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

Here's a thing: why does anyone feel the need to justify their beliefs to others? Disagree or not, the fact is 99.9999% of religious people won't do anything overly crazy because of their beliefs. So just let them be. I think 59 pages of this thread testify to how much atheists are not initiating a sea change.

What are your reasons then? Is the belief in religion a personal insult to you, or your community. Should someone be poked and prodded in the hopes of giving up their worldview because some people somewhere 2,000 miles away put up a Christmas tree in a federal building?

Dean wrote: That is the view of a church, one out of many; several churches do take the OT more literally than that, (not just fundamentalists and born again christians). When 40% of the population of the USA believe that Genesis Ch.1 is true then it is evident that many people do take it as more than allegorical. A Muslim could raise the same arguments with regard to their prophets Isa and Muhammad, moving their religion even further from the Bronze Age of Moses and Abraham.

 

Trademark wrote: "the fact is 99.9999% of religious people won't do anything overly crazy because of their beliefs"

 

Trademark wrote: the fact is 99.9999% of religious people won't do anything overly crazy because of their beliefs

I'm not so sure about the percentage there.  If you haven't seen Religulous I'd recommend you check it out.  Of course it depends on how you define overly.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Dean wrote: 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. I don't think that it was an attempt to figure out how it worked, since that would imply that there was logic or method behind the process and that some predictions could be made from it, but it was simply an explanation that fitted within a sociological framework (thinking kings, leaders and elders controlling the masses here).

Of course, they failed at figuring it out and then simply made up a supernatural explanation that made sense given the traditions of mythical tales in the given society.

Dean wrote:   The time in which the OT was written was a turbulent time (for the Israelites) even by today's standards and the rationalisation it achieved during this period was pretty radical, dispensing with many previously held superstitions and rituals - monotheism itself was a pretty revolutionary concept (one that had failed for Akhenaten around the same time for example, though there is a theory that links Akhenaten to Moses), and christianity was a further radical revolution on that (regard the pretty universal rejection of Jesus in his lifetime, not only by the Pharisees and Rabbinic Jews but by some of his own followers ... the text says "many").

He was a complete failure. The thing is that he was an apocalyptic preacher who gathered twelve followers and promised them that they would be kings in the new kingdom (which was supposed to arrive within their lifetime). So I suppose they were very motivated to spread the word and gather more followers after his death. Then of course nothing happened, but Paul and whoever wrote John cleverly found an excuse for that (changing the promise of a heavenly kingdom on earth into a fabulous - and entirely unfalsifiable - heavenly afterlife).

Dean wrote: The religion of the three Abrahamic religions were a product of their time and for Bronze Age thinking the pre-christian roots of christiality were advanced (not that Bronze Age man was any dumber or brighter than Plastic Age man or Stone Age man), and even through the "dark ages" christian (scientific) progress was far from backward and even though we regard Renaissance science as a enlightened reaction to christian doctrine, most of it was actually pursued with the blessing and backing of the church.

I don't agree with that - sure, many brilliant scientists were Christians, but what else could they have been in these times. I'm not saying that religious people are by definition poor scientists, or that good scientists are by definition Atheists, but I would still say that religion and critical thinking are at odds with each other - so it takes a certain raised ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance in order for people to be both devoutly religious and brilliant scientists. Take Francis Collins as an obvious example ...

Dean wrote: That a sizable proportion of the christian church has accepted Evolution (regardless of what kick-started the process) is progress in itself, that they neatly slot-in a god-like creator at the beginning solves a problem without creating a whole list of new ones, so their "insistence" of god the creator in the theory of evolution isn't obnoxious or backward, but a justifiable rationalisation.

IMO it's simply an illogical thing to do. Once you accept that evolution is true, it's clear that the book of Genesis is obviously wrong. This should IMO be seen as an indication that the whole premise is wrong, and not cause people to invent even more convoluted logical constructs that somehow reconcile the Biblical God with nature. Needless to say that this is just my personal opinion though.

Mr ProgFreak alt=Originally posted by Dean [QUOTE=Mr ProgFreak style=vertical-align: text-bottom; /> Dean [QUOTE=Mr ProgFreak wrote: 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.