranges from the abjectly religious ones to more vague paranormal claims that aren't under the guise of a particular religion, and they handle them in a civil, if firm, manner.

I'd be shocked to see an openly hostile organization of any significant size last for long. I'm unaware of any large or mid-sized atheist organization that is hostile. If they exist, let me know. What you see when you say "a lot" or "most" are the obscure statistical margins yelling so loud that it's impossible not to hear them.

Secular culture may put pressure on devout religiosity. In fact, it certainly does. But the pressures are less overt because we're still far more tolerant of religion than irreligion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously, a belief system by itself is nothing. "Christianity" can't persecute science because it is just a concept. None of this stuff has any meaning if there are no practitioners, so what you're talking about is an exercise in futility.

Not entirely. If, say, the religion demanded that it's followers persecute science. Or demanded that it's followers do something that required persecuting science then the religion would be an active scientific problem. The question was if religion does that. Obviously religion cannot physically do it itself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The question was if religion does that.

when was that the question anyone was debating?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not entirely. If, say, the religion demanded that it's followers persecute science. Or demanded that it's followers do something that required persecuting science then the religion would be an active scientific problem. The question was if religion does that. Obviously religion cannot physically do it itself.

Originally posted by inimalist
when was that the question anyone was debating?

The question was whether religion hinders science. I thought that's what we were talking about.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That would depend on your interpretation, obviously. A fundamentalist interpretation of the bible is certainly conducive to that behavior.

I don't know about that. Just because you disagree with science doesn't mean you are suppose to persecute it. Even a fundamentalist interpretation never says you should persecute science. A lot of the time disagreeing with scientific findings is what furthers scientific growth. If fundamentalist Christians are persecuting science, they certainly aren't doing it because their religion tells them to.

Science as we know it did not even exist when the bible was written so it couldn't say "persecute science" anymore than it could say "persecute cars". Science advances when it is criticized by people who actually understand it. Not when people blindly toss out arguments that have already been refuted in academic circles. If you don't think fundamentalists being anti-science has to do with their religion, what could it possibly result from? There is a reason they are called "fundamentalists". If the bible taught that evolution created man, no fundamentalist in the world would be anti-evolution. So how could you conceivably think it has nothing to do with their religion? You are great at this sort of self-blinding behavior.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Science as we know it did not even exist when the bible was written so it couldn't say "persecute science" anymore than it could say "persecute cars".

So you think that, according to Christianity, if God came down and wrote a new modern day Bible there would be a passage included instructing it's followers to persecute science?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Science advances when it is criticized by people who actually understand it. Not when people blindly toss out arguments that have already been refuted in academic circles. If you don't think fundamentalists being anti-science has to do with their religion, what could it possibly result from? There is a reason they are called "fundamentalists". If the bible taught that evolution created man, no fundamentalist in the world would be anti-evolution. So how could you conceivably think it has nothing to do with their religion? You are great at this sort of self-blinding behavior.

I'm not saying the religion plays absolutely no role. In any given decision there are millions of factors that likely influence the decision in some way, consciously or subconsciously. I'm simply saying the religion never tells them to be anti science. That is a decision they make all on their own. In the end, it is the individual's fault they are anti science, not the religions. The religion never told them to persecute science.

I gave the teacher example earlier. If a teacher instructs their students not to chew gum, but the students do so anyway, does the problem lie with the teacher or the students? It seems silly to blame the teacher for their student's decision, even if the teacher was a factor in the student's decision (for example: "I'm going to chew gum to get back at the teacher for telling us not to chew gum"😉.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So you think that, according to Christianity, if God came down and wrote a new modern day Bible there would be a passage included instructing it's followers to persecute science?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying the religion plays absolutely no role. In any given decision there are millions of factors that likely influence the decision in some way, consciously or subconsciously. I'm simply saying the religion never tells them to be anti science. That is a decision they make all on their own. In the end, it is the individual's fault they are anti science, not the religions. The religion never told them to persecute science.

I gave the teacher example earlier. If a teacher instructs their students not to chew gum, but the students do so anyway, does the problem lie with the teacher or the students? It seems silly to blame the teacher for their student's decision, even if the teacher was a factor in the student's decision (for example: "I'm going to chew gum to get back at the teacher for telling us not to chew gum"😉.

And tbh I really don't care who is "at fault" in some philosophical attribution of blame; the fact remains, without the bible this attitude would not be there, so if they didn't believe in the bible, there would be a big improvement in their attitude towards science. You can say it was the fault of the Christians themselves, but that does not actually lead to any form of solution; if they are going to be pro-science, the fundamentalist interpretation has got to go.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I think that according to Christianity God would never come down and replace the Bible. So that hypothetical is baloney. Once we are talking about a "new bible", this is basically a new religion you are talking about, not Christianity at all.

You're avoiding the question. Do you think the message the Christian God of the Bible is trying to send is that those who follow Christianity are suppose to be persecuting science?

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I would say the teacher is heavily at fault. If he hadn't made a big deal out of such a petty issue, there would never have been a problem. I think restrictions usually cause more problems than they solve.

I never said the teacher made a big deal about it. Only that he instructed them not top chew gum. The fact that they decided to chew gum anyway is the students fault, and as such, the student needs to be worked with to solve the problem. Technically, you could solve the problem by getting rid of the teacher (at least for the student's that were chewing gum to spite him) but that solution doesn't make sense. It's like trying to solve the problem of rapists by getting rid of all potential rape victims. A solution should be found with the individuals at fault.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And tbh I really don't care who is "at fault" in some philosophical attribution of blame; the fact remains, without the bible this attitude would not be there, so if they didn't believe in the bible, there would be a big improvement in their attitude towards science. You can say it was the fault of the Christians themselves, but that does not actually lead to any form of solution; if they are going to be pro-science, the fundamentalist interpretation has got to go.

As I said above, your solution focuses on the wrong target. It's the individuals who are being anti-science, and so the solution should be to deal with the individuals, not the religion.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You're avoiding the question. Do you think the message the Christian God of the Bible is trying to send is that those who follow Christianity are suppose to be persecuting science?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said the teacher made a big deal about it. Only that he instructed them not top chew gum. The fact that they decided to chew gum anyway is the students fault, and as such, the student needs to be worked with to solve the problem. Technically, you could solve the problem by getting rid of the teacher (at least for the student's that were chewing gum to spite him) but that solution doesn't make sense. It's like trying to solve the problem of rapists by getting rid of all potential rape victims. A solution should be found with the individuals at fault.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said above, your solution focuses on the wrong target. It's the individuals who are being anti-science, and so the solution should be to deal with the individuals, not the religion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm am avoiding the question, because its is a nonsense question. It has no answer. I don't think Jehovah even exists, so trying to evaluate reality by his "intentions" is not a real grounds for questioning. If I suppose he exists, then science is wrong, and the question is still meaningless. I think that science is correct, I think that the bible was written by people who had no conception of science, and I think that the inevitable result of reading it literally is an anti-science attitude. I don't know how else you expect me to answer this.

It's a hypothetical, and I'm asking you if you think this is what Christianity is teaching. Not if you think Christianity is true or not.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well then, your scenario is not relevant. I hold that the bible is the item at fault. So I am placing my objections in the proper place.

On what grounds do you hold the Bible at fault?

Originally posted by King Kandy
And the only way to do that, is to have them reject a literal interpretation of the bible. You cannot profess to believe in science, and also believe that the world was created in 7 days. They are mutually exclusive. You seem to want us to get Christians to engage in some kind of rationalization where they believe both in the same time and convince themselves it isn't stupid. This is just self-delusion.

That would only be true if the problem we are talking about is people disagreeing with science. As I said, you can disagree with science without hindering or being hostile toward it. The problem we are looking for a solution to is those who are anti-science, not simply anyone who disagrees with it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's a hypothetical, and I'm asking you if you think this is what Christianity is teaching. Not if you think Christianity is true or not.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That would only be true if the problem we are talking about is people disagreeing with science. As I said, you can disagree with science without hindering or being hostile toward it. The problem we are looking for a solution to is those who are anti-science, not simply anyone who disagrees with it.

That said, i've already commented on your annoying tendency to say we should look for a solution to some problem, yet you actually don't do so. Its like saying "we should solve the war on terror by convincing Al Qaeda to be nice". You can say that would be the most ethical solution, as nobody gets hurt; but fact is its not going to happen.

In mathematics, a handy tool for solving complex problems is to use theorems to determine if the problem even has a solution; so you can avoid wasting time looking for a solution that doesn't exist. So I am asking you, what makes you think the "solution" you propose even exists.