Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Vibrationbaby wrote: James wrote: Is this thread still going?  As long as I am alive this thread will still be going. More children have to go to hockey practice than to church.

Vibrationbaby wrote: Actualluly I teach McGill University students and play in their soft pitch leuge.where everyone has to hit. A lot of drinking goes on. More drinking than playing the game.

Eases the pain if you get hit in the head with a ball.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Pat Robertson said that the earthquake on Haiti was God's punishment for century old transgressions (I know that you disagree with Pat Robertson, Iván). Now, don't you agree that whenever an earthquake occurs it's infinitely more likely that it's because we live on a planet that has a molten core, with plate tectonics etc. than the idea that some intelligence is causing these earthquakes? Any Theist who believes that earthquakes and other natural disasters are caused by God would have to explain to me why earthquakes usually occur near fault lines, instead of near the most sinful places of the world.   Please Mike, you're quoting Pat Robertson, one of the most fundamentalist preachers there are, I believe whoever says God causes an earthquake to punish, is just an idiot and a bigot, because if his plan was to punish bad people, he would be killing at least some good people.. The problem is that two thousand years ago earthquakes and floods led people to create religions, because they didn't understand the forces of nature. Today we can explain all that, but religion lingers on. You may pride yourself in being an enlightened Catholic, but that doesn't change the fact that your religion is a relict from the bronze age that can only be applied to the modern world by massive re-interpretation and an erosion of the values that characterized it in the beginning.

Edited by Adams Bolero - July 27 2010 at 18:17

Adams Bolero wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Pat Robertson said that the earthquake on Haiti was God's punishment for century old transgressions (I know that you disagree with Pat Robertson, Iván). Now, don't you agree that whenever an earthquake occurs it's infinitely more likely that it's because we live on a planet that has a molten core, with plate tectonics etc. than the idea that some intelligence is causing these earthquakes? Any Theist who believes that earthquakes and other natural disasters are caused by God would have to explain to me why earthquakes usually occur near fault lines, instead of near the most sinful places of the world.   Please Mike, you're quoting Pat Robertson, one of the most fundamentalist preachers there are, I believe whoever says God causes an earthquake to punish, is just an idiot and a bigot, because if his plan was to punish bad people, he would be killing at least some good people.. The problem is that two thousand years ago earthquakes and floods led people to create religions, because they didn't understand the forces of nature. Today we can explain all that, but religion lingers on. You may pride yourself in being an enlightened Catholic, but that doesn't change the fact that your religion is a relict from the bronze age that can only be applied to the modern world by massive re-interpretation and an erosion of the values that characterized it in the beginning. But its values are based on the teachings of Christ who preached love and forgiveness and that is something thats always relevant. The moment the Catholic Church forgets this it will cease to be a part of the Christian faith but I don’t think it has reached that stage yet. Can’t you express your opinions and beliefs without insulting the beliefs of those that disagree with you? How can you expect a rational, friendly debate with a believer if you call their religion a ‘’relict from the Bronze Age.’’

That's essentially Iván's point - the OT was a Bronze age document written for a Bronze Age people - Christianity dispensed with all that and discarded all the outmoded "rules"

Textbook wrote: I'm tired of theists hiding behind this "disagreeing with our beliefs isn't friendly and nice" nonsense. How are we to have meaningful discussions on anything if all we do is worry about being PC? I still don't get why sensitive theists are readings a thread specifically for people to argue atheism versus religion.

Edited by Adams Bolero - July 27 2010 at 19:02

The T wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: James wrote: Is this thread still going?  As long as I am alive this thread will still be going. More children have to go to hockey practice than to church. Hockey of all sports?  At least you didn't say baseball...

^ it was Mike who said it, not me.

Textbook wrote: Yeah I think what happened as AB read as an insult what Dean meant as a statement of fact (at least in his view) that religion actually is a relic from the Bronze Age. He wasn't being derogatory.

Dean wrote: Adams Bolero wrote: Textbook wrote: I'm tired of theists hiding behind this "disagreeing with our beliefs isn't friendly and nice" nonsense. How are we to have meaningful discussions on anything if all we do is worry about being PC? I still don't get why sensitive theists are readings a thread specifically for people to argue atheism versus religion. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my beliefs. It’s part of our human nature that we all have different viewpoints and beliefs. My problem is that Mike is being very patronising to religious believers by calling religion a relic from the past. We can have a meaningful discussion on religion without one side insulting the other. There is a good case for believing in God and for not believing. That is why threads like this will never be resolved. All I ask is mutual understanding and respect on both sides. The reason I’m reading the thread as atheism v religion is because that’s the name of the thread! Unless you see a big difference between religion and theism? In some ways I agree with you - however it is difficult to have a meaningful debate when you've one hand tied behind your back. If thiests are offended by a comment like "a relic of the Bronze Age ", then they should be able to give a more reasoned argument as to why it is still relevant in the Plastic Age, because eventhough I pointed out the historical inaccuracy of the comment when directed at Christianity, the roots of Christianity are seated firmly in the Bronze Age.

Last time I checked, two thirds of the Bible still consisted of the old testament ... and many Christians are still citing the ten commandments as binding rules for their lives.

Christianity is based on the Bible. Modern Catholicism (for example) has progressed in some aspects (e.g. slavery, racism) but most of its Bronze Age roots are still firmly connected so to speak ... even with all the enlightenment that has taken place, the God of the Bible is still supposed to be this supernatural entity which watches over us, punishes us when we misbehave, created this world ... the latter is a good example. Catholics have come to accept that evolution is a fact, but still insist that "God helped it along the way", or that it was how God created us. Instead of accepting that the book of Genesis was a Bronze Age attempt of figuring out how the world works, and discarding that idea as the superstition that it was (similar to hunter/gatherer tribes worshiping the sun and the moon as gods), instead of all that most Christians insist on the idea that their God must have created this world, if not literally like in the book of Genesis then at least allegorically.

Religions started out as ill advised attempts to figure out how the world works - back in the Bronze Age virtually everyone was superstitious, religions were simply ways to organize the superstitious beliefs. Today we know better ... even if you're a religious fanatic (which I know you're not, Dean, I'm speaking generally of believers), if you've come so far as to read this post then you know, deep within your mind, that this concept that you believe in and which you so fervently defend has some serious flaws. But, instead of dismissing it on behalf on these flaws, you soldier on and keep making up excuses and rationalizations for these flaws, so that you can continue holding the belief ... typically because it makes you feel better, and of course also because admitting that you might have been wrong about something this important for all your life would make you feel very uncomfortable.

jampa17 wrote: Textbook wrote: Yeah I think what happened as AB read as an insult what Dean meant as a statement of fact (at least in his view) that religion actually is a relic from the Bronze Age. He wasn't being derogatory. Well, talking about what I believe is offensive, is Mike calling our believes "Idiotic, stupid and ridiculous". That's offensive. To call something a relic from the Bronze Age, for me is better. As long as the message remains important -even in the plastic age according to Dean- then you can think it was something really important don't you think..?