Atheist Chat

thankfully i haven't had many door-to-door preachers, and now i won't get any. the problem i have is when they try to put religion into the schools. there's a woman trying to get books banned because they contain information on "homosexuality" "abortion" and "atheism"
80 books in total

In Malta, MIMS? Or here in the US?

Banning books is the obscenity in my own opinion. Information should be able to flow freely so that people can learn to think for themselves and make their own decisions.

I have a feeling that people who want to ban books are afraid that their own belief system won't hold up to the light of scrutiny, so they have to squash alternative thought.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Why is Christianity the major religion that tries so hard to convert people?

Because Jesus told them to.

What the Bible Says about "Witnessing"

"Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:19, 20).

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

"I tell you the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12).

In my experience, only a few Christians can answer that question. They usually say something about caring about me, or wanting me to go to heaven instead of hell. But some (and I'd bet most who see recruitment as a way of life) can quote the verses above.

And, as I see it, they have every right to try. But I have every right to say whatever I want to make them leave me alone...

So, they have the bible to back them up. But really? I think I mentioned before, it's like anything else. You get something great in your life, you want to share it. You see a GREAT movie, you want other people to watch it. You eat fantastic food at a restaurant, you want others to go there.

It's like, "I had some fantastic food at this Indian restaurant. I really loved it! Would you like to go"?

And then, when they say, "No, thanks. I don't like Indian food."

You BACK OFF! You don't say, "Oh, come on... You'll love it! Indian food is good for you! Come on, just try it one time. It's really good... Please? Listen, I know what I'm talking about and you'll love it..."

Then every time you see them they ask if you've been to the Indian restaurant yet and bug you about going there.... Eventually, you're going to get tired of it and dread seeing them and tell them to SHUT UP about the freaking Indian restaurant!

And they keep trying because Jesus told them to. And I know, when I compare Christian witnessing to eating at an Indian restaurant, I make baby Jesus cry.

Sorry, I'm feeling particularly heretical today.

Thanks for the passages, BH.

I love the analogy between Indian food and religious proselytizing.

But why, then do some sects get in your face, and other more reasonable ones, do not? It must have to do with interpretation of the Bible.

Which is another thing I am musing about. If the Bible is supposed to be the word of god, why is it, in so many ways, so ambiguous and open to alternative interpretation?

Scuse me for butting in

You're correct about it being difficult to discern at times, but mostly it's from people focusing too much on one part without reading the whole thing. For instance the Indian food analogy could be easily handled if you quoted Mark 6:11 or Luke 9:5 to them. Just say, "Hey shake the dust off your feet and leave me alone." Ask them to follow Paul's example in Acts 13:51. You'll shock and amaze them. Jesus told the disciples to tell other people and if they didn't believe to move on down the road. That's straightforward and simple.

Thank you, dbates. There's also the whole thing about casting pearls before swine.

The meaning of the passage is disputed, but seems generally to be that the followers of Jesus should pass his message on to those most likely to accept it.

But in my experience, many people cast and cast and cast again, and unfortunately, they get upset when we "swine" step on their "pearls".

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Thank you, dbates.

There's also the whole thing about casting pearls before swine.

Very good. I'm impressed. Still Jesus' parables can be vague at times, and someone could say that they didn't believe you were swine. My option is better and straigt to the point. Of course from my point of view it's a horrible option to take, but I thought you would like to know that this option is available. I was sitting here reading your interesting conversation and I was thinking "If they only knew more about the Bible then they could easily volley questions like this." Then I couldn't bite my tounge any longer and had to say something.

Dbates, you and any other theist are more than welcome in this thread. I just don't want it devolving into a free for all, that's all. When I detect an attempt to derail I'll get snippy about it, but otherwise, I have no issues with your, or anyone else's presence here.

I appreciate your take on this subject.

I ask these questions because I'd like to be able to deal with this stuff in real life.

Originally posted by dbates
I was sitting here reading your interesting conversation and I was thinking "If they only knew more about the Bible then they could easily volley questions like this."

True... And I know quite a bit about the bible as I was raised in a VERY strict Christian home. I went to church twice on Sunday, every Wednesday night, Bible school, church camp (Man! I loved church camp! I can still smell it and I can recite all the books of the bible!) and every revival my mother could find within 50 miles. I was saved when I was 12, witnessed, wrote and sang songs about the story of Jesus and salvation for years.

You know what's funny? If only more Christians knew more about the Bible then they would probably not continue the 'pestering' that bothers so many non-religious people. Then we'd all be happy!

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Boy oh wow, I'm musing today. I think I caught a case of Lombozo's thinkin.'

I'm slowly reading Why Darwin Matters. I keep wanting fiction in between chapters, so it's taking a while.

One of the things brought up in the early chapters is about how, if a perfect being created us, we have anomalies in our biology, such as the following:

1) Men have nipples, though they never nurse children.

2) Thirteenth rib -- most people have twelve sets of ribs, but occasionally people are born with 13, a throwback to our primate ancestry.

3) Coccyx. A vestigial tail. It has no use today except for causing excruciating pain when fallen on.

4) Wisdom teeth. These were needed when our ancestors were mainly vegetarian, for grinding up plants of all kinds. Even though our jawbone has become smaller, we still have these teeth, which cause problems for many people when they try to grow in.

There are many more examples in the book, but this begs the question of intelligent design proponents: if a perfect being made our bodies, why do we have these flaws? The only logical answer is, because we evolved from earlier forms.

What I am wondering, now that I've meandered around the bush a while, is, what is it in (certain) Christian churches that do not allow for people to believe in what is scientific fact? Is it really necessary to view the Old Testament as literal truth instead of allegory for faith to survive?

I've been wondering a lot lately about things like this. Is it simply that people don't want to face the truth? Is it that they know in their guts that if they start to believe in evolution they will no longer need a god?

I really want to understand this "faith" thing. Maybe I never will, even though I used to have it. I was a child then, though, so it was easier to believe in something that I can't believe in now. I used to believe in Santa, et al., too.

Is there any way to reach across this divide between faith and reason? Without going off into the fatally flawed realm of intelligent design? Or is it a hopeless endeavor, and one that will eventually work itself out as science continues to advance and reveal more and more of the answers to the mysteries of our universe?

I'm tired out from all this thinkin' & stuff.

oh the cocyx, it's nothing more than the literal pain in the arse that we always here about.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
1) Men have nipples, though they never nurse children.

Our nipples are release valves for hot air.


On a serious note, the church really is going to have to adjust their thinking and embrace science as more discovery's are made, particularly Quantum physics and mechanics. There are sure to be exciting advances made during the next decade and religion runs the risk of becoming a 'dinosaur' if they arent more proactive in their outlook.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
what is it in (certain) Christian churches that do not allow for people to believe in what is scientific fact?

In many cases, science is in direct opposition to religion. It's like a test. They have to choose one.

I used to marvel at how brilliant my mother was, but then she'd choose fantasy over pure, clear logic and her reasoning was "Because God said." It's like there was a wall beyond which she was unwilling to go.

It's called FAITH

That's true faith. When a person can see one thing in front of them and totally deny it for something not proven, that's faith. That's why science and religion in their purest forms cannot go up against each other. Because religion has faith on its side. Nothing can "beat" an idea that someone has decided to believe in the face of all things contrary.

Is it simply that people don't want to face the truth?

Hell, no! They HAVE the truth! (as far as they're concerned) There's nothing to face. The truth is right in front of them. Their faith in the story rises above all else.

If you don't understand how they can reject science for religion, then you don't understand faith.

I really want to understand this "faith" thing.

Do you believe that when we die, we simply return to the earth?
Are you sure?
Are you absolutely certain?
If you are, then you understand faith.

It's simply surety without proof (in its strongest and purest form).

Is there any way to reach across this divide between faith and reason?

No. Why should we? If you are sure you have the truth, and they are sure they have the truth, why must we both believe the same thing?

Try to grasp this thought, which is in my belief system:
I believe that 2 people can disagree, and both be right.

Or is it a hopeless endeavor, and one that will eventually work itself out as science continues to advance and reveal more and more of the answers to the mysteries of our universe?

It's only hopeless if you're attached to the idea of everyone believing the same thing as far as creation/evolution, etc. Let go of the expectation that we should all have the same truth. Have yours and accept that others have theirs. Because really? There's only one way to find out who's really "right". And on the day you die, IF you have a feeling of soaring up into the sky and you see a bright light and feel love all around you like you've never imagined in all your dreams... Then you can say, "Oops"!

But until then, your "faith" is really no different than anyone else's. Because nobody alive knows for sure. That's where the agnostic in me really comes out. Because we may return to the earth, we may soar up to heaven, or there may be third, fourth and fifth alternatives. Maybe what happens depends on what we believe... If there are other dimensions (which I personally believe) there's no knowing.

And I'm comfortable with that.

(I'm not preaching agnosticism, just sharing my beliefs and thoughts.)

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Mojo, that's the direction in which I tend to lean as well.

Great reply as always, BH. I guess I just will never understand faith, because I can't just believe in something when there is evidence to the contrary. Dawkins stated that religion holds science back. That the two cannot truly coexist. I suppose only time will tell. I think we're at a balance point currently between the two systems and the weight is shifting towards science. Only time will tell. A supernatural explanation tends to be the default when we don't know the answer to something, or it was previously. Now science can answer a great many of the things that people used to believe god was responsible for, and many people are now learning that just because science doesn't have an answer to a question now doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation for it.

Maybe growing up watching first run Star Trek and having a family that introduced me to sci-fi at a young age has influenced me towards science the way other kids get influenced towards church. Wouldn't that be a hoot? I'm an atheist because I watched Star Trek. I can see it now: Star Trek banned in the bible belt, mass burnings of replica redshirts and toy communicators, shaming of the Trek geeks in stocks in the town square ...

I think science will ultimately be able to explain everything, and once they finally have a unified field theory, we will be much closer to having all the answers, and the god of the gaps will be getting squeezed ever tighter.

So does this mean that people will eventually give in and accept what science is saying and find a way to channel their faith so that they can have both? Or is Dawkins right in that people are going to have to give up religion in order for science to advance properly?

Is it possible that it could come down to a war between faith and science?


[edit: grammar]



[edit on 13-7-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

I agree that science can explain everything and the logic or reasons for the existence of an higher will and is increasingly be put to the squeeze. However since that every question that is posed about the universe wont be answered in one persons life time it is logical to assume that some people will always look to the existence of an higher power to explain the unexplainable.

Religion and science cannot co exist in there entirety although I do note with interest that some Christians say that evolution is the way that god created the earth. Organised Religion certainly seems to fear science above all else. Historically people have had to give up aspects of religious beliefs in order to get an grip of proven facts.

Are the people who are waging waging war against evolution any better then the people who locked up Gailileo ?
Organised Religion has and will always argue against proven facts that is unless you still think that the Earth is the centre universe.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
So does this mean that people will eventually give in and accept what science is saying and find a way to channel their faith so that they can have both? Or is Dawkins right in that people are going to have to give up religion in order for science to advance properly?

Is it possible that it could come down to a war between faith and science?

Even as an atheist MM i believe there can be a spiritual aspect to science. I dont have a problem with religion per se, i just dont believe the fairy tales, it doesnt particularly bother me that others do.
There are some very good, extremely intelligent scientists who do believe in God.
I think the two can co-exist.
And perhaps they do both need to be able to co-exist for the human race to reach our full potential.
But for that to happen i believe that religion as a whole needs to be able to move into the 22nd century and beyond with a new vibrant outlook that takes into consideration new discovery's and our expanding knowledge.
I dont believe that there will ever be a time when we know everything, as each new question is answered it is sure to open up new conundrum's.
I'm sure Quantum research is going to open up some doors that will initially blow our minds, perhaps the majority of the human race needs a crutch in the shape faith based religions for us to progress.
Perhaps religion needs to fully embrace evolution, not just as an answer to our own 'being', but as an answer to their own stagnancy.
Imo religion needs to evolve it's teachings and beliefs, as much as we need to continue to biologically evolve for the human race to survive and excel.

Hmmmm, hope that made sense.

let's say there was a god (for the sake of this question) and it died.... would that make atheism right or wrong?

If god died and people knew about it -- considering "god" is supposedly outside of space/time so that we can't deal with him directly -- atheists would probably be blamed for it. Our disbelief killed the deity.

Hmmmm. That may not be too far from the truth. Some people believe that the old gods died because people stopped believing in them.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
let's say there was a god (for the sake of this question) and it died.... would that make atheism right or wrong?

Well for the sake of answering the question I go along with the idea that god or gods once existed and are now deceased.
Well in the present tense atheism would be correct because go is no longer around but in the past tense atheism would have been wrong because the higher power(s) existed.

Of course a lot depends upon the time line of the god(s) lifetime. Humans may not have been around when the higher power was supposedly alive. Besides if the higher power died there would evidence of its grave and where it came from.



[edit on 14-7-2007 by xpert11]

But these gods that died weren't THE God (the Christian God) who is all-knowing, all-powerful, without beginning or end, Amen. I believe the religious look upon those "gods" who died as false gods or myth.

So if there was a God and he died, no, atheists wouldn't be right, because atheism is the belief that there is NO god (or higher power). Not now and not ever.

On a side note, the idea of the Christian God dying from lack of belief is pretty ridiculous to me, seeing as he's supposed to be omnipotent and all. Why would he need a certain amount of believers? He supposedly existed (forever) before we did. What sustained him then?