[_ Old Earth _] What's an atheist to gain..............?

[Imagican]

And please understand guys and gals, I didn't direct this thread to those that are truly seeking 'truth', but to those that I've observed that seem to be in this section of the forums simply to cause unrest and subversion.

I have found many of the post of those that defend science quite interesting. i myself am a firm believer that science in many ways enhances Christianity. The majority of the most famous scientist of the past were Christian by faith.

I certainly didn't mean to offend any of our members by my broadly aimed statement. I am quite sure that there are probably a number of 'atheist' members that are here to offer technical information that most of us are not privy to.

I was referring to some of the posts that I have read that offer NOTHING of anything that could be considered productive. Some times it seems as if some of these posts are deliberate attempts to cause dissension. Forgive me for not knowing a 'better' way to group these individuals together. Atheist was probably not the best description of these 'hard-heads that I refer to.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

But, "We love you, man".
What's hostile about that?

I meant that Christianity is hostile toward science, or rather the form of christianity professed on these boards is hostile toward science.

Christianity is against all lies whether in the field of science or otherwise. Many distortions, hoaxes, false interpretations, and downright lies make up the field of evolution, and some call evolution science, but in all reality it is so lacking in evidence it should be considered one of many theories of the origins of life that is full of holes and suspect as it is. Science has been the child of the Christian faithin that it has produced, reared, and fed true science all these years. Evolution has been more of a negative impact on science than any other theory devised by man throughout history.

You make it sound as if Christianity is A: A single religion and B: A major source of intellectual rigour, which it hasn't been for 2-2.5 centuries.

 

[Imagican]

Quadeshet,

A couple of answers for ya.

I believe that 'religion' is inherent for the simple fact that as I stated previous, all cultures have created 'religion' of one sort or another even when completely isolated and without the influence of each other. This would indicate something inherent. A basic 'need' perhaps.

The replacement would be demanded if indeed this 'need' is inherent. In order for one to be 'complete' in the intended 'nature' of humanity, something would have to fill this 'nitch' in ones psyche.

As I am sure you are familiar with man's basic needs as taught in universities, I believe that spirituality is as basic a need as food, shelter, love.........etc.......

You are absolutely right in that 'worship' is a 'loaded term'. I admit this freely. My definition of worship certainly is much expanded from what most commonly accept. I personally believe that 'anything' can be worshiped. Not just deity, but 'anything' that one may choose to 'replace' deity with, either spiritual or material. ANYTHING basically that can be conceived of by man, he can choose to worship.

And perhaps this whole subject is 'related' to the 'Creator'. Perhaps, just as a bird has knowledge built into it's genetic make up that allows it to build a nest without being 'taught', man also is genetically linked to the necessity of 'finding' and worshiping the Creator.

The reason that we are not all aware of this is that we have spent so much time choosing to substitute 'other' things in the place of God. Alcohol, drugs, music, pets, money. Whatever. And look what a mess we get ourselves into with these things.

 

[Frost Giant]

You haven't shown that a need for religion exists. All you've shown is that a need to explain the unknown exists.

 

[Quadeshet]

I believe that 'religion' is inherent for the simple fact that as I stated previous, all cultures have created 'religion' of one sort or another even when completely isolated and without the influence of each other. This would indicate something inherent. A basic 'need' perhaps.

>> No, culture does not exist in a vacuum. Considering modern humans have been around for about 60,000 years there has been ample time for ideas to disseminate.
There are many theories about the origin of 'religion,' some of the more popular being the 'savage philosopher' concept or the 'dream interpretation' explanation. Both of these are making the assumption that the first modern humans had no idea what they were experiencing, which I find hard to believe, we are not that stupid. Quite the opposite, we invented stories and found explanations that were in tune with our concept of the world and the culture we were born into.

The replacement would be demanded if indeed this 'need' is inherent. In order for one to be 'complete' in the intended 'nature' of humanity, something would have to fill this 'nitch' in ones psyche.

>> How do you think it is replacement, though? All 'religions' (and I really don't mean this to be derogatory or target any one belief system) are trying to explain the world in a fashion that is harmonious with their culture and environment. As new information is gained, it is incorporated into the belief system. Look at the cargo cults in Polynesia, for example.

As I am sure you are familiar with man's basic needs as taught in universities, I believe that spirituality is as basic a need as food, shelter, love.........etc.......

>> There are other basic things, also: fear, anger, grief, happiness, contentment. Is spirituality an answer to our basic fear of dying? Everyone has seen dead things. Maybe we saw the body of a relative and began thinking about where the difference lies between alive and dead. It's obvious that breathing has stopped, but it's also obvious that some 'spark' is missing.

You are absolutely right in that 'worship' is a 'loaded term'. I admit this freely. My definition of worship certainly is much expanded from what most commonly accept. I personally believe that 'anything' can be worshiped. Not just deity, but 'anything' that one may choose to 'replace' deity with, either spiritual or material. ANYTHING basically that can be conceived of by man, he can choose to worship.

>> Again with the replacement idea. If you think that anything can be 'worshipped' then it must have the same significance as the idea of a deity. If that is the case, then the idea of a deity feels the same need as making plans to be cryogenically frozen: an immortality complex.

And perhaps this whole subject is 'related' to the 'Creator'. Perhaps, just as a bird has knowledge built into it's genetic make up that allows it to build a nest without being 'taught', man also is genetically linked to the necessity of 'finding' and worshiping the Creator.

>> How about creation myths that don't involve a single creator? We are story-telling, pattern-seeking animals. That much could be said to be genetic. Over time I can see how this tendency would evolve into specific ideas about origin. My problem is that there are as many concepts as there are cultures. I don't believe this makes any one of them wrong, because proving who is 'right' is useless in the study of religion.

The reason that we are not all aware of this is that we have spent so much time choosing to substitute 'other' things in the place of God. Alcohol, drugs, music, pets, money. Whatever. And look what a mess we get ourselves into with these things.

>> The mess we are in has less to do with religion than it has to do with inequality.

 

[Quadeshet]

You haven't shown that a need for religion exists. All you've shown is that a need to explain the unknown exists.

I suppose atheists are accused of embracing science as a religion. This is where the nasty argument about what 'knowledge' actually is, whether we can actually 'know that we know' something...

I disagree with the idea that science is belief because even if religions evolve with the times they do not undergo the same scrutiny, testing and constant refining as science. To many religions, to look too hard is to commit heresy.

Humans do have a need to explain the unknown. Religion takes on this task and then some. Religions are not just explanations for life but also guidelines for living.

Perhaps humans haven't evolved socially enough to embrace guidelines that let go of
the supernatural. It is a scary prospect, being responsible for our own actions.

 

[Solo]

But, "We love you, man".
What's hostile about that?

I meant that Christianity is hostile toward science, or rather the form of christianity professed on these boards is hostile toward science.

Christianity is against all lies whether in the field of science or otherwise. Many distortions, hoaxes, false interpretations, and downright lies make up the field of evolution, and some call evolution science, but in all reality it is so lacking in evidence it should be considered one of many theories of the origins of life that is full of holes and suspect as it is. Science has been the child of the Christian faithin that it has produced, reared, and fed true science all these years. Evolution has been more of a negative impact on science than any other theory devised by man throughout history.

You make it sound as if Christianity is A: A single religion and B: A major source of intellectual rigour, which it hasn't been for 2-2.5 centuries.

You make it sound like you don't know the truth. Open your eyes and ears to the Word of God and you too can know what is cooking in your kitchen.

 

[Loren Michael]

You haven't shown that a need for religion exists. All you've shown is that a need to explain the unknown exists.

I suppose atheists are accused of embracing science as a religion. This is where the nasty argument about what 'knowledge' actually is, whether we can actually 'know that we know' something...

I disagree with the idea that science is belief because even if religions evolve with the times they do not undergo the same scrutiny, testing and constant refining as science. To many religions, to look too hard is to commit heresy.

Humans do have a need to explain the unknown. Religion takes on this task and then some. Religions are not just explanations for life but also guidelines for living.

Perhaps humans haven't evolved socially enough to embrace guidelines that let go of
the supernatural. It is a scary prospect, being responsible for our own actions.

i find that it's easiest to compare science to an evolving field of math. sometimes you guess and check, other times the answer leaps out at you, but you always check your work afterwards to make sure you did all the proper calculations. there are always new variables being poured in.

religion is more along the lines of an advanced literature or music appreciation class- to be studied and restudied to find new ways to appreciate and apply it- to mull over it and meditate on it.

with both, what you put in is directly related to what you get out of it.

 

[kellivision]

What possible purpose could it serve an atheist to post on a Christian web-site?

...because I can.

And I can think of no other reason that an atheist would dogedly pursue a Christian. Pure EVIL.

Alritey then! :evil:

 

[Quid]

You haven't shown that a need for religion exists. All you've shown is that a need to explain the unknown exists.

Which many people do with religion. Or did Zeus genuinely exist?

 

[Imagican]

I assume that the rest of these posts were deleted for the direction that they were heading.

I apologize for my tone and behavior. Thanks guys.

 

[Imagican]

And back to my original post. What possible gain could someone attain by arguing against God and creation on a 'Christian forum'?