The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

I hear ya Stoney.
Honestly, it ALL comes down to the Bible. Seriously.

Those that take it literally, are the ones that tend to cause problems/be close minded/ all the negatives we associate with religion.
My roomie Ralph has said the Bible is a good thing to inspire faith, all that....but he was actually told IN catholic school, that the Bible is not literal. Several of my friends (all went to the same high school) said the same thing, and are all open minded. Not just about faith/science but in life. 
Yet, they all do believe in God undeniably, go to church every sunday and mean it, not just going through the motions.

So, it was unfair for us to group all religious people together. Those that don't take the Bible literally have never given me any problem. Those that DO....well that's different.

stonebeard wrote: ^ I'd bet money that guy has a mental block or something to prevent his scientific outlook from coloring his religious beliefs. I think you can be highly scientific and highly religious but you have to force yourself to separate those outlooks heavily. Except for diehard apologists, not many people apply strict scientific scrutiny to their religious beliefs and come out strengthened in faith by it.

If a scientist is religious it doesn't mean he can't be a brilliant scientist, but it means he lacks a synthetic understanding of the numbers and phenomena he is studying as sides of the universal process. It is something that restricts the range and depth of that scientists work, though it may not interfere with the number-crunching immediately before him/her and it may not effect the relative standing of the scientist next to his fellows.

Einstein may have been the greatest scientific mind of his day but an Einstein who could apply his method consistently to social analysis, to analysis of other fields of science, and synthesize them, would have been superior to real Einstein and in real Einsteins sole field as virtue of the richer unified perspective.

And unfortunately for popular myth, Einstein was not religious, but an agnostic/athiest, and also a Socialist, albeit of poor quality and shallow insight. He could not synthesize all these questions, and his understanding was limited.

So yes, being religious is an obstacle, though perhaps not in a immediately obvious way, for the scientific world. That is not to say the religion of a scientist is not run through with more contradictions than a rural farmer. The scientist has a much more narrow definition of religion for every fact he digests, the farmer's remains broad. Inability to synthesize keeps them in Church.

Not to repeat my previous post.

I hear those Jesuits are very learned people.
Not to mention they're pretty open on the idea's of gay marriage and abortion.
And this is from a sect fairly close to Catholicism!

JJLehto wrote: I hear those Jesuits are very learned people. Not to mention they're pretty open on the idea's of gay marriage and abortion. And this is from a sect fairly close to Catholicism!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: JJLehto wrote: I hear those Jesuits are very learned people. Not to mention they're pretty open on the idea's of gay marriage and abortion. And this is from a sect fairly close to Catholicism!   Not a sect, it's a Catholic Order part of the Roman Catholic Church, only they resign to be Pope because of theitr votes of obedience and poverty, as a fact Superior General of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) is called The Black Pope because he dresses in simple black robe.   But lets return to the issue, this is a non religious thread.   Iván

el dingo wrote:   I fully respect the right of anyone to adopt the religion/beliefs of their choice (except the fanatics of course)

Who of course should be converted to atheism or burned at the stake.
Great discussion going on by the way.

Epignosis wrote: I'd like to ask, if I may, what it means to "take the Bible literally?"  I hear that phrase tossed around a lot. I ask because based on the context of what I've heard (not just here, but in conversation), I suspect people who say the Bible ought not be taken literally actually mean the Bible ought not be taken seriously. I take the Bible literally when the context of the passage calls for it (most of the time).  It's no different than how I treat any other piece of literature.  If the Bible says "Bob stopped to feed his camels," then I don't turn that into metaphor unless I have good linguistic or contextual permission to do so. And I apply scientific scrutiny to my beliefs every chance I get (The Miracles of Exodus is a wonderful book for those wanting a scientific explanation of the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea).  I do not believe that God has to bend the laws of nature to get things done- but  staying in those confines does not make anything any less of a miracle. So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?

Epignosis wrote: So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?

progmetalhead wrote: Epignosis wrote: So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?   1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)  (j/k!)

Nice try. 

The Ancient Hebraic law was a covenant between God and Israel.  I am not a part of Israel, so none of that law applies to me (or your uncle, unless he is an Israelite).

(And here come the people ready to say, "See, you don't believe the Bible is true!")