|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 17:03:17 GMT -5
Huh? Nevada is only 4% Norman and they control the Los Vegas school board? I am surprised there that many Normans in either Los Vegas or Las Vegas. I thought they all settled in England and stayed put except for the third crusade! Nevada was part of Mormon (Utah) territory when it became a state. Utah lost its bid for statehood because they wanted to have polygamy legal, so Nevada grabbed the opportunity to have representation in Washington by explicitly making polygamy illegal. That pleased Washington at the time, and because the civil war was on the North was clamoring for more electoral college votes, so granted Nevada statehood even though it didn't have enough population at the time. The shrewd Mormons in the state fully anticipated that after they became a state they could make polygamy legal with no threat of having their sovereignty revoked, but when the silver mining industry caused a major population exodus they were threatened with losing their statehood because of that. Utah eventually became a state too, and outlawed polygamy -- the church president received the revelation that polygamy had served its purpose. That split the church, but the pro-statehood non-polygamist faction kept the upper hand ever since. Las Vegas originated as a Mormon station to accommodate travelers half way from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles. Then, when the Mafia was chased out of Los Angeles, they came to Las Vegas and built it into everything they couldn't have in Los Angeles. But the Mormons had a much better way to put the Mafia out of business. They made gambling legal, and provided legal protections against cheating, and took away the incentive for the Mafia to be involved in gambling. Then they made prostitution legal, and provided legal protections for prostitutes and clients, and left the Mafia without incentive to remain in that business.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 11, 2014 17:15:42 GMT -5
No, I seriously haven't had to rationalise that religion and science can co-exist very comfortably. There are quite a number of theologians, philosophers and scientists in history who have found no conflict between their faith and science - so it's not just a question of the times we now live in. Science and religion are different streams and will approach things from different angles. Science is not my master - I accept and respect it as a valid line of reasoning but I don't worship it - I worship a God who has created all things, much of which science is ultimately trying to find out more about. It would be easier to dismiss the supernatural if Jesus hadn't lived, died and rose again, raised people to life and defeated death himself - of which there is much evidence. My faith is firmly planted in a God who has delivered on His promises to humanity - not some airy, fairy paranormal entity who I can't relate to. My question is WHY do you need to "worship" anything, -a God or anything else?
Why does anyone with the information that we have in this day and age, of the history of religion & understanding of WHY people "worshiped" a supernatural entity , -why do you still feel a need to "worship" a supernatural being? What is the difference between some " airy, fairy paranormal entity " and your God that is different than others "GOD"?
What "promises to humanity" has HE "delivered?"
All by itself, the universe, our own planet & life itself is awe inspiring, without any need to "worship" some age old superstitions & myths as people often did in the past when they didn't have the answers that we have today.
Hey, don't be disparaging the fairies. I have always depended on the kindness of fairies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 22:00:03 GMT -5
A way of looking at "intelligent design" is to think of the meta-design philosophy.
ie life is fully of redundancy. No engineer would build like that - but it gives life a resilience (ie if your ears are damaged you can hear through your bones, or air vibrations etc..)
You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms.
Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design."
God commanded the sea to bring forth life. Genesis 1:20 That's pretty "intelligent"
It doesn't say God made each species from scratch. That's pretty "intelligent" too.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 12, 2014 0:10:03 GMT -5
A way of looking at "intelligent design" is to think of the meta-design philosophy. ie life is fully of redundancy. No engineer would build like that - but it gives life a resilience (ie if your ears are damaged you can hear through your bones, or air vibrations etc..) You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms. Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." God commanded the sea to bring forth life. Genesis 1:20 That's pretty "intelligent" It doesn't say God made each species from scratch. That's pretty "intelligent" too. I think the point is not whether the design is 'intelligent' but whether the development of various lifeforms is the result of a design or whether they developed over time, governed by the success or failure of random changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 1:24:40 GMT -5
Life IS governed by selection of success over failure. Any "perfect" design would be "perfect" for a given environment, but as soon as that environment changes that species is no longer "perfectly adapted."
Thus I can see no better way of having "intelligent design" than by natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 12, 2014 7:16:00 GMT -5
He promised to enter humanity and He did. And it is well documented. Quite a lot more than Socrates who I suspect you believe in completely. Whether Socrates did or did not exist makes little difference to the writings and beliefs that are attributed to him. No one is claiming a paranormal source. The fables of Aesop still hold their meaning even if Aesop did not exist. The teachings of Jesus still hold value as teachings whether there was a actual man names Jesus or if the teachings are from a composite of the beliefs and teachings of several people.You keep saying this but, although there have been at least two requests for examples, you don't seem to have anything to support your claim. It isn't a matter of admitting that Jesus/Christ existed but whether he was a paranormal being. Most of the claims presented by Jesus had been around many centuries before Jesus is said to exist. Do you have any teaching or moral lesson that was original with Jesus? There are many levels of intelligence. Think about the investors who gave their funds to Bernie Madoff. Or the original people who were cheated by Charles Ponzi? Or the fact that schemes just like these had been the subject of novels like Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens in the mid 1800s. Intelligence has little to do with faith. It doesn't. I would think that the poll in the UK that found that, on an individual level, Muslims give more to charity than other religious groups. Christian churches may, as organizations, give more but in many cases the price is proselytization. Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
Annie Dillard Perhaps because the good is frequently tempered with bad. Not everyone wears your rose colored glasses.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 10:41:11 GMT -5
My question is WHY do you need to "worship" anything, -a God or anything else?
Why does anyone with the information that we have in this day and age, of the history of religion & understanding of WHY people "worshiped" a supernatural entity , -why do you still feel a need to "worship" a supernatural being? What is the difference between some " airy, fairy paranormal entity " and your God that is different than others "GOD"?
What "promises to humanity" has HE "delivered?"
All by itself, the universe, our own planet & life itself is awe inspiring, without any need to "worship" some age old superstitions & myths as people often did in the past when they didn't have the answers that we have today.
Hey, don't be disparaging the fairies. I have always depended on the kindness of fairies. Oops, sorry, gene! no offense- ;)there are indeed some very nice fairies!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 11:19:02 GMT -5
A way of looking at "intelligent design" is to think of the meta-design philosophy. ie life is fully of redundancy. No engineer would build like that - but it gives life a resilience (ie if your ears are damaged you can hear through your bones, or air vibrations etc..) You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms. Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." God commanded the sea to bring forth life. Genesis 1:20 That's pretty "intelligent" It doesn't say God made each species from scratch. That's pretty "intelligent" too. When did Dawkins' ever say that?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 12:12:19 GMT -5
He promised to enter humanity and He did. And it is well documented. Quite a lot more than Socrates who I suspect you believe in completely. God promised many things in the Old Testament across many centuries that were fulfilled in Christ. Many atheists can't even admit that Christ existed - his claims are too radical for them. I'm very comfortable in worshipping a God who has given me everything I have. It's quite fulfilling actually. I also know many intelligent people who the more that is discovered the stronger their faith is in our Creator. Why should it irk so much when most of the major charities in the world are Christian organisations which do an amazing amount of good.Why like Matthew Paris, an atheist who wrote that what Africa needs is God, why can't you celebrate the good that Christians do? Where is it documented or even stated, for that matter, that "He (GOD)promised to enter humanity?"
If GOD did enter humanity, what were the results? The results certainly haven't been to the benefit of all humanity. Can you name even one thing that God promised in the Old Testament that has been fulfilled by anyone, let alone a Christ? (Don't forget there were many Christs)
This atheist has no trouble believing that someone call Jesus might well have lived & died.
I also believe that he (or the myth surrounding him) was made into a Christ by people like Paul & the early apologists often called the "church fathers."
I also know many intelligent people who the more that we discovered about religion & the Gods created by them, the more we lost faith in the "supernatural" and the "paranormal" being called a GOD , (or GODS)
And surely Christians have to admit that the Christian doctrine depends on the "supernatural" and the "paranormal!"
If you are going to cite Christian organizations which do good, that is fine. It's true, but you must acknowledge the terrible horrors that Christian organizations have also wrecked on humanity.
PS: Why in the world would you think that I would believe Socrates "completely" ?
Don't you think that I have a mind of my own?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 12, 2014 12:23:30 GMT -5
Hey, don't be disparaging the fairies. I have always depended on the kindness of fairies. You are sounding a little bit like Blanche DuBois.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 21:41:18 GMT -5
A way of looking at "intelligent design" is to think of the meta-design philosophy. ie life is fully of redundancy. No engineer would build like that - but it gives life a resilience (ie if your ears are damaged you can hear through your bones, or air vibrations etc..) You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms. Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." God commanded the sea to bring forth life. Genesis 1:20 That's pretty "intelligent" It doesn't say God made each species from scratch. That's pretty "intelligent" too. When did Dawkins' ever say that? It's implied. With evolution everything is related. With "creation" we must assume each species is a separate, unrelated, entity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 22:26:34 GMT -5
When did Dawkins' ever say that? It's implied. With evolution everything is related. With "creation" we must assume each species is a separate, unrelated, entity. Bert said:"You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms.
Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. "Bert, I'm not sure I understand what you you mean.
Did you mean that Dawkins' believed that animals were designed new for each species, from the ground up?
Or do you mean that Dawkins was describing what "intelligent design " people believe?
If there is suppose to be some sort of "intelligent designer" that created everything, HE sure wasted a lot of time getting it right. HE either wasn't very intelligent or not very efficient, -one or both.
You have to also remember that "design" isn't the operative term for evolution either. "Design" isn't the aim of evolution. There is no great big plan in some "mind" of evolution.
We, as human beings that like order, design and efficiency, might like to believe there is some end results but we just need to get use to the idea that just isn't so!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 12, 2014 22:30:31 GMT -5
It's implied. With evolution everything is related. With "creation" we must assume each species is a separate, unrelated, entity. Bert said: A way of looking at "intelligent design" is to think of the meta-design philosophy. ie life is fully of redundancy. No engineer would build like that - but it gives life a resilience (ie if your ears are damaged you can hear through your bones, or air vibrations etc..) You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms. Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." Let's get something straight. Did you mean that Dawkins' believed that idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." If I am not mistaken, dimmichgood, Bert is claiming that evolution was God's bright idea.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2014 0:35:39 GMT -5
I'm having a great weekend at the beach admiring God's creation. It's winter but its warm so I've had to put on my rosé coloured glasses! I've enjoyed reading much history which reaffirms the evidence of the resurrection. It was also good to listen to a few atheist vs Christian debates again. I've also enjoyed reading again OT prophecy which Christ fulfilled. There are many and I'm not going to quote individual ones - happy to read any thesis that anyone might have on them though. My faith in a Christian God is backed by much evidence. I wonder why the Romans wrote within a few years of Christ's resurrection that Christians worshiped Jesus as God. Jesus made quite an impact on the world that people can try to dismiss, even claim that he didn't exist at all (even Dawkins under pressure acknowledges that Christ existed) but it's not so easy to dismiss and worth thinking about. Even the most devout atheist generally has faith in something, sometimes not even backed by evidence. My faith in an eternal logos is backed by much evidence. Of course they didn't write within a few years of Christ's resurrection as I'm sure that you know.
"The Romans " were a couple of historians, Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.
Tacitus referred to Christ & the existence of early Christians in the context of the Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.
AD 64 was hardly within a few years of Christ's "resurrection."
However, had Nero not blamed the Christians for the fire, I doubt many of the Romans would have known much about Jesus nor would his "resurrection" made quite an impact that you claim.
Resurrections from the dead were a common garden type belief in those days!
PS:
I have for sale on my Amazon book site The Works of Josephus should you like to buy it. It is 978 pages and there is one paragraph (one third of one column of four columns)
It will cost you a bit though, because it is an older copy & more rare than some.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2014 0:38:41 GMT -5
Bert said: A way of looking at "intelligent design" is to think of the meta-design philosophy. ie life is fully of redundancy. No engineer would build like that - but it gives life a resilience (ie if your ears are damaged you can hear through your bones, or air vibrations etc..) You have probably heard of the nerve in the giraffe which goes 4.6 metres due to the growth of the neck (recurrent laryngeal nerve) Dawkins used this to demonstrate bad design. But at a meta level even this demonstrates good design, ie not the giraffe per se but the process which takes existing forms and adapts them for new forms. Dawkins' idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." Let's get something straight. Did you mean that Dawkins' believed that idea would be to design something new, for each species, from the ground up. In a way that's "intelligent design" but in another way it's "stupid design." If I am not mistaken, dimmichgood, Bert is claiming that evolution was God's bright idea. WOW! I see! Now that is a stretch of the imagination !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 1:03:10 GMT -5
Genesis 1:20 "And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..."
Lots of creation-minded people in previous generations would have been offended by that verse - how CAN birds come out of the ocean?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2014 7:46:05 GMT -5
I'm having a great weekend at the beach admiring God's creation. Glad you are enjoying the experience. I have seen no evidence that they are removable. I think your idea of evidence and mine differ widely. I am not surprised that you are reluctant to point out what you consider a prophecy that we could discuss. Again, you have much lower standards for evidence.Perhaps because that is what the christians claimed? Why isn't it easy to admit? The evidence is thin but this is the case about many people who lived and died in the past. Consider Guatama Buddha. Care to elaborate? Remember, the defining trait of an atheist is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, not whether they have faith or not. Evidence that you are willing to share?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 13, 2014 8:05:13 GMT -5
Creation and evolution are indeed two very different topics. Edgar, yes, they can be discussed on the same sheet of paper, but why should they be? Isn't it simply because the creationists, have forced the discussion to be argued in the same venue?
Since the "intelligent design" people have forced the subject, we just have to take them on! One of the arguments used for intelligent design is that we are are so complex that we just had to have an "intelligent designer."
Doesn't that go exactly against Occam's principle of economy by which that one employ the most simple ways for application of a design to get the best results?
Here is an example noted in an article by Evan Sinclair in the recent The Humanist.
1) "the (man's) urethra passing through the prostate"
(It often causes older men much distress in the problem of urinating).
Sinclair states:
2) "Why can't the fluid secreted by the prostate during ejaculation simply be added to the sperm though ejaculatory ducts as it passes by the prostate, rather through it, -like vehicles entering the freeway on an on ramp?"
Now which one of these two shows "intelligence?" Sinclair, or a supposed know-it-all perfect "designer" deity?
Is this "intelligent designer" really intelligent or is this perfect "designer" being capricious and really doesn't care how HIS creation is affected? Or could it simply be that HE only exists in the minds of some people who just can't be without HIM?
Another example of "intelligent" design youtu.be/cO1a1Ek-HD0Try this.... "Go home, Evolution, you are drunk."Ongoing dialog between an often exasperated writer and Evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Jul 13, 2014 8:12:05 GMT -5
“96% of the human genome is the same as the chimpanzees [sic] genome,” one slide emphasizes. view from the other side .. might it be the chimpanzee genome is 96% similar to the human's??. .
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 13, 2014 10:45:30 GMT -5
“96% of the human genome is the same as the chimpanzees [sic] genome,” one slide emphasizes. view from the other side .. might it be the chimpanzee genome is 96% similar to the human's??. . Not sure what you are getting at. Chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are thought to share a common ancestor (I.e. once 100% genome match). The genomes diverged from there along different evolutionary paths. So another POV is that the genomes of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans have drifted away from each other by only a few percent.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 13:47:38 GMT -5
view from the other side .. might it be the chimpanzee genome is 96% similar to the human's??. . Not sure what you are getting at. Chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are thought to share a common ancestor (I.e. once 100% genome match). The genomes diverged from there along different evolutionary paths. So another POV is that the genomes of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans have drifted away from each other by only a few percent. Matisse ~ I just can't help thinking of that 1978 movie with Clint Eastwood, entitled "Any Which Way But Loose" with that orangutan named Clyde. It just reminds you how smart these chimps can be and funny as humans.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFFr91atHqE
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2014 18:07:51 GMT -5
I am surprised there that many Normans in either Los Vegas or Las Vegas. I thought they all settled in England and stayed put except for the third crusade! Ouch! I refuse to spend waste time proofing a message board post, but that's a good one Terry, It might be a good thing to edit your posts!
I have found that is I don't I might end up saying exactly the opposite of what had aimed to say!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2014 23:43:56 GMT -5
My evidence of a Christian God who same into the world and changed the course of history is significant - it's just that you refuse to accept or acknowledge it. I have elaborated on it already. It is just a matter of what is considered evidence. Generally it is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. In deed. But is that different, in the end, from offering an unproved future? I was offering a different point of view that as individuals christians did not score high. Do you have evidence to refute the findings?Oh, based on the source of the evidence, atheists were dead last. I wouldn't have expected any other outcome.My comments were indeed cynical. Perhaps too cynical.You might be right but I can't think of and charitable group of people trying to get the recipients of their charities to not believe in god.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 14, 2014 2:04:43 GMT -5
Glad you are enjoying the experience. I have seen no evidence that they are removable. I think your idea of evidence and mine differ widely. I am not surprised that you are reluctant to point out what you consider a prophecy that we could discuss. Again, you have much lower standards for evidence.Perhaps because that is what the christians claimed? Why isn't it easy to admit? The evidence is thin but this is the case about many people who lived and died in the past. Consider Guatama Buddha. Care to elaborate? Remember, the defining trait of an atheist is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, not whether they have faith or not. Evidence that you are willing to share? My evidence of a Christian God who same into the world and changed the course of history is significant - it's just that you refuse to accept or acknowledge it. I have elaborated on it already. I have no problem that you don't accept the evidence and I'm not cynical about atheism - I just think it offers a hopeless future. Concerning standards of evidence you should review your own quote about the British survey on Islamic giving - one survey?, 4,000 people throughout the world to try and prove a point? You would have noticed that atheists were a long way last in the survey in the giving stakes but I wouldn't use that evidence to infer that atheists aren't generous on a global basis. I don't know. Your comments about Christian giving always having an ulterior motive of proselytising are highly cynical. Atheist giving to various causes would never be to push their line of reasoning - would it?? proselytise?
Now how would we do that? ehum.. Let me think a minute. I've got it! Before we let them have their bowl of soup we require that they DON'T say any prayer and insist on it! No prayer!
Hey! Thanks, Ross! That has been giving me sleepless nights!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 14, 2014 2:20:47 GMT -5
Glad you are enjoying the experience. I have seen no evidence that they are removable. I think your idea of evidence and mine differ widely. I am not surprised that you are reluctant to point out what you consider a prophecy that we could discuss. Again, you have much lower standards for evidence.Perhaps because that is what the christians claimed? Why isn't it easy to admit? The evidence is thin but this is the case about many people who lived and died in the past. Consider Guatama Buddha. Care to elaborate? Remember, the defining trait of an atheist is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, not whether they have faith or not. Evidence that you are willing to share? My evidence of a Christian God who same into the world and changed the course of history is significant - it's just that you refuse to accept or acknowledge it. I have elaborated on it already. I have no problem that you don't accept the evidence and I'm not cynical about atheism - I just think it offers a hopeless future. Concerning standards of evidence you should review your own quote about the British survey on Islamic giving - one survey?, 4,000 people throughout the world to try and prove a point? You would have noticed that atheists were a long way last in the survey in the giving stakes but I wouldn't use that evidence to infer that atheists aren't generous on a global basis. I don't know. Your comments about Christian giving always having an ulterior motive of proselytising are highly cynical. Atheist giving to various causes would never be to push their line of reasoning - would it?? I wonder Ross, can you define atheism? We need to be sure of definitions before we discuss them.
Atheism is not a dis-belief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Period. End. We shouldn't attach other meanings to it. It is simply a lack in belief in "gods", any god.
I'm sure you don't believe in the Hindu god, or any of the multiple gods present & past, but you believe in the Christian god.
Now I don't believe in the Hindu god either nor any of those multiple gods past & present. As an atheist I've just added one more to the list, your "Christian God ." That's all. It is just that simply.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 14, 2014 12:58:54 GMT -5
...as to whether something is true or not. It is like saying something in Alice in Wonderland is true because there is evidence somewhere else in the same book that verifies it. Made me howl! Love it!
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 14, 2014 13:24:36 GMT -5
My evidence of a Christian God who same into the world and changed the course of history is significant - it's just that you refuse to accept or acknowledge it. I have elaborated on it already. I have no problem that you don't accept the evidence and I'm not cynical about atheism - I just think it offers a hopeless future. Concerning standards of evidence you should review your own quote about the British survey on Islamic giving - one survey?, 4,000 people throughout the world to try and prove a point? You would have noticed that atheists were a long way last in the survey in the giving stakes but I wouldn't use that evidence to infer that atheists aren't generous on a global basis. I don't know. Your comments about Christian giving always having an ulterior motive of proselytising are highly cynical. Atheist giving to various causes would never be to push their line of reasoning - would it?? I wonder Ross, can you define atheism? We need to be sure of definitions before we discuss them.
Atheism is not a dis-belief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Period. End. We shouldn't attach other meanings to it. It is simply a lack in belief in "gods", any god.
I'm sure you don't believe in the Hindu god, or any of the multiple gods present & past, but you believe in the Christian god.
Now I don't believe in the Hindu god either nor any of those multiple gods past & present. As an atheist I've just added one more to the list, your "Christian God ." That's all. It is just that simply.
Sometimes looking at things from another's perspective brings a deeper understand. I like this short audio clip on the matter. youtu.be/I_Lx66ApdxM
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 14, 2014 20:33:26 GMT -5
Bob - I am reasonably well educated but there's a lot I don't know I'm happy to be educated on others whose birth, life and death (including method of death) were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and it happened exactly as it had been predicted. I only know of one - Jesus Christ. Who are the others? Well, you can find a brief introduction to SOME of them in a book called The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves. It's about a century old now, so it's not footnoted as a 21st century research paper would be, but I read it nearly a decade ago and since then I have not found any credible research that has contradicted anything he has written. But I have to warn you -- this is not a lesson in theology, it is a study in historical records that Christian theologians have disregarded. There are a number of better ones than Kersey Graves but that's a start. The first in that line up to research the dying/rising God/man throughout history was Godfrey Higgins, then Gerald Massey and then Alvin Boyd Kuhn. Almost had a hernia lifting Godfrey Higgins books though!! Fascinating reading, if not somewhat dry. They were not written to entertain, but to inform. A lot of work was put into their completion. If you are interested Ross, I can also provide the titles.
|
|