Umm...I'm a Christian, and while I don't really get this video (at all), a lot of what that post says makes some kind of sense. Teaching evolution as fact, not theory, is essentially telling a child "Hey, don't believe in creationism, here's how it happened."
It ought to be taught as both (theory and fact) [Check here if you don't understand]. Everyone needs to know that creationism is pseudoscience.
I don't even see why you've brought up evolution in the first place.
Umm...I'm a Christian, and while I don't really get this video (at all), a lot of what that post says makes some kind of sense. Teaching evolution as fact, not theory, is essentially telling a child "Hey, don't believe in creationism, here's how it happened."
It ought to be taught as both (theory and fact) [Checkhereif you don't understand]. Everyone needs to know that creationism is pseudoscience.
I don't even see why you've brought up evolution in the first place.
Because that article explaining the video did, and people were attacking it, so I was trying to defend it. And yes, creationism is Pseudoscience and a school is not the place for it. While the physical mechanics and scientific aspects of evolution can be proven and should be taught, the idea that humans evolved on their own, without help, and that it explains the origins of the Earth should not be taught, as that is simply theory and can't be proven, because no one was there. Ultimately, only things that can be proven scientifically should be taught. The existence of God can't be proven or disproved, and therefore should not be brought up AT ALL in school. Most science classes teach evolution in a very Atheistic way, which, as Atheism is a belief system, should not be taught in science but instead be brought up in Social Studies classes, or whatever class you learn about religions in. I know Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief system.
The thing I think you misunderstand is that science isn't a search for absolute truth but a search for useful tools with which we can understand the world around us and make helpful predictions. If, based on the evidence we can find, chemicals coming together in random configurations over millions of years and being weeded out by natural selection seems to be the way things occurred, we can safely discount the infinite other possibilities including the existence and interaction of deities, as, it isn't that useful a what-if.
Of course, you probably have a trillion answers to this, all of them very good, but it's what I believe is true. It all comes down to a fundamental difference. It's actually quite strange, as the Atheists are the optimists, and the Christians are the pessimists in this argument.
I was going to provide those trillion answers, but then I realized you would just ignore them because of a dogmatic belief system, so I realized it wasn't worth my time. If you are willing to analyze your own beliefs and are prepared to change should I provide the proper evidence, let me know.
I have to go somewhere right now, but I'll consider listening to it when I get back. But if this is just one of those arguments about "you can't prove it, so therefore it's more logical to assume that it's not real," then I really don't care, because my beliefs about religion are not based on proof, they are based on faith, and while a billion Atheists can and will scream at me and get pissed off that I use faith over logic, I don't care.
That isn't to say that some of the thing they said aren't misleading or a little headstrong, which they are, but rather that some of the things they say do have a logical point and are valid arguments that a Christian could have against Atheism and/or evolution. Well, this will diverge into a massive argument about human nature, but the argument that anti-violence and such are Christian concepts is true as far as I'm concerned. Atheists preach doing good things for the world, when their whole argument is about logic. Now, logically, does it make sense to do good things? Why help others, when it will eat up your time, your resources, and you don't get anything out of it? Wouldn't it be better to protect yourself and your family? Or maybe even just yourself. Helping others has no logical value. It only has emotional and humanistic value. Helping people is the right thing to do.
Read up on the prisoner's dilemma, and watch this. In short, it makes sense to do good things. A co-operative society is better for each individual than one with constant conflict. Basically, evolution and the development of society can quite easily explain that which you continue to attribute to religion.
You can say that we have a conscience, that we're humans and it's what we do, but evolution just teaches that we are highly evolved animals. Therefore, why should we be any different from them?
We are equally "highly evolved" to any other form of life. Nor are we much different from those genetically closest to us.
Of course, you probably have a trillion answers to this, all of them very good, but it's what I believe is true. It all comes down to a fundamental difference. It's actually quite strange, as the Atheists are the optimists, and the Christians are the pessimists in this argument.
It isn't strange to me. I provided one of the best of the trillion, but perhaps Andrew was right and it wasn't worth my time.
While the physical mechanics and scientific aspects of evolution can be proven and should be taught, the idea that humans evolved on their own, without help, and that it explains the origins of the Earth should not be taught, as that is simply theory and can't be proven, because no one was there
Also because no-one sane ever says that evolution explains the origin of the Earth. I guess you just slipped up though.
Ultimately, only things that can be proven scientifically should be taught.
You're only showing you have no idea what science is about. There is no "proof" in science. Only in mathematics, because mathematics isn't tied down to the real world. Science isn't about truth, while the concept of "proof" is implicitly linked to the concept of truth.
The existence of God can't be proven or disproved, and therefore should not be brought up AT ALL in school. Most science classes teach evolution in a very Atheistic way, which, as Atheism is a belief system, should not be taught in science but instead be brought up in Social Studies classes, or whatever class you learn about religions in.
That's just silly. Atheism is the belief that there are no deities, or in fact absence of belief in a deity. If, as you said it should, Science class has no mention of deities, it is by definition atheistic.
I know Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief system.
It isn't a belief system. It's a single belief, or in fact the absence of a belief.
It isn't a belief system. It's a single belief, or in fact the absence of a belief.
It's actually more of a default. A single person, out in nature, with no more knowledge than what he can identify with it's five senses, is an atheist.
It's actually more of a default. A single person, out in nature, with no more knowledge than what he can identify with it's five senses, is an atheist.
I've thought about this for quite some time. Honestly, I disagree with this idea. Humans are innately irrational and have a tendency to create false positive associations. We are pattern making machines, but horrible at making accurate predictions. Personally, I have no doubt that a human raised in isolation would eventually come up with some sort of spiritual/supernatural belief system to explain the world around them. It is only through the discipline of the mind that we can become rational beings.
I'm with Andrew here. We naturally try to rationalize the world around us, it's only as our methods for studying the world improve that we must be prepared to make corrections to our thinking and gain a more accurate view of the world.
Evolution does not talk about the origins of Earth; it merely describes mechanisms by which changes occur in extant life. There are attempts by scientists to explain the actual origins of life, but those are hypotheses and are not part of widely-accepted evolutionary theory.
as that is simply theory
So is gravity. "Theory" has a very specific scientific meaning. You're using it to mean "conjecture," which is not accurate. When scientists talk about "theories of evolution," we're not talking out of our asses. We're talking about explanatory and predictive models that have been developed based on the evidence generated by countless years of observation and experimentation. It is in fact the dead opposite of a conjecture.
Science is incapable of the "proof" that you think can exist, because it is literally impossible to be 100% certain about anything except one's own existence. That's why we constantly investigate and reassess what we already think we know.
Faith is the belief in an idea in the absence of any supporting evidence, and often in the face of directly contradictory evidence. The only reason you feel like your faith is certain is because you're taught that it must be certain. It's outside the realm of evidence-based investigation, and you can't hold science to the same standard of "proof" that you think religion has. Religious systems are necessarily based in faith, because they fall apart under skeptical inquiry; scientific knowledge is necessarily based on skepticism, which prods us to investigate absolutely everything no matter how obvious it may seem.
I'm also with Andrew. As humans, we have a drive to explain the things around us. If we lack evidence, we'll tend to just make something up in order to fill the gap. That's why you have to train and educate people to be skeptical. However, when we can come up with a more reasonable explanation, that explains the thing we previously filled in, we need to abandon the previous belief and adopt the new one. The process of science is the process of finding new knowledge and abandoning outdated knowledge.
Now, logically, does it make sense to do good things?
Reciprocal altruism. It's demonstrated by other animals as well.
P.P.S.: Not all Christians are like this. Don't discredit an entire group of people or their beliefs based on the individuals you see the most. Just because those Christians seem like the most prominent kind doesn't mean they are. Other Christian sects who may be less reactionary are less interesting, and therefore aren't the ones you see on the news holding crazy parades entitled "God hates ****." Most Christians aren't that dumb, and those people aren't real Christians, just incorrectly using the Bible to justify their own prejudices.
I am so tired of hearing "moderate" Christians state this about the more extreme sects and practitioners. So many moderates of any group stand back while their extreme elements spout nonsense and hatred. They allow themselves to be painted with the same brush when they don't speak out openly and loudly against these extremists. Why aren't moderate Christians getting together and counter-protesting the Fred Phelpses of the world? Why aren't they going out to political rallies where politicians spout on about supposedly "Christian" values that are really just fascism and stating that this is not what they believe? Seriously, where are the many voices that can drown out the few? If they exist in such great numbers, they should organize and take back their religion. If they don't, then they will continue to be painted with the same brush as extremists.
I am so tired of hearing "moderate" Christians state this about the more extreme sects and practitioners. So many moderates of any group stand back while their extreme elements spout nonsense and hatred. They allow themselves to be painted with the same brush when they don't speak out openly and loudly against these extremists. Why aren't moderate Christians getting together and counter-protesting the Fred Phelpses of the world? Why aren't they going out to political rallies where politicians spout on about supposedly "Christian" values that are really just fascism and stating that this is not what they believe? Seriously, where are the many voices that can drown out the few? If they exist in such great numbers, they should organize and take back their religion. If they don't, then they will continue to be painted with the same brush as extremists.
It's because they don't have the courage to disagree with their religion. They know deep down that everything the extremists say is what they really should believe if their religion is true, however they don't want to pay the social price the comes along with such actions. Furthermore, speaking out against the extremists would just show that their religion has serious issues in it's details, which wouldn't suit them either.
Oh man. I'm tempted to pile on, but I think he's had enough. But seriously...
while a billion Atheists can and will scream at me and get pissed off that I use faith over logic, I don't care.
...you might want to just leave now, because if you can't back up your statements with reasoned arguments, you aren't going to enjoy your time here much.
Wow, everywhere I go people yell at me. I don't have responses to everything you guys said, because a lot of it is true. But a few things stick out that I want to point out and/or clarify. @Mrs. MacRoss-Perhaps because where I am, there aren't these religious extremists. I only see religious extremists on T.V. Where I live, you're either an Atheist, a very relaxed religious person (most fall under this category), or you go to a church/temple/mosque/etc. and don't let outside influences interfere with your beliefs. But you are right, we should be more active. Those moderates who are close to extremism should do something about it, and Andrew is right when he says that they are afraid. However... @Andrew-I agreed with what you said up until you said that it would be admitting that our religion has flaws, which I'm not saying it doesn't, but the context you're deriving this from is relatively mistaken. For instance, protesting against a "God Hates ****" parade would make sense based on the Bible, as it says that God hates no one, that he loves all. It says that Jesus loves everyone, blah blah blah stuff you've already heard, and even though I can explain it differently, you don't want to hear again. Most Christians I talk to don't have a main concern of stopping the teaching of evolution, stopping Gay people from existing, or being those darn Conservative Republicans (which I am also one of, by the way (let the hatred fly.)). They're most interested in teaching people about the love of God, and the healing power it can have on your life. @TheWhaleShark-No, other religions do preach those as well, I know. I meant that a belief in some higher deity, and/or a belief in eternal punishments, was the primary drive for goodness, and cultural norms have since evolved to accept that belief as one that's not based upon faith or religion. Also, I know the correct definition of theory. I'm sorry if I'm still using it incorrectly, really, but I know that it doesn't mean conjecture, that it means something that is widely accepted. @lackofcheese-Okay, so society works when you're good. Yay. But why care about society? Sure, your kids and your friends' kids will have a better life, but how does that affect you? Since everything's just going to die (yay nihilism?), why not do what gives you the most pleasure? Without societal norms, down to humans and their basest instincts, we only have a few. Obviously fight or flight, but surviving and thriving are the two I'm thinking of. Because of the way society and culture has evolved, it is now necessary to work as a group to achieve things. That's a part of humanity, it's what separates us from God, that our imperfections require us to work together. But, in a Godless world, where none of that even matters, where society hasn't evolved yet, it's easier just to kill your neighbor so you can have more food than to work together and have to share what you make. In a world with limited resources and possibilities, selfishness isn't just useful, it's practically required if you want to never suffer. Helping people weakens your own chances at thriving, and therefore could be considered illogical in some ways.
Sorry for the large amounts of rambling. I know there's still more arguments to be made about this, so keep them coming if you really think you can change my mind.
Sorry, quick addendum: Now that I think about it, I don't think anti-anti-Gay Christians who don't go around holding "God Hates ****" parades should be labeled as "moderate." My beliefs are no less intense than those Christians, I just interpret things differently.
Also, I know the correct definition of theory. I'm sorry if I'm still using it incorrectly, really, but I know that it doesn't mean conjecture, that it means something that is widely accepted.
Then why did you even bring it up, and why did you say that it is "simply" theory? Your statement, irrespective of the word you used, still asserts that evolutionary theory is a conjecture and not a solid scientific theory. That demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, yet that doesn't stop you from talking about it from a position of knowledge. If you're ignorant about a topic (as you clearly are here), then say so, and an expert will be glad to enlighten you. You may catch some flak from some people, but since you're clearly accustomed to being persecuted already, that should be no problem for you.
I meant that a belief in some higher deity, and/or a belief in eternal punishments, was the primary drive for goodness
So, you're saying that religion uses a simple punishment/reward system to engage in behavior modification? I mean, that's exactly what I say, and that's why I shy away from those belief systems. That's literally the same thing as Santa Claus, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe in Santa, right?
If a system of belief works for you, that's all well and good, but don't let your personal beliefs cloud your objective judgement of reality. Using a set of personal religious beliefs as grounds for questioning valid science is completely off the mark.
I agreed with what you said up until you said that it would be admitting that our religion has flaws, which I'm not saying it doesn't, but the context you're deriving this from is relatively mistaken. For instance, protesting against a "God Hates ****" parade would make sense based on the Bible, as it says that God hates no one, that he loves all. It says that Jesus loves everyone, blah blah blah stuff you've already heard, and even though I can explain it differently, you don't want to hear again. Most Christians I talk to don't have a main concern of stopping the teaching of evolution, stopping Gay people from existing, or being those darn Conservative Republicans (which I am also one of, by the way (let the hatred fly.)). They're most interested in teaching people about the love of God, and the healing power it can have on your life.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Your religious text states that you must follow every law of the old Testament. This means you must stone adulterers, execute children who hit or curse their parents, and carry out the idea of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, foot for a foot. Or do you not have the cajones to carry out what the Bible says?
Also, I know the correct definition of theory. I'm sorry if I'm still using it incorrectly, really, but I know that it doesn't mean conjecture, that it means something that is widely accepted.
Then why did you even bring it up, and why did you say that it is "simply" theory? Your statement, irrespective of the word you used, still asserts that evolutionary theory is a conjecture and not a solid scientific theory. That demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, yet that doesn't stop you from talking about it from a position of knowledge. If you're ignorant about a topic (as you clearly are here), then say so, and an expert will be glad to enlighten you. You may catch some flak from some people, but since you're clearly accustomed to being persecuted already, that should be no problem for you.
I meant that a belief in some higher deity, and/or a belief in eternal punishments, was the primary drive for goodness
So, you're saying that religion uses a simple punishment/reward system to engage in behavior modification? I mean, that's exactly what I say, and that's why I shy away from those belief systems. That's literally the same thing as Santa Claus, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe in Santa, right?
If a system of belief works for you, that's all well and good, but don't let your personal beliefs cloud your objective judgement of reality. Using a set of personal religious beliefs as grounds for questioning valid science is completely off the mark.
You know, it's Atheists like you who bother me the most. I try to be nice. I admit, I'm no genius, I don't understand all this stuff perfectly. But you attack me. I have never once attacked your beliefs, but you have assaulted mine. Admittedly, maybe I shouldn't come a place filled with Atheists and post in the topic making fun of religion trying to defend it. But pardon me if I want to defend misconceptions people have on religion. I also note that Atheists seek out Religion all the time to mock it and defend their Atheistic ideas against it, which is kinda what this topic was doing from the start. So maybe I shouldn't argue Science, but I can argue Religion, because that I understand. And I also understand when someone misconstrues religion, just as you so heinously point out my misconstruing of Science. See, most Atheists still think of religion as this barbaric pseudo scientific institution that we use to explain things because we have no understanding of the world. If this were the case, Science is great, Atheism is great, etc. But it's not. Religion is much more than just some method of proving the world, and it's also more than a list of right and wrong and the consequences. Some religions developed for those purposes, and Christianity was the offshoot of the latter. But Christianity is about something spiritual, something emotional, something that goes beyond logic, something you clearly can't understand. I believe in the redemption and the love of Christ, and that leads me to follow what the Bible says. And the Bible says things about the world, and while I'm willing to accept scientific theories (did I use it right this time?) about this world and its origins, I have to take them and try and explain them by the Bible. If I started by using the Bible to prove the origins of the world, then Science would turn me away from Religion. But I started by using the Bible as something spiritual, and therefore am inclined to believe God when he told the people who wrote the Bible that every word was true. So excuse me if I seem undereducated and confused. But I don't need some self-righteous Atheist who thinks they're a good person because they accept everybody to come and explain Science to me, because as far as I'm concerned, learning the ins and outs of Science is not what's really important to us as people, and as human beings.
I agreed with what you said up until you said that it would be admitting that our religion has flaws, which I'm not saying it doesn't, but the context you're deriving this from is relatively mistaken. For instance, protesting against a "God Hates ****" parade would make sense based on the Bible, as it says that God hates no one, that he loves all. It says that Jesus loves everyone, blah blah blah stuff you've already heard, and even though I can explain it differently, you don't want to hear again. Most Christians I talk to don't have a main concern of stopping the teaching of evolution, stopping Gay people from existing, or being those darn Conservative Republicans (which I am also one of, by the way (let the hatred fly.)). They're most interested in teaching people about the love of God, and the healing power it can have on your life.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Your religious text states that you must follow every law of the old Testament. This means you must stone adulterers, execute children who hit or curse their parents, and carry out the idea of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, foot for a foot. Or do you not have the cajones to carry out what the Bible says?
Actually, he's not talking about Jewish law. He specifically refers to the commandments, this little thing called the Ten Commandments, maybe you've heard of them? He's saying that you must still follow God's rules, even though you're forgiven. And the stoning and executions of the Old Testament were not rules to be followed, they were punishments for breaking said rules, and the New Testament clearly says that because of Jesus' death, all humans are forgiven if they ask for forgiveness. Therefore, why do we need cruel and violent punishments? That's what Jesus came to do: To eliminate the suffering that humans would have to undergo to seek forgiveness, which would not have worked anyways, because no one can fulfill enough punishment for all the sins even just one person commits in a lifetime. Some people judge one sin as worse than another, but they are all just as terrible in God's eyes. To our human conscience, we apply labels and levels, like murdering is worse than lying, something that I do believe. But God does not work on this same level.
Also, I know the correct definition of theory. I'm sorry if I'm still using it incorrectly, really, but I know that it doesn't mean conjecture, that it means something that is widely accepted.
Still wrong. A theory, while inherently "widely accepted" is not JUST that. It's a model that explains how something works. According to Wikipedia, a theory:
identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
But, in a Godless world, where none of that even matters, where society hasn't evolved yet, it's easier just to kill your neighbor so you can have more food than to work together and have to share what you make. In a world with limited resources and possibilities, selfishness isn't just useful, it's practically required if you want to never suffer. Helping people weakens your own chances at thriving, and therefore could be considered illogical in some ways.
What time in history, or what imaginary world, are you talking about where "society hasn't evolved yet"? "Society" has probably existed in some form as long as there have been animals. Don't monkeys have societies? Don't prairie dogs? Don't sparrows? Don't rats? They don't have a God or moral code dictating what they do, yet they've evolved ways to live together for the common benefit. As for humans, we are social animals. We need other people for our psychological health, not just for our practical needs. And we weren't just dropped here, all on our own, and had to build a society from scratch -- our society evolved from the societies of our primate ancestors, just as our bodies did. They worked together to raise young, to gather food, to stay safe from predators, and so must we. The benefits of a group looking out for each other far outweigh its drawbacks.
If you really want to understand how altruism could have evolved, and how it clearly benefits us and many other species' of animals, read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
I know there's still more arguments to be made about this, so keep them coming if you really think you can change my mind.
I doubt anyone here thinks they can change your mind. When I was in your position (and, judging by your picture, when I was your age) none of these arguments would have changed my mind either. I wasn't ready to honestly consider that I might be wrong. Nothing is going to change your mind until you can do the same.
I doubt anyone here thinks they can change your mind. When I was in your position (and, judging by your picture, when I was your age) none of these arguments would have changed my mind either. I wasn't ready to honestly consider that I might be wrong. Nothing is going to change your mind until you can do the same.
Ahh, the age argument. I see where this is going. I was raised a Christian, and until I break away from my parents and understand the realities of life, I will stay religious until I can realize the illogical-ness of my ways and move on. It's a bad argument. I consciously make the choice to be a Christian. And it's not like I don't have doubts. The things you all say do weigh on me. It's just the belief in God weighs a bit more. Now, around the age of 15 and younger, let's say, your argument reigns true. I used to be a Christian because I just was, it was all I knew. But I've heard enough arguments that I now consciously choose to be a Christian of my own accord, not because of my parents, not because of my age or my surroundings. But if you're convinced that because I'm "young and immature" that it means that my faith is illogical and baseless and will therefore crumble when I get older, then go on thinking that. P.S.: I'm 17. You were probably guessing around 13 or so, it's okay.
Actually, he's not talking about Jewish law. He specifically refers to the commandments, this little thing called the Ten Commandments, maybe you've heard of them? He's saying that you must still follow God's rules, even though you're forgiven.
Ok, I know it may be hard for you to understand, but you see there are other books in the Bible other than the Gospels. Yeah, I know, they are hard to understand and have weird names like Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Well, you see, in these old books there are laws other than the Ten Commandments. Like Deuteronomy 21, Leviticus 21, Exodus 31:15, and certainly many others.
You know, it's Atheists like you who bother me the most. I try to be nice. I admit, I'm no genius, I don't understand all this stuff perfectly. But you attack me. I have never once attacked your beliefs, but you have assaulted mine. Admittedly, maybe I shouldn't come a place filled with Atheists and post in the topic making fun of religion trying to defend it. But pardon me if I want to defend misconceptions people have on religion. I also note that Atheists seek out Religion all the time to mock it and defend their Atheistic ideas against it, which is kinda what this topic was doing from the start. So maybe I shouldn't argue Science, but I can argue Religion, because that I understand. And I also understand when someone misconstrues religion, just as you so heinously point out my misconstruing of Science. See, most Atheists still think of religion as this barbaric pseudo scientific institution that we use to explain things because we have no understanding of the world. If this were the case, Science is great, Atheism is great, etc. But it's not. Religion is much more than just some method of proving the world, and it's also more than a list of right and wrong and the consequences. Some religions developed for those purposes, and Christianity was the offshoot of the latter. But Christianity is about something spiritual, something emotional, something that goes beyond logic, something you clearly can't understand. I believe in the redemption and the love of Christ, and that leads me to follow what the Bible says. And the Bible says things about the world, and while I'm willing to accept scientific theories (did I use it right this time?) about this world and its origins, I have to take them and try and explain them by the Bible. If I started by using the Bible to prove the origins of the world, then Science would turn me away from Religion. But I started by using the Bible as something spiritual, and therefore am inclined to believe God when he told the people who wrote the Bible that every word was true. So excuse me if I seem undereducated and confused. But I don't need some self-righteous Atheist who thinks they're a good person because they accept everybody to come and explain Science to me, because as far as I'm concerned, learning the ins and outs of Science is not what's really important to us as people, and as human beings.
I was going to say something, but now I find myself speechless.
Actually, he's not talking about Jewish law. He specifically refers to the commandments, this little thing called the Ten Commandments, maybe you've heard of them? He's saying that you must still follow God's rules, even though you're forgiven.
Ok, I know it may be hard for you to understand, but you see there are other books in the Bible other than the Gospels. Yeah, I know, they are hard to understand and have weird names like Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Well, you see, in these old books there are laws other than the Ten Commandments. LikeDeuteronomy 21,Leviticus 21,Exodus 31:15, and certainly many others.
Haha, you're so funny. Did you not see my direct (but unquoted) reference to Leviticus? Leviticus all about rules and punishments. But mostly punishments and ceremonies on how to be forgiven for the base sins laid out in the Commandments. The old Testament (or at least the first several books after Genesis (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers (and in correct order too, my goodness)) is about the punishments that are required of you to be forgiven of your sins. The rest is about the story of the Jewish people, examples of how to live your life and how not to live your life, and prophecies about Jesus' coming.
Edit: Also, God made those punishments and laws because it was all we had. It's complicated, but let me try and explain it. See, God wants us to go to Heaven. But sin gets in the way of that. In the times before Jesus, there was no effective way of forgiveness. The punishments he lays out in Leviticus should help, but humans sin so much that no one could keep up with all of that. Therefore, by putting harsher punishments on people for sinning, God hopes to make people sin less out of fear for punishment. This entire situation is then remedied when Jesus comes. You quoted the part of the Bible where Jesus claims to fulfill the Old Testament, not rewrite it. And that's what he does. God said he would send someone to save His people. That's what Jesus is fulfilling, and therefore not rewriting the law and allowing the Jewish people to get away with sinning, but rather giving them the forgiveness that they desired.
Whoa whoa whoa, what's that? Rules? That's like a law, isn't it? Oh, but those rules aren't good enough for your liking, so we can just ignore them can't we. I mean, it's not like Jesus said that he wasn't here to change any of the laws or anything.
Whoa whoa whoa, what's that? Rules? That's like a law, isn't it? Oh, but those rules aren't good enough for your liking, so we can just ignore them can't we. I mean, it's not like Jesus said that he wasn't here to change any of the laws or anything.
Read my edited text on the post before this. It has a pretty good answer to that.
Comments
I don't even see why you've brought up evolution in the first place.
And yes, creationism is Pseudoscience and a school is not the place for it. While the physical mechanics and scientific aspects of evolution can be proven and should be taught, the idea that humans evolved on their own, without help, and that it explains the origins of the Earth should not be taught, as that is simply theory and can't be proven, because no one was there. Ultimately, only things that can be proven scientifically should be taught. The existence of God can't be proven or disproved, and therefore should not be brought up AT ALL in school. Most science classes teach evolution in a very Atheistic way, which, as Atheism is a belief system, should not be taught in science but instead be brought up in Social Studies classes, or whatever class you learn about religions in. I know Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief system.
The thing I think you misunderstand is that science isn't a search for absolute truth but a search for useful tools with which we can understand the world around us and make helpful predictions. If, based on the evidence we can find, chemicals coming together in random configurations over millions of years and being weeded out by natural selection seems to be the way things occurred, we can safely discount the infinite other possibilities including the existence and interaction of deities, as, it isn't that useful a what-if.
Basically, evolution and the development of society can quite easily explain that which you continue to attribute to religion. We are equally "highly evolved" to any other form of life. Nor are we much different from those genetically closest to us. It isn't strange to me. I provided one of the best of the trillion, but perhaps Andrew was right and it wasn't worth my time.
Also because no-one sane ever says that evolution explains the origin of the Earth. I guess you just slipped up though. You're only showing you have no idea what science is about. There is no "proof" in science. Only in mathematics, because mathematics isn't tied down to the real world. Science isn't about truth, while the concept of "proof" is implicitly linked to the concept of truth. That's just silly. Atheism is the belief that there are no deities, or in fact absence of belief in a deity. If, as you said it should, Science class has no mention of deities, it is by definition atheistic. It isn't a belief system. It's a single belief, or in fact the absence of a belief.
Holy crap Cheese, breaking out the blue blocks!
I did what was necessary.
Science is incapable of the "proof" that you think can exist, because it is literally impossible to be 100% certain about anything except one's own existence. That's why we constantly investigate and reassess what we already think we know.
Faith is the belief in an idea in the absence of any supporting evidence, and often in the face of directly contradictory evidence. The only reason you feel like your faith is certain is because you're taught that it must be certain. It's outside the realm of evidence-based investigation, and you can't hold science to the same standard of "proof" that you think religion has. Religious systems are necessarily based in faith, because they fall apart under skeptical inquiry; scientific knowledge is necessarily based on skepticism, which prods us to investigate absolutely everything no matter how obvious it may seem.
I'm also with Andrew. As humans, we have a drive to explain the things around us. If we lack evidence, we'll tend to just make something up in order to fill the gap. That's why you have to train and educate people to be skeptical. However, when we can come up with a more reasonable explanation, that explains the thing we previously filled in, we need to abandon the previous belief and adopt the new one. The process of science is the process of finding new knowledge and abandoning outdated knowledge. Reciprocal altruism. It's demonstrated by other animals as well.
Seriously, where are the many voices that can drown out the few? If they exist in such great numbers, they should organize and take back their religion. If they don't, then they will continue to be painted with the same brush as extremists.
I don't have responses to everything you guys said, because a lot of it is true. But a few things stick out that I want to point out and/or clarify.
@Mrs. MacRoss-Perhaps because where I am, there aren't these religious extremists. I only see religious extremists on T.V. Where I live, you're either an Atheist, a very relaxed religious person (most fall under this category), or you go to a church/temple/mosque/etc. and don't let outside influences interfere with your beliefs. But you are right, we should be more active. Those moderates who are close to extremism should do something about it, and Andrew is right when he says that they are afraid. However...
@Andrew-I agreed with what you said up until you said that it would be admitting that our religion has flaws, which I'm not saying it doesn't, but the context you're deriving this from is relatively mistaken. For instance, protesting against a "God Hates ****" parade would make sense based on the Bible, as it says that God hates no one, that he loves all. It says that Jesus loves everyone, blah blah blah stuff you've already heard, and even though I can explain it differently, you don't want to hear again. Most Christians I talk to don't have a main concern of stopping the teaching of evolution, stopping Gay people from existing, or being those darn Conservative Republicans (which I am also one of, by the way (let the hatred fly.)). They're most interested in teaching people about the love of God, and the healing power it can have on your life.
@TheWhaleShark-No, other religions do preach those as well, I know. I meant that a belief in some higher deity, and/or a belief in eternal punishments, was the primary drive for goodness, and cultural norms have since evolved to accept that belief as one that's not based upon faith or religion.
Also, I know the correct definition of theory. I'm sorry if I'm still using it incorrectly, really, but I know that it doesn't mean conjecture, that it means something that is widely accepted.
@lackofcheese-Okay, so society works when you're good. Yay. But why care about society? Sure, your kids and your friends' kids will have a better life, but how does that affect you? Since everything's just going to die (yay nihilism?), why not do what gives you the most pleasure? Without societal norms, down to humans and their basest instincts, we only have a few. Obviously fight or flight, but surviving and thriving are the two I'm thinking of. Because of the way society and culture has evolved, it is now necessary to work as a group to achieve things. That's a part of humanity, it's what separates us from God, that our imperfections require us to work together. But, in a Godless world, where none of that even matters, where society hasn't evolved yet, it's easier just to kill your neighbor so you can have more food than to work together and have to share what you make. In a world with limited resources and possibilities, selfishness isn't just useful, it's practically required if you want to never suffer. Helping people weakens your own chances at thriving, and therefore could be considered illogical in some ways.
Sorry for the large amounts of rambling. I know there's still more arguments to be made about this, so keep them coming if you really think you can change my mind.
Now that I think about it, I don't think anti-anti-Gay Christians who don't go around holding "God Hates ****" parades should be labeled as "moderate." My beliefs are no less intense than those Christians, I just interpret things differently.
If a system of belief works for you, that's all well and good, but don't let your personal beliefs cloud your objective judgement of reality. Using a set of personal religious beliefs as grounds for questioning valid science is completely off the mark.
I try to be nice. I admit, I'm no genius, I don't understand all this stuff perfectly. But you attack me. I have never once attacked your beliefs, but you have assaulted mine. Admittedly, maybe I shouldn't come a place filled with Atheists and post in the topic making fun of religion trying to defend it. But pardon me if I want to defend misconceptions people have on religion. I also note that Atheists seek out Religion all the time to mock it and defend their Atheistic ideas against it, which is kinda what this topic was doing from the start.
So maybe I shouldn't argue Science, but I can argue Religion, because that I understand. And I also understand when someone misconstrues religion, just as you so heinously point out my misconstruing of Science. See, most Atheists still think of religion as this barbaric pseudo scientific institution that we use to explain things because we have no understanding of the world. If this were the case, Science is great, Atheism is great, etc. But it's not. Religion is much more than just some method of proving the world, and it's also more than a list of right and wrong and the consequences. Some religions developed for those purposes, and Christianity was the offshoot of the latter. But Christianity is about something spiritual, something emotional, something that goes beyond logic, something you clearly can't understand. I believe in the redemption and the love of Christ, and that leads me to follow what the Bible says. And the Bible says things about the world, and while I'm willing to accept scientific theories (did I use it right this time?) about this world and its origins, I have to take them and try and explain them by the Bible. If I started by using the Bible to prove the origins of the world, then Science would turn me away from Religion. But I started by using the Bible as something spiritual, and therefore am inclined to believe God when he told the people who wrote the Bible that every word was true.
So excuse me if I seem undereducated and confused. But I don't need some self-righteous Atheist who thinks they're a good person because they accept everybody to come and explain Science to me, because as far as I'm concerned, learning the ins and outs of Science is not what's really important to us as people, and as human beings.
And the stoning and executions of the Old Testament were not rules to be followed, they were punishments for breaking said rules, and the New Testament clearly says that because of Jesus' death, all humans are forgiven if they ask for forgiveness. Therefore, why do we need cruel and violent punishments? That's what Jesus came to do: To eliminate the suffering that humans would have to undergo to seek forgiveness, which would not have worked anyways, because no one can fulfill enough punishment for all the sins even just one person commits in a lifetime. Some people judge one sin as worse than another, but they are all just as terrible in God's eyes. To our human conscience, we apply labels and levels, like murdering is worse than lying, something that I do believe. But God does not work on this same level.
If you really want to understand how altruism could have evolved, and how it clearly benefits us and many other species' of animals, read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I doubt anyone here thinks they can change your mind. When I was in your position (and, judging by your picture, when I was your age) none of these arguments would have changed my mind either. I wasn't ready to honestly consider that I might be wrong. Nothing is going to change your mind until you can do the same.
It's a bad argument. I consciously make the choice to be a Christian. And it's not like I don't have doubts. The things you all say do weigh on me. It's just the belief in God weighs a bit more. Now, around the age of 15 and younger, let's say, your argument reigns true. I used to be a Christian because I just was, it was all I knew. But I've heard enough arguments that I now consciously choose to be a Christian of my own accord, not because of my parents, not because of my age or my surroundings.
But if you're convinced that because I'm "young and immature" that it means that my faith is illogical and baseless and will therefore crumble when I get older, then go on thinking that.
P.S.: I'm 17. You were probably guessing around 13 or so, it's okay.
Did you not see my direct (but unquoted) reference to Leviticus? Leviticus all about rules and punishments. But mostly punishments and ceremonies on how to be forgiven for the base sins laid out in the Commandments. The old Testament (or at least the first several books after Genesis (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers (and in correct order too, my goodness)) is about the punishments that are required of you to be forgiven of your sins. The rest is about the story of the Jewish people, examples of how to live your life and how not to live your life, and prophecies about Jesus' coming.
Edit: Also, God made those punishments and laws because it was all we had. It's complicated, but let me try and explain it.
See, God wants us to go to Heaven. But sin gets in the way of that. In the times before Jesus, there was no effective way of forgiveness. The punishments he lays out in Leviticus should help, but humans sin so much that no one could keep up with all of that. Therefore, by putting harsher punishments on people for sinning, God hopes to make people sin less out of fear for punishment. This entire situation is then remedied when Jesus comes. You quoted the part of the Bible where Jesus claims to fulfill the Old Testament, not rewrite it. And that's what he does. God said he would send someone to save His people. That's what Jesus is fulfilling, and therefore not rewriting the law and allowing the Jewish people to get away with sinning, but rather giving them the forgiveness that they desired.