Continuation of Christianity debate.

[unriggable]

Well luns the thing is that it's hard to put any religion under one ideal. The only thing is that not enough muslims live in America to stop the media from portraying it that way.

[Stopper]

Some atheists seek to argue against religion for various reasons, but that is no different to arguing against slavery, or genocide or whatever you fancy really. It isn't because atheism tells you to argue, it is just that you see it as wrong and may want to stop it.

Do you have any idea how offensive that last assertion is...to equate the arguing against religion (which I think you really meant as Christianity) as arguing against slavery & genocide?!!

You know, I was trying to ignore this thread, but luns, you seem to take offence so readily when it's against your own beliefs, but you've got form in offending others, without explaining yourself. I mean, you posted some pictures up in this thread to "prove" your assertion that Britain was about to "fall" to Islamism, and possibly take America with it. But when people quite quickly responded to you, and somewhat derisively, you just ignored it all, without addressing anyone.

Now that you seem more talkative these days, do you feel like coming back to that?

[CrazyAnglican]

OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!

Okay I'd like to chime in here. Where are all of these billions of silent atheists? The University of New York did a random sampling survey (a pretty valid test considering the subject matter) of 50,000 people. Their findings were that 76.5 % of Americans were Christians. It also stated that while 14.5 % considered themselves "Not religious" only 0.4% identified themselves as atheist.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research ... ndings.htm

I understand the U.S. is not the world. There have been some ABC News peices done on the explosion of Christianity in Africa. The third biggest single church in the world is in Nigeria now and brings in 50,000 members a month, according to that news source.

Also the Anglican CHurch is growing in Southern and Eastern Asia. Korean Baptist churches are not that uncommon a sight around my hometown either. I just don't see atheists as the silent majority.

[Anarchy Ninja]

remember that america isnt the entire world

woops didnt read the bottom part

[unriggable]

OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!

Okay I'd like to chime in here. Where are all of these billions of silent atheists? The University of New York did a random sampling survey (a pretty valid test considering the subject matter) of 50,000 people. Their findings were that 76.5 % of Americans were Christians. It also stated that while 14.5 % considered themselves "Not religious" only 0.4% identified themselves as atheist.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research ... ndings.htm

[/quote]

Yeah I was a bit confused myself when I heard 'billions of atheists'

[CrazyAnglican]

woops didnt read the bottom part

That's because it wasn't there. My mistake, I was revising as you were typing

[Stopper]

OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!

Okay I'd like to chime in here. Where are all of these billions of silent atheists? The University of New York did a random sampling survey (a pretty valid test considering the subject matter) of 50,000 people. Their findings were that 76.5 % of Americans were Christians. It also stated that while 14.5 % considered themselves "Not religious" only 0.4% identified themselves as atheist.

Well, it very much depends on who you define as being a Christian. A great many people will define themselves as Christian simply because they were baptised as Christian.

They then have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity for the rest of their lives, except the odd funeral and wedding. This behaviour seems to be common throughout Europe, East Asia and a great deal of the USA. Personally, I'd say that that kind of behaviour would be tantamount to a kind of atheism, regardless of what the person themselves professed themselves to be.

Because if a person does nothing to demonstrate any kind of belief in Christianity, then what meaning can that belief have? Of course, Islam has some answers to that, but luckily, not many people on this forum are Muslim.

[drose]

There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

However, there are more Athists than jews, according to one source:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

which surprises most people.

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.

I agree that you should remember that america isnt the entire world, but the real point is that there are bugger all jews and hindus, and that most xians are anglican or catholic and are a direct result of colonial conquest (see Australia, South America, phillipines, east timor etc).

That doesn't detract from the numbers, but when you or your family is sick or starving and men with guns direct you to food, medicine and xinaity, there is a human instinct to go with the flow...


This carries on to other generations. IOW, religion is first and foremost a cultural thing. (duh.)

Luns101 -- where did you find religion? From you school/parents/community? From someone who helped you when you were down?

Perhaps from a careful analysis of the propositions and their implications and likelihoods?

Sorry, but religion doesn't wash for me. Also see the flying spaghetti monster.

[Wind Warrior]

Religions are always rising and falling just like nations, but unless Christianity is willing and able to change it will not survive this century.

[Stopper]

There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

...

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.

I disagree with both of these points. I have a similar attitude to both religion and politics - a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

If you extend the definition of a "Christian" to absolutely anyone who professes to be one, then the description itself loses all meaning.

I could call myself a "Jedi Knight", but given that I don't even know what a "Jedi" is, I think most people would quickly disregard that definition of myself. There's no reason why you can't do the same with "Christians", "Muslims" and "Jews".

Incidentally, I think much the same thing when it comes to the "socialists", "anarchists" and "patriots" etc etc, that I come across all the time.

[2dimes]

And on a side note, the "Forcing religion"-thread was started by a christian afaik.

No need for name calling.

[Aegnor]

There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

...

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.

I disagree with both of these points. I have a similar attitude to both religion and politics - a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

If you extend the definition of a "Christian" to absolutely anyone who professes to be one, then the description itself loses all meaning.

I could call myself a "Jedi Knight", but given that I don't even know what a "Jedi" is, I think most people would quickly disregard that definition of myself. There's no reason why you can't do the same with "Christians", "Muslims" and "Jews".

Incidentally, I think much the same thing when it comes to the "socialists", "anarchists" and "patriots" etc etc, that I come across all the time.

Well put, now all we need to do is convince the rest of the world and we will achieve world peace.

[Anarchy Ninja]

people seem to think relegion is the no.1 cause of war. it is a major contributor for some reason desptie most relegions being based of peace i think the most prominent and well know of these would be the crusade. but i think the main cause of conflict is greed, from the beginning of time greed has caused people to fight and kill each other if we eliminate that we could almost live in utopian societys

[Guiscard]

...a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

Just what I was about to say really. If you look at collectable and verifiable census information, sure Atheism doesn't rank in the billions worldwide (although the figure differs wildly). The actions and beliefs of those who claim to be religious on a census form often, however, entirely contradict the box they ticked. My mother ticks the 'Church of England' box because she was christened, went to a C of E school and was married in a church. Her family are Christian. She, however, doesn't believe in God whatsoever. People often see religion as a cultural thing. Traditional Roman Catholic families may very well contain generations of Atheists but they'll tick the Catholic box because that's there family culture. Although there is no accurate way of gauging that percentage, there are plenty of cases which indicate this trend. Whilst I was simply googling for figures I quickly came across this article here which describes a conservative scholar who recently 'came out' as an theist. She says that 'I was unaware of the depth of commitment to the idea that religion is the source of values and that conservatism and religion are inseparably linked.' because religious belief is so ingrained into certain societies people will claim to be Christian no matter what their actual beliefs (or lack of). Do you seriously think countries like Saudi who claim 96-98% Muslim do not contain a significant number of atheists? Religion is a cultural label people will give themselves even if they are very much atheistic.

[Stopper]

People often see religion as a cultural thing. Traditional Roman Catholic families may very well contain generations of Atheists but they'll tick the Catholic box because that's there family culture. Although there is no accurate way of gauging that percentage, there are plenty of cases which indicate this trend. Whilst I was simply googling for figures I quickly came across this article here which describes a conservative scholar who recently 'came out' as an theist. She says that 'I was unaware of the depth of commitment to the idea that religion is the source of values and that conservatism and religion are inseparably linked.' because religious belief is so ingrained into certain societies people will claim to be Christian no matter what their actual beliefs (or lack of). Do you seriously think countries like Saudi who claim 96-98% Muslim do not contain a significant number of atheists? Religion is a cultural label people will give themselves even if they are very much atheistic.

I agree with this - BTW, I'm not saying that labelling societies or communities as "Christian" and "Muslim" isn't a useful thing to do sometimes from a cultural point of view. Regardless of my own personal beliefs, I dare say it's useful sometimes to describe me as "Christian" or even "Catholic", because I'm bound to have many values and customs which I will have picked up from Christianity/Catholicism, even when I'm not aware of it. These will sometimes set me apart from Muslims/Protestants/whoever - although I can't think of any good examples off-hand - so the distinction is not entirely useless.

But my original point was addressing someone who talked about the personal beliefs of people in the world, and that, as I see it, is a separate matter from culture. Actually, we could go on about this 'til the cows come home, because the question of whether someone is genuinely Christian is a more complicated one than it might appear at first sight - and that's even long before you get into denominational differences.

Still, I say the majority of the world can be best described as "atheist". Most pursuits in life are minority pursuits, and religion isn't any different.

[MeDeFe]

Except that there aren't any classes on atheism, are there? And no, biology, mathematics and other sciences do not count. The fact that they don't mention god is not enough to make them atheistic.

I don't see how you can say that. Biology and other life sciences as currently taught from the evolutionist viewpoint inherently discount the existence of God and instead replace it with "natural causes" or "random chance". If that's not the backbone for atheism, then what is? I can't remember which skeptic it was here on the site, but somebody told me it was "nearly" impossible to be an atheist before Charles Darwin came along.

How is it atheistic to tell some kids about what parts a cell consists of, to let them have a look at the things through a microscope? Or to explain what nuclear power is, about fission and fusion of atoms and Einsteins theory of relativity? How is it atheistic to explain to kids how heredity works, why things like green eyes or blue eyes and stuff like that are often the same within a family? How is it atheistic to teach someone how to solve a quadratic equation? Why you shouldn't be mixing hydrogen and oxygen near an open flame?
God hasn't been "replaced" anywhere. What has happened is that we have found out how things work in a more exact way than before. From a religious perspective one could say that we have found out some rules god has implemented.
If knowing how things work is the backbone of atheism... well, that's bad luck for religion. But god has not been proven. If he had everyone would be a believer and probably everyone would believe the same. But that's not the case, the existence of a god hasn't been proven, nor has it been disproven. So why should children be told that everything they're taught in classes is only possible because god made it so or something like that? I don't know just how you would want god implemented in science classes so that's just guesswork on my part.
You say you took a good look at the different options before you became a christian. Would you not allow others to do the same?

[MeDeFe]

BUMP!

reply someone!

[heavycola]

Well I have something to add rather than a response to your post.


I went to two church of england-based schools, althouth they weren;t faith schools as such. I had chapel every day and church on a sunday. At each school evolution was as much a part of the curriculum as, say, shakespeare or glaciers. I don't think anyone - not even my christian biology teachers - thought to suggest that was another 'theory'.

And here is why: because the only evdience for creationism is the book of genesis. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, has developed as a theory because of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for it - geological, palaeontological and biological. It does NOT discount the existence of god, luns. Not one bit. As was pointed out elsewhere, the question of god is outside science and has no place in a biology classroom.
Of my christian friends here in the UK not one has rejected the British National Curriculum version of events because of what the bible says. As MeDeFe put it, 'from a religious perspective one could say that we have found out some rules god has implemented'. That is, i believe, the C of E point of view. Jay used to use the phrase 'evolutionist atheist' as if the two went hand in hand, when of course they don't at all.

So Luns - if you want creationism taught as a valid theory in biology then logically you have to include every recorded creation story, too, because from a scientific viewpoint they are ALL EQUALLY VALID.

[vtmarik]

By saying that your God is scientific enough to teach in science class, you are also saying that science is spiritual enough to teach in church.

No religion in schools, and no magic tricks in Church.

Want to teach ID in school? Let's also teach the Raelian version of ID that mankind wasn't created by a god but was in fact created by aliens called the Elohiem, and that all of the great religious figures in our time were actually robots.

It's just as valid, just as scientific, and therefore has to be taught in school in accordance with our first freedom. You can't single out one religion's version of the origin story, because that would count as state established religion. This is the country of all-or-none. Either you can wear any religious symbol around your neck, or you can't wear any.

[luns101]

Hey Everyone,

I'm up here in Sacramento checking in for awhile so I'll take a little while to respond to things. It may be awhile before I can again. Backglass!!!...you were more right than you know about letting the lady just run the show...lol.

How is it atheistic to tell some kids about what parts a cell consists of, to let them have a look at the things through a microscope?

It's not, but when the interpretation of those observations is that it arose by chance without any consideration of an alternate theory, that it was supernaturally created, that's where the problem lies. The problem comes when it is interpreted exclusively to favor random chance.

So why should children be told that everything they're taught in classes is only possible because god made it so or something like that? I don't know just how you would want god implemented in science classes so that's just guesswork on my part.

They shouldn't be preached to. My contention is that the theory of supernatural creation is not even considered by a majority of biology & science teachers, and that is wrong. When I was in public school I can remember the teacher specifically telling us, "the only explanation for the existence of the universe is natural causes, not a God." He would say that at least once a week. That is preaching. I got the same speeches later in college (one professor even said that Christians/creationists should be eliminated from the debate).Kids should just be taught the facts and they will interpret it (probably with a bias from family/friends).

You say you took a good look at the different options before you became a christian. Would you not allow others to do the same?

Who am I stopping? Obviously nobody here at CC is going to be convinced to "convert", but that's not my intention. It seems that most evolutionists here are just upset that someone jumped to the other side.

[luns101]

It does NOT discount the existence of god, luns. Not one bit. As was pointed out elsewhere, the question of god is outside science and has no place in a biology classroom.

Hmmm, part of that I agree with. Since science is based on observation and experimentation, neither you nor I can observe the beginning of the universe and conduct experiments on it to come to a definite conclusion of how it began. So we both have to believe on faith of how it came into being.

So Luns - if you want creationism taught as a valid theory in biology then logically you have to include every recorded creation story, too, because from a scientific viewpoint they are ALL EQUALLY VALID.

Not necessarily, I think there are only 2 viable models of origins. The evolutionary model and the creationist model. These other theories would fall under one of those two and could be covered in World Religions-type class.

Are you sweating your own wedding preparations yet? Let me tell you, I will be one happy person when the whole process is over and the actual day-to-day realities of marriage set in. I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing or pm me if you start to go crazy and we'll suffer together!

[luns101]

Want to teach ID in school? Let's also teach the Raelian version of ID that mankind wasn't created by a god but was in fact created by aliens called the Elohiem, and that all of the great religious figures in our time were actually robots.

Intelligent Design is one of two models. Attempts have been made to fuse evolution & creationism together: theistic evolution. This "Raelian" Theory could be covered under a World Religions class. It would have to meet the standards that every other belief system has in order to convince people that it is the truth. The point of education is not to "preach" a certain belief but to present them and let students make up their minds.

I think the confusion here is that the skeptics here believe I want to start "indoctrinating" students minds with only Christianity. My contention is that in a majority of biology/science classes, that "indoctrination" is already taking place by only presenting one interpretation of the facts. It depends on the teacher though.

Either you can wear any religious symbol around your neck, or you can't wear any.

Personally, I don't wear any. I attempt, to the best of my ability, to live a life that would please God. The average person is someone who is probably hurting because of a messed-up life and probably doesn't give a hoot about an evolution/creationist models debate. The scripture that I was reading yesterday as I did my devotions was 2 Corinthians 1: 3-4

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God."

You guys probably think I'm trying to "convert" you with that passage. Not at all, but at least you might see my intentions in a different light. What I've noticed here on this site is an attempt by some to redefine Christianity as a belief that wants to go around starting wars.

[drose]

There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

...

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.

I disagree with both of these points. I have a similar attitude to both religion and politics - a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

How can you? I went to an Anglican school and the Jew in my class was not Anglican or xian at all.

He said the prayer, as I did, but didn't at all believe in Christ's divinity.

Also, plenty of Christians don't go to chruch, but still have complete faith. Surely you don't dispute this -- so that takes care of the second point.

As for the first, if you honestly are certain in your heart that there is no God, but you are willing to tell others that you think there is (even by implication) then this shows a fantastic weakness of character as far as I am concerned.

I suspect that if you refine this a little, what you're saying is that millions claim to be xian but are not, and if this is your argument then I agree 100%.

Hoever, not being xian is different from being atheist. They might be unsure about God, or decide that it doesn't matter, or have faith but be too lazy or selfish to behave in a xian fashion, and therefore invalidate that faith by hypocrisy.

So I agree that many many non-xians may indeed claim that faith, but I don't accept that a significant number of people who are utterly convinced of the absence of a higher force of any kind will casually assert that they do believe in fairy stories.



I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

If you extend the definition of a "Christian" to absolutely anyone who professes to be one, then the description itself loses all meaning.
[/quote]

[drose]

I think the confusion here is that the skeptics here believe I want to start "indoctrinating" students minds with only Christianity. My contention is that in a majority of biology/science classes, that "indoctrination" is already taking place by only presenting one interpretation of the facts. It depends on the teacher though.

This isn't really hard.

Biology is the scientific study of life. That's what it is, that's what you teach. It is shown that some guy did this experiment, and you can do too if you want. here's all the stuff, see if it works out the same for you -- wow, it did. That's what science is, a tool to investigate reality and develop theories which can be used to predict things.

Through scientific study we have developed a theory of evolution, amongst others, which fits observation pretty well.

The attack from the church on Biology is similar in naivety and ignorance to the attack on physicists and astronomers centuries ago when they announced their discoveries.

If you want to present ID, put it in an ID class, but DON'T pretend that it's part of a scientific study of living things, because it's not. That's why it doesn't belong in Biology.

Personally I'd be delighted if at around year 8 or year 9 all studies were suspended and students were taught about 20 of the worlds most significant or interesting religions.

This would not only help to foster understanding of others, but many of the kids woud discover how ridiculous and childish all these claims are when formally presented without candles and funny clothes, or music and excited jump-up-and-down healers.

I just don't see the two as competing; the churches want to "own" the explanation of existence, and they really can do fine in focussing on areas that science will (probably) never be able to explain. However, for those who insist on a science vs religion situation, I'll be happy to join any religion that can give me the equivalents of antibiotics, or vaccinations, or gene therapy, or chemotherapy, or nuclear medicine, or the Internet.

It is clear to anyone that scientific progress, for all its misuse (and that's a different thread) has produced are remarkable number of healing miracles.

I think that the attack on biology by the churches, because that's what it is, is treason.

How would you have felt if suddenly muslims turned up ten years ago and started suggesting that ID be taught in biology classes? More than one pundit would declare that it was an attempt to weaken the technological progress of the USA.

ID is just a copout that says "_I_ don't understand how all this could be here, therefore it must be magic".

[heavycola]

It does NOT discount the existence of god, luns. Not one bit. As was pointed out elsewhere, the question of god is outside science and has no place in a biology classroom.

Hmmm, part of that I agree with. Since science is based on observation and experimentation, neither you nor I can observe the beginning of the universe and conduct experiments on it to come to a definite conclusion of how it began. So we both have to believe on faith of how it came into being.

So Luns - if you want creationism taught as a valid theory in biology then logically you have to include every recorded creation story, too, because from a scientific viewpoint they are ALL EQUALLY VALID.

Not necessarily, I think there are only 2 viable models of origins. The evolutionary model and the creationist model. These other theories would fall under one of those two and could be covered in World Religions-type class.

Are you sweating your own wedding preparations yet? Let me tell you, I will be one happy person when the whole process is over and the actual day-to-day realities of marriage set in. I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing or pm me if you start to go crazy and we'll suffer together!

One word - mothers. Sheesh. actually they are being brilliant, sorting things out while I slave away here. It's being sat down and asked to choose between two differnet coulours of chysanthemum etc that is wearing me down. Ah well. When's your date?

I agree with you that there are two generally accepted models that explain our existence - evolution and creation. But evolution has a purely scientific basis, whereas it must be true that every creation myth is as unscientific (in a non-perjorative sense) as every other. I learned about genesis in RE, about the Olympians in Latin... shouldn't every religious explanation be taught in religious studies class?