Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism and faith

6,799 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Illyrius
On 28. 04. 2018. at 6:20 PM, danydandan said:

Seems to me, its very us verses them or your either with us on against us. We don't see that over here where I am.

My experience of Religion over here is Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Hebrew no one has this attitude of it's us against the world.

It is a natural process of heating up tensions. When enough tension boils it all becomes us-vs-them. No matter do we speak about politics, nations, races or religions. :)

You can witness this everywhere and in all times. I completely understand American Christians in this sense, after all if you want to further up your education on college there to a certain degree YOU MUST BELIEVE in Darwins theory of evoulution. Otherwise you are labeled as a retard, and not allowed to engage in further state sponsored studying course.

This also answers to opening topic question as you MUST BELIEVE in certain highly doubtful doctrines. Not only do they believe - it is dogmatically required from them to have faith in certain apostles such as st. Darwin for example.

Edited by Illyrius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
24 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

It is a natural process of heating up tensions. When enough tension boils it all becomes us-vs-them. No matter do we speak about politics, nations, races or religions. :)

You can witness this everywhere and in all times. I completely understand American Christians in this sense, after all if you want to further up your education on college there to a certain degree YOU MUST BELIEVE in Darwins theory of evoulution. Otherwise you are labeled as a retard, and not allowed to engage in further state sponsored studying course.

This also answers to opening topic question as you MUST BELIEVE in certain highly doubtful doctrines. Not only do they believe - it is dogmatically required from them to have faith in certain apostles such as st. Darwin for example.

Do you not agree, I think agree rather than believe is the right word here, with the Theory of Natural Selection?

I'm pretty sure people are free to believe what ever they want, being ridiculed for not agreeing in a theory, even though all the evidence supports, is just I believe.

Would you not ridicule the ridiculous? Like flat Earth people.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
19 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you not agree, I think agree rather than believe is the right word here, with the Theory of Natural Selection?

I'm pretty sure people are free to believe what ever they want, being ridiculed for not agreeing in a theory, even though all the evidence supports, is just I believe.

Would you not ridicule the ridiculous? Like flat Earth people.

I already stated what i think about Darwin and his theories. To me personally his theories are even stupider than flat earth theories, but this is just my personal stance.

I tried to redicule Darwin as he deserves to be rediculed but that was considered as "trollish". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

I already stated what i think about Darwin and his theories. To me personally his theories are even stupider than flat earth theories, but this is just my personal stance.

I tried to redicule Darwin as he deserves to be rediculed but that was considered as "trollish". :)

You are aware by far the largest group that accepts the evidence of evolution by way of genetics and the Fossil record are Christians, right? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
7 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

You are aware by far the largest group that accepts the evidence of evolution by way of genetics and the Fossil record are Christians, right? 

No. That is something new to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

No. That is something new to me.

Bulk of the population is religious. Even at the highest levels of education it breaks down to a roughly even split.

 I can name several scientists who are living or only recently deceased who were religious and public about it and had no backlash from it. 

 The presentation of it being completely anti religious is strictly from one camp. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
6 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Bulk of the population is religious. Even at the highest levels of education it breaks down to a roughly even split.

 I can name several scientists who are living or only recently deceased who were religious and public about it and had no backlash from it. 

 The presentation of it being completely anti religious is strictly from one camp. 

Are Christian kids on U.S. college campuses facing open hostility and discrimination because of their faith? Supreme Court Justice Justice Samuel Alito seems to think so. So does U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Daniel Ripple – and human rights attorneys Gregory Baylor and Jordan Lorence.

alito-e1328805458583.jpg

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Writing the minority opinion in a case involving Christian students’ rights, Alito warned 18 months ago against the majority’s ruling, saying it would be used as a “weapon” against Christians in U.S. colleges.

When Alito was dissenting in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, he cautioned that not only was the majority’s decision seriously flawed, but that it would be used as a club against groups with viewpoints that are unpopular among the vast majority of college administrators – such as Christian faith.

He warned that kids in religiously and politically conservative groups — which college administrators disfavor — would be targeted, notes Robert Shibley writing for National Review magazine.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was a “sharply divided and startlingly wrongheaded decision,” agrees Shibley. “Those concerned about religious liberty on campus have known that the fallout was on its way. At Vanderbilt University, it has arrived — and it’s as bad as anticipated.”

“In Martinez,” he writes, “the Court determined that public institutions like the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could require all student groups — even those based on shared belief, such as religious and political organizations — to admit members and even leaders without regard to their beliefs.

 

“Groups like the Christian Legal Society, whose constitution required students to have traditional Christian beliefs (such as in Christ’s bodily resurrection) and morals (no sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage), could be required to remove those provisions from their

constitutions and admit ‘all comers,’ or else face ‘derecognition’ and the corresponding loss of access to meeting space and other benefits that all other groups enjoyed.

shibley-e1328805474825.jpg

 

Robert Shibley of National Review magazine

“To lack recognition is basically not to exist at all on today’s college campus,” notes Shibley.

So, how bad is it on college campuses these days?

The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper at the University of North Carolina reports that officials are investigating whether a Christian a capella singing group violated university policy when it voted to remove from membership a student whose views about homosexuality contradict the Bible’s teachings.

“According to the article,” writes Gregory Baylor, a human rights attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, “Psalm 100 is a recognized student group, and the university’s non-discrimination policy thus applies to it.”

psalm-100-e1328805404859.jpg

 

The student singing group Psalm 100

But because of the Martinez ruling, the singing group can’t kick out the member — who advocates the homosexual lifestyle.

Meanwhile in San Diego, “the Ninth Circuit issued a disappointing decision,” writes attorney Jordan Lorence, “against a Christian fraternity and sorority.”

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/home-page-news-and-views/are-us-colleges-hostile-to-christian-students.aspx

 

I would like to hear a decent "other camp" review about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
28 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

No. That is something new to me.

The Catholic Church accepted evolution.

Also you can ridicule acceptance of a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

The Catholic Church accepted evolution.

Good for them. I am glad i dont belong there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
On 4/26/2018 at 9:36 PM, eight bits said:

Anyway, if you understand why I am interested in what Anthony does, then maybe you also can understand why I am more interested in how people come to their beliefs than in urging them to change their beliefs to be more like mine, as nice as that would be... nice for them, I mean, :) .

Ha, I do think what Anthony does is cool, but he has different objectives I guess than I do, he's not in it for the debate.  Actually Anthony I think does both of the things you mention above, I think we had a very mild disagreement long ago concerning your minor criticism of him not being more upfront that his goal is belief change in his street epistemology sessions.  Just as he's interested in how people come to their beliefs in service to that goal, I'm also interested in the same to the extent it supports their beliefs being correct and maybe more importantly challenges my own outlook.  I've watched a few of his videos and read some of the transcripts, including some interesting ones where he provides additional annotation with comments on things he should have approached better, but in just that small sample I think some flavor of Pascal's Wager has come up around 3-4 times.  Yep, it's possible that this time there may be some argument I may not have thought of or encountered concerning the logic of that Wager that does support those believers' position, but that hasn't been the case the last several times I've discussed it.

Quote

If atheism is only about belief in gods (and by some accounts, not even a belief that there is no god, not being a theist suffiices), then atheism is NOT about belief in science. So what difference does it make whether or not a scientist believes in gods? Why wouldn't a scientist believe in gods? Why would a scientist qua scientist disbleieve in gods?

Agreed on your post, there's no necessary connection between atheism and science and I agree with your comments on belief change.  Concerning your last sentence above a couple points, maybe irrelevant, come to mind.  Taking it from the opposite side, I at least am not surprised to find that in the US the percentage of scientists who believe in god is way lower compared to the general population, given some poll results.  I personally don't think peer pressure and the like is that large of a factor to explain the difference, given that the set 'scientists' is such a small bubble within a society awash with believers, I think these polls are somewhat reflective of their actual beliefs.  Are you surprised by this correlation?  I'm not, and it's a pretty strong correlation for it not to have anything to do with what they do as scientists.  I can think of several reasons why this is so, concerning critical thinking and its value and scientists disproportionate exposure to it, the differences in reliability between science and other supposed ways of knowing, etc.  

Also, I'm not sure but I think science may have something to say about the subject.  I may be wrong, but is the question, 'why do people believe in gods?' (or for that matter 'why do people believe in hauntings'), a mysterious, perplexing question from the standpoint of psychologists?  I thought they already had some decent explanations for why that is the case and didn't think that, 'because maybe gods actually exist', was still in the running from their standpoint.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The Catholic Church accepted evolution.

Also you can ridicule acceptance of a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence.

I can  present a mountains and universes of evidence against it, so if you feel a need open a topic about it, and i will gladly participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

I can  present a mountains and universes of evidence against it, so if you feel a need open a topic about it, and i will gladly participate.

No thanks,

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
25 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No thanks,

Dunno why not, it would be well "peer reviewed" - but nevermind :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Dunno why not, it would be well "peer reviewed" - but nevermind :)

I'm by all means the definition of an ignorant fool when it comes to the finer points of evolution and don't feel I know enough about the subject to debate it correctly. I would just to the acceptance of it's premise no justice unfortunately.

I have read enough to understand it and accept it's premise based on the papers, articles and TED videos I have indulged in.

I am an expert in photonics, fibre optics, electronics, field instrumentation and electrical engineering can we debate them instead?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm by all means the definition of an ignorant fool when it comes to the finer points of evolution and don't feel I know enough about the subject to debate it correctly. I would just to the acceptance of it's premise no justice unfortunately.

I have read enough to understand it and accept it's premise based on the papers, articles and TED videos I have indulged in.

I am an expert in photonics, fibre optics, electronics, field instrumentation and electrical engineering can we debate them instead?

Oh, i see what you mean. I opened a topic myself. Dunno nothing about stuff you are an expert in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Oh, i see what you mean. I opened a topic myself. Dunno nothing about stuff you are an expert in.

Maybe ignorant fool was an over exaggeration, but it's not a topic I'm comfortable debating because it's not my field. Maybe we can have a layman's debate regarding it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Maybe ignorant fool was an over exaggeration, but it's not a topic I'm comfortable debating because it's not my field. Maybe we can have a layman's debate regarding it?

It is a vast subject so i opened a new topic, if you are interested i will be glad to see you there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
6 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Are Christian kids on U.S. college campuses facing open hostility and discrimination because of their faith? Supreme Court Justice Justice Samuel Alito seems to think so. So does U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Daniel Ripple – and human rights attorneys Gregory Baylor and Jordan Lorence.

alito-e1328805458583.jpg

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Writing the minority opinion in a case involving Christian students’ rights, Alito warned 18 months ago against the majority’s ruling, saying it would be used as a “weapon” against Christians in U.S. colleges.

When Alito was dissenting in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, he cautioned that not only was the majority’s decision seriously flawed, but that it would be used as a club against groups with viewpoints that are unpopular among the vast majority of college administrators – such as Christian faith.

He warned that kids in religiously and politically conservative groups — which college administrators disfavor — would be targeted, notes Robert Shibley writing for National Review magazine.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was a “sharply divided and startlingly wrongheaded decision,” agrees Shibley. “Those concerned about religious liberty on campus have known that the fallout was on its way. At Vanderbilt University, it has arrived — and it’s as bad as anticipated.”

“In Martinez,” he writes, “the Court determined that public institutions like the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could require all student groups — even those based on shared belief, such as religious and political organizations — to admit members and even leaders without regard to their beliefs.

 

“Groups like the Christian Legal Society, whose constitution required students to have traditional Christian beliefs (such as in Christ’s bodily resurrection) and morals (no sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage), could be required to remove those provisions from their

constitutions and admit ‘all comers,’ or else face ‘derecognition’ and the corresponding loss of access to meeting space and other benefits that all other groups enjoyed.

shibley-e1328805474825.jpg

 

Robert Shibley of National Review magazine

“To lack recognition is basically not to exist at all on today’s college campus,” notes Shibley.

So, how bad is it on college campuses these days?

The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper at the University of North Carolina reports that officials are investigating whether a Christian a capella singing group violated university policy when it voted to remove from membership a student whose views about homosexuality contradict the Bible’s teachings.

“According to the article,” writes Gregory Baylor, a human rights attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, “Psalm 100 is a recognized student group, and the university’s non-discrimination policy thus applies to it.”

psalm-100-e1328805404859.jpg

 

The student singing group Psalm 100

But because of the Martinez ruling, the singing group can’t kick out the member — who advocates the homosexual lifestyle.

Meanwhile in San Diego, “the Ninth Circuit issued a disappointing decision,” writes attorney Jordan Lorence, “against a Christian fraternity and sorority.”

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/home-page-news-and-views/are-us-colleges-hostile-to-christian-students.aspx

 

I would like to hear a decent "other camp" review about this.

Do you think that the student who joined the singing group was not a Christian? 

Christians are not universally against homosexuality. 

The article is chiefly saying that they need to be allowed to discriminate. Not that long ago at all, some of these same people claimed their Christian values were under attack if they weren't allowed to discriminate against blacks and interracial marriage. 

Heck, the protest signs even used similar slogans. 

And like today those they railed against were also mostly Christian. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Are Christian kids on U.S. college campuses facing open hostility and discrimination because of their faith? Supreme Court Justice Justice Samuel Alito seems to think so. So does U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Daniel Ripple – and human rights attorneys Gregory Baylor and Jordan Lorence.

alito-e1328805458583.jpg

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Writing the minority opinion in a case involving Christian students’ rights, Alito warned 18 months ago against the majority’s ruling, saying it would be used as a “weapon” against Christians in U.S. colleges.

When Alito was dissenting in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, he cautioned that not only was the majority’s decision seriously flawed, but that it would be used as a club against groups with viewpoints that are unpopular among the vast majority of college administrators – such as Christian faith.

He warned that kids in religiously and politically conservative groups — which college administrators disfavor — would be targeted, notes Robert Shibley writing for National Review magazine.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was a “sharply divided and startlingly wrongheaded decision,” agrees Shibley. “Those concerned about religious liberty on campus have known that the fallout was on its way. At Vanderbilt University, it has arrived — and it’s as bad as anticipated.”

“In Martinez,” he writes, “the Court determined that public institutions like the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could require all student groups — even those based on shared belief, such as religious and political organizations — to admit members and even leaders without regard to their beliefs.

 

“Groups like the Christian Legal Society, whose constitution required students to have traditional Christian beliefs (such as in Christ’s bodily resurrection) and morals (no sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage), could be required to remove those provisions from their

constitutions and admit ‘all comers,’ or else face ‘derecognition’ and the corresponding loss of access to meeting space and other benefits that all other groups enjoyed.

shibley-e1328805474825.jpg

 

Robert Shibley of National Review magazine

“To lack recognition is basically not to exist at all on today’s college campus,” notes Shibley.

So, how bad is it on college campuses these days?

The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper at the University of North Carolina reports that officials are investigating whether a Christian a capella singing group violated university policy when it voted to remove from membership a student whose views about homosexuality contradict the Bible’s teachings.

“According to the article,” writes Gregory Baylor, a human rights attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, “Psalm 100 is a recognized student group, and the university’s non-discrimination policy thus applies to it.”

psalm-100-e1328805404859.jpg

 

The student singing group Psalm 100

But because of the Martinez ruling, the singing group can’t kick out the member — who advocates the homosexual lifestyle.

Meanwhile in San Diego, “the Ninth Circuit issued a disappointing decision,” writes attorney Jordan Lorence, “against a Christian fraternity and sorority.”

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/home-page-news-and-views/are-us-colleges-hostile-to-christian-students.aspx

 

I would like to hear a decent "other camp" review about this.

:clap:

Another win for reason over theistic bigotry. This is fighting discrimination, not portraying it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

 For the record, Pamela Gay is a Christian and Director of Technology and Citizen Science for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Mary Higby Schweitzer is an Evangelical Christian and paleontologist out of North Carolina State. 

 I'm sticking to  two I know personally, as I don't know the religious beliefs of ones pulled from a list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think we had a very mild disagreement long ago concerning your minor criticism of him not being more upfront that his goal is belief change in his street epistemology sessions.

Yes, our disagreement was mild and long enough ago that at least one of two things have happened with the passage of time:

- Anthony got better and more open on that score, consistent with what I think is his underlying personality (dude is a people person, no matter what the script says)

- I got desensitized to it

It's hard to tell which, and could be a bit of both; I seem to be locked in here behind my eyeballs :) .

Quote

Are you surprised by this correlation?

No. I think it's education in general, not just science specifically, and especially the relatively recent emphasis (at least in the US) on critical thinking, across the curriculum and starting in pre-K. Maybe science courses, especially lab courses, have an edge.

Which by the way, doesn't predict that the pendulum won't swing back, at least some part of the way. I've run into some pretty fair critically thinking theists. Not necessarily "professionals," but if almost all kids are getting critical thinking today, then some of those kids are going to be religious professionals some day. We'll see how that works out.

Quote

... is the question, 'why do people believe in gods?' (or for that matter 'why do people believe in hauntings'), a mysterious, perplexing question from the standpoint of psychologists?  I thought they already had some decent explanations for why that is the case and didn't think that, 'because maybe gods actually exist', was still in the running from their standpoint.

Basic answer: yes, the questions are open to scientific investiagtion and yes, I think there is progress with them.

Clearly, people could believe in _________ (anything you named and dozens more), even if there are no _________. I mentioned Tanya Luhrmann who has studied how that might happen in great depth. She is also careful (and isn't the only researcher who is careful) that the justified conclusion is not that ___________ don't exist.

To do the research at all, since you can't observe or control for the presence or absence of _________ , you have to look at and manipulate other factors, and the resulting explanations MUST be exclusively in terms of those factors you observe, measure and vary.

She can show that the same mechanisms channel visionary experience of druid spirits, Jesus and the ghost of Leland Stanford, Jr. She can't show (but of course doesn't assume the contrary) that all three products aren't manifestations of a jinn messing with her and those around her. (In other words, her supernatural-related beliefs, whatever those might be including possibly none, are the same before and after the experiments or field work).

There's nothing about her choice of what to study, as relevant as it is to the study of religion, that gets her past the general inability to test supernatural hypotheses by natural means. Yet (?).

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
13 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

This here, Has me asking, why is it even important to think this is a concern to you? Why is it important, what others believe or do not believe? Shouldn’t everyone be left alone to believe or don’t believe? 

 

Are we not here to discuss and debate religion, beliefs and spirituality vs skepticism?

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
10 hours ago, danydandan said:

The Catholic Church accepted evolution.

Also you can ridicule acceptance of a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence.

The Catholic Church accept Theistic evolution. It's not the same idea as blind, random evolutionary processes (New Darwinism) advocated by many atheists/materialists. For most christians, evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Catholic Church accept Theistic evolution. It's not the same idea as blind, random evolutionary processes (New Darwinism) advocated by many atheists/materialists. For most christians, evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God.

That's not only using the God of the gaps argument but creating the gap for it to reside in as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's not only using the God of the gaps argument but creating the gap for it to reside in as well. 

I must say that I’ve never understood the rhetorical force of the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science. Any critique of materialist dogma in science from a design or immaterial perspective (Theistic evolution) is derided as a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.