Theists vs Atheists/Agnostics

[Silverwolf1277]

This is really interesting. I don't know why but I didn't expect there to be so many theists.

 

Agreed. In fact I would have hoped for far fewer theists. Given that the majority here presumably want to go into medicine, and that the majority are probably under 30, I'm disappointed to see so many people who believe in a 'God'.

 

The level of cognitive dissonance required to believe in a God yet practice in a scientific, evidence-based field amazes me. And before anyone brings up Francis Collins, keep in mind that I'm not saying it is not possible, but that it requires you to lead two separate intelligent lives.

 

And please, please, please, cut it out with the 'humans are perfection' blah blah blah crap. Realize that we are not the pinnacle of anything but societal organization. Our babies are born pre-mature, we only see and hear in very limited ranges, and we are not the fastest or strongest at anything. Read a book and make a legitimate argument (though I doubt one exists that can maintain logical consistency).

 

Nobody can prove that unicorns don't exist. But if you claim that unicorns exist, the burden of proof is on you. I challenge anyone to come up with an argument for God that I could not just as easily use for a unicorn.

[Let'sGo1990]

why does a deity have to be so benevolent. in fact an inherently benevolent deity is most likely a false assumption based on our need to believe that a deity has to be good and kind (Which is quite false in pretty much all the religions including Christianity -- quite commonly misunderstood by many Christians too who think the Judeo-Christian God is just an all-giving, benevolent God which is not true).

 

 

Also, i think both arguments are possible when you approach the 'design' of a human body to justify your side.

 

As much as there is 'chaos' in our body, there is also 'structure' that is quite consistent among all of us. The complexity of embryological signalling leading to formation of the limbs, internal organs, and intricate branching within the organs and all the neurological connections.

 

i sorta see the human body as a fine balance between chaos and order -- yin and yang, activators and inhibitors, sympathetic and parasympathetic systems.

 

and essentially all we are doing in medicine is tipping the balance towards the better when things go wrong e.g. probably most prevalent in endocrinology when we try to maintain hormonal homeostasis.

 

many belief systems focus on the idea that humans are imperfect but at the same time retain perfection.

 

it isn't a coincidence why so many fantasy novels and movies (that are primarily based on traditional folk religion/beliefs and legends that can be seen as some form of religion) portray humans as having an ambivalent nature with a typical theme of finding perfection in imperfection.

 

e.g. elves being at the end where they're inherently flawless on the extreme of 'light' or yang, and the orcs being on the other end where they're on the opposite extreme of the spectrum, representing 'dark' or yin.

-- lord of the rings is basically a story of men achieving this 'perfection' although inherently flawed (aragorn being the one achieving this 'perfection' whereas his own ancestor Isildur representing the flawed nature of humans, unable to throw the ring of power into Mount Doom)

 

I pointed out benevolence b/c that's what God is made out to be by most people arguing in favour of the other side (which you pointed out that many Christians understand God to be).

 

We couldn't have evolved as a species if it weren't for that yin-yang. I can see why imperfection in our design undermines the possibility of divine intervention in our creation, but I don't see how it could support the idea of intelligent design. Complexity doesn't always mean design.

[futureGP]

I pointed out benevolence b/c that's what God is made out to be by most people arguing in favour of the other side (which you pointed out that many Christians understand God to be).

 

We couldn't have evolved as a species if it weren't for that yin-yang. I can see why imperfection in our design undermines the possibility of divine intervention in our creation' date=' but I don't see how it could support the idea of intelligent design. Complexity doesn't always mean design.[/quote']

 

you're right

 

it doesn't support the idea of intelligent design, in fact, it doesn't support anything. It is just something that it is, no more no less.

 

Both sides, Atheists and Theists use the same argument to argue in favour of their sides.

 

it is just a very weak argument that doesn't prove anything

[medigeek]

you're right

 

it doesn't support the idea of intelligent design, in fact, it doesn't support anything. It is just something that it is, no more no less.

 

Both sides, Atheists and Theists use the same argument to argue in favour of their sides.

 

it is just a very weak argument that doesn't prove anything

 

Theists have no evidence, no arguments, nothing at all. I don't see how it makes sense to believe in something with ZERO evidence. We have as much evidence for a god as we do for big foot and santa clause.

 

As for the human body, I don't see what the big deal is. There's an endless list of things that are no where close to perfect along with useless anatomical traits. The development of the human body isn't all that surprising anyway to those who say "herp well god must have made it derp!" One cell becomes a fully grown organism all on its own. Nothing shocking about all of life developing from a cell or cells in the beginning.

[Orcamute]

We breathe in these gases, keep in mind that FiO2 is around 21%

Yes, but in very small quantities. We breathe in more Nitrogen than anything else.

 

Scurvy is extremely rare, and treatable (when diagnosed)

 

Yes..because we know of it now. Its a quick fix with some Vitamin C, but that is irrelevant to what I was saying. We can treat a lot of diseases, but why are the diseases even there?

 

That's actually a good thing. If you were to see the whole spectrum you wouldn't see anything.

 

Its good that we are blind to ionizing radiation? We are just like sitting ducks. We wouldn't see anything if we could see the entire spectrum?? Thats debatable. Regardless..I am saying that we see a very small portion (especially compared to other animals).

 

Being comatose =/= sleeping

 

Lol..and?

 

You mean malformations of the human spine? Or that the normal anatomy of the spine is a malformation to you? The curvatures of the spine allow for special movements that are adapted to each part of the spine.

 

Such as..? Can I ask ..why do the majority of people have back problems?? It couldn't be from evolution, right?

 

It's in the calf, not the foot

 

Yes, that is an error. However, the plantaris muscle does start in the foot (right beside the tendo calcaneus).

 

We use our whole brain, it's a myth that we only use 10% or so. Also, it's actually a good thing that our memory doesn't store everything, same logic with the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

Never used any numbers, yes 10% is a myth (we use around 10% when comatose)..however, we don't use a large portion of our brains. And our brains are not efficient at all. Perhaps it shouldn't store everything but the portion in which it does store is very poor.

 

 

My thoughts exactly, especially because of the egregious grammatical errors. Yikes.

 

LOL, such as..? Overdramatic award goes to...

[banan12]

All brave men with hearts of war ride the path of mighty Thor.

[axialpac]

Nobody can prove that unicorns don't exist. But if you claim that unicorns exist, the burden of proof is on you. I challenge anyone to come up with an argument for God that I could not just as easily use for a unicorn.

False logic, at best.

Where's your proof? You do realize that atheists, as much as they would like to exempt themselves from the demands of evidentialism, require it as well? See, it's not enough to say the absence of a God, is evidence that God does not exist. You can criticize religion and creation stories left right and center for all I care, but atheism is a belief (that no God or deity or supreme power exists--insisting that it is not a belief doesn't help anyone) and so if want your belief to be rationally held, you need to provide your evidence as well.

 

(btw if you check the polls then I fall into the "I don't care" category)

[Silverwolf1277]

False logic, at best.

Where's your proof? You do realize that atheists, as much as they would like to exempt themselves from the demands of evidentialism, require it as well? See, it's not enough to say the absence of a God, is evidence that God does not exist. You can criticize religion and creation stories left right and center for all I care, but atheism is a belief (that no God or deity or supreme power exists--insisting that it is not a belief doesn't help anyone) and so if want your belief to be rationally held, you need to provide your evidence as well.

 

(btw if you check the polls then I fall into the "I don't care" category)

 

NO! This is an absolute fallacy. You can't prove non-existence. It's simply not possible. The burden of proof is ABSOLUTELY on the people who claim a certain thing exists. Atheism is fundamentally a LACK of a belief. I think god doesn't exist to the same extent that I think unicorns don't exist. I'm fairly sure they don't exist because I've never seen a shred of evidence in favour of either, but if you bring me a unicorn or god one day, I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong.

 

Atheists provide evidence for the things they make claims about, such as evolution, cosmology, etc.

[futurepediatric]

Right, the entire premise is unreasonable because it rests on two fallacies. First is the unfalsifiable premise that our body's can communicate any information on the presence or absence of a creator in general (let alone a specific one). Second that it rests on purely subjective claims like "perfect" or "imperfect" which are entirely subject to our own biases in this context.

 

If you or I or some alien were to visit the earth and discuss where our bodies came from we would not need a discussion of "I think it looks perfect" or "imperfect" - it is how it is. We would simply agree that our tissues arise from genes that vary in frequency through generations and are inherited and subject to different success. We would use this premise to make numerous predictions, to explain complex phenomena, and we'd see it empirically validated time and time again.

 

There'd never be a discussion of "The spinal segments look designed" because we'd be able to trace the origins of the mammalian vertebrae, the relevant hox clusters, and somites, etc. We even be able to look at existing gene frequencies and mating patterns and make accurate predictions on how these segments would be in future generations.

 

Edit: Which isn't to say that it can't be cool, or mind-bogglingly amazing, or humbling to the point that you feel spiritually connected to the universe. Those are valid descriptions of experience. When I think of the massively complex array of things happening in my hand right now its awe inspiring. To convert this subjective experience into objective knowledge "This is awesome... therefor I was created by _____" requires some self-trickery and flawed reasoning.

 

I agree, but obviously this is not the reason for a person's belief in God. Presumably the comments were made to complement a belief in God, rather than the 'sole' reason like you made it look like.

[Silverwolf1277]

I agree, but obviously this is not the reason for a person's belief in God. Presumably the comments were made to complement a belief in God, rather than the 'sole' reason like you made it look like.

 

Really? So much for the watchmaker argument. Please do tell what the reason is though.

[stryke22]

Agreed. In fact I would have hoped for far fewer theists. Given that the majority here presumably want to go into medicine, and that the majority are probably under 30, I'm disappointed to see so many people who believe in a 'God'.

 

The level of cognitive dissonance required to believe in a God yet practice in a scientific, evidence-based field amazes me. And before anyone brings up Francis Collins, keep in mind that I'm not saying it is not possible, but that it requires you to lead two separate intelligent lives.

 

And please, please, please, cut it out with the 'humans are perfection' blah blah blah crap. Realize that we are not the pinnacle of anything but societal organization. Our babies are born pre-mature, we only see and hear in very limited ranges, and we are not the fastest or strongest at anything. Read a book and make a legitimate argument (though I doubt one exists that can maintain logical consistency).

 

Nobody can prove that unicorns don't exist. But if you claim that unicorns exist, the burden of proof is on you. I challenge anyone to come up with an argument for God that I could not just as easily use for a unicorn.

 

Firstly you are committing here a logical fallacy known as bifurcation (stating that there are only two mutually exclusive options when in fact there is a third or more option). In this case you are asserting that one either believes in God and not scientific reasoning or vice versa. In fact, there is a third option in which one can believe in God and also scientific reasoning... I will explain how below.

 

The foundation of science, mathematics etc. are the laws of logic. Without logic, science and math would be non-existent. Now, I'm going to make an assumption here that you are a materialistic atheist and that you believe that all that exists must be material. Using your materialistic worldview can you explain to me the origin of the laws of logic? Where do they come from? How can they exist within a material world if they are not a material, tangible element of the universe?

 

The laws of logic are not man made conventions or ideas (conventions and ideas can change from culture to culture and over time) because if they were, we could change the laws of logic whenever we wanted! Logic is consistent throughout the entire universe. There is something that connects all of humanity together so that we all have the same rules when it comes to reasoning and logic. In my worldview it is God who has given the laws of logic and reasoning for us to use (since God himself is a reasoning, logical entity). In this regard it is not fallacious at all for me to have a belief in God and use the scientific method as God designed the universe (which is no longer in its perfect state due to sin, hence disease and degradation of what was once a perfect design) to function in a logical, scientific way.

[Silverwolf1277]

Firstly you are committing here a logical fallacy known as bifurcation (stating that there are only two mutually exclusive options when in fact there is a third or more option). In this case you are asserting that one either believes in God and not scientific reasoning or vice versa. In fact, there is a third option in which one can believe in God and also scientific reasoning... I will explain how below.

 

The foundation of science, mathematics etc. are the laws of logic. Without logic, science and math would be non-existent. Now, I'm going to make an assumption here that you are a materialistic atheist and that you believe that all that exists must be material. Using your materialistic worldview can you explain to me the origin of the laws of logic? Where do they come from? How can they exist within a material world if they are not a material, tangible element of the universe?

 

The laws of logic are not man made conventions or ideas (conventions and ideas can change from culture to culture and over time) because if they were, we could change the laws of logic whenever we wanted! Logic is consistent throughout the entire universe. There is something that connects all of humanity together so that we all have the same rules when it comes to reasoning and logic. In my worldview it is God who has given the laws of logic and reasoning for us to use (since God himself is a reasoning, logical entity). In this regard it is not fallacious at all for me to have a belief in God and use the scientific method as God designed the universe (which is no longer in its perfect state due to sin, hence disease and degradation of what was once a perfect design) to function in a logical, scientific way.

 

First of all, I did not say that you must believe one or other, but that they are incompatible systems of thought (hence, cognitive dissonance). I even provided an example of a person who maintains both systems of thought in an influential position.

 

And your assumption about me being a 'materialistic atheist' is false. I'm not even really sure what that means to be honest. Atheism has no laws or rules. It is a lack of belief. It is to religion as abstinence is to sex.

 

Personally, I have a simple rule of thumb: show me the evidence. You can prove laws of logic. Just like how you can prove that 1 + 1 = 2. These things have always existed in nature, our species has just managed to think about and verbalize them like no other species we know of. Even capuchin monkeys have a concept of justice: if you put two of them side by side, and give them different rewards for doing the same task, the one getting the less-liked reward will get upset and throw a fit. Just because we've been able to verbalize the consistencies that exist in nature doesn't make them divine.

[nosuperman]

The foundation of science, mathematics etc. are the laws of logic. Without logic, science and math would be non-existent. Now, I'm going to make an assumption here that you are a materialistic atheist and that you believe that all that exists must be material. Using your materialistic worldview can you explain to me the origin of the laws of logic? Where do they come from? How can they exist within a material world if they are not a material, tangible element of the universe?

 

You are guilty of the same bifurcation you reference. It is not, "This is not understood by science therefor it was God." "I don't know" is a third answer that is perfectly valid and more accurate than claiming false knowledge. Had you asked the same question several hundred years ago about the origin of disease, or the formation of a star, or the basis of a thought, you would be guilty of using the same flawed reasoning. "We can't answer it therefor, God."

 

"Logic" as you describe it comes from humans and is a reflection of our attempt to understand our trajectory through the dimension we describe as a "time". It is based in our brains, which evolved to recognize things we perceive as "patterns". Had we access to different trajectories or different arrangements of the extended spatial dimensions then they would appear different to us but ultimately they would be based in networks in our brains. Had we no ability to store memories and perceive cause and effect then we would not have access to an idea such as logic. The same goes for us not having the potential to interact with our physical world and establish causation. Thus its based in our brains and they develop the ability to predict and understand the physical world.

 

That being said - again - taking something you are sure of (i.e. that there are physical laws, or that cause and effect and relationships can be reliably described using logic) and ADDING a massive assumption that you know this to be the work of the creator of the universe is not a reasonable thing to do. We've seen it fail throughout history, we'll see it continue to fail. It also raises countless questions that require further fallacies such as "where did God come from" and "how do you know?" and "why couldn't it have been a unicorn?" each of which is raised by the initial flawed assumption and each of which requires more flawed reasoning to persist.

[Silverwolf1277]

It also raises countless questions that require further fallacies such as "where did God come from" and "how do you know?" and "why couldn't it have been a unicorn?" each of which is raised by the initial flawed assumption and each of which requires more flawed reasoning to persist.

 

hahaha amazing. and sadly, a completely legitimate question that I don't think any religious person could answer.

[CapillaryWave]

A better question would be, why would someone make the time to publicly disregard another persons belief system when neither of them respect, nor cogitate, the other persons opinion?

[Robin Hood]

A better question would be, why would someone make the time to publicly disregard another persons belief system when neither of them respect, nor cogitate, the others persons opinion?

 

To feel good about themeselves and smart.

[futurepediatric]

Let's say that our flaws were intentional.

 

That would be an awfully cruel thing for a benevolent deity to do.

 

I think that if God wanted to/cared' date=' he/she could have found a way to make everything rosy while incorporating all those things. Nothings impossible for him/her.[/quote']

 

An answer that addresses this question/stance (not written by me):

 

Question

 

An Evolutionary Argument against (Christian) Theism

Hello Dr. Craig,

 

You think that evolution is not a threat against christianity or theism in general. However, I think an argument can be made against theism or at least christian theism from evolution.

 

1. If God created life (biological life), he would have created life in the best possible way someone could create life, because God is a perfect being and therefore only does what´s the best.

 

2. Evolution is not the best way

 

therefore: God did not create biological life

 

Or in formality:

 

If A then B

not B

therefore: not A

 

Of course, it does not necessary follow from "God did not create biological life" therefore "God does not exist". God could still exist even if he hadn´t created life (seems unlikely though), but at least the biblical account says that God created humans and animals, in one way or another. So, if God did not create biological life, this would be at least a argument against christian theism, if not theism itself.

 

1. The first premiss: I think this is obviously true, if we define God as a perfect being, then he would always do what is the best to do. If he had to choose between A,B or C and B is the best, he would choose B.

 

2. I think you will disagree here, maybe even before or even with the whole structure of the argument. I can´t imagine how evolution could be the best possible way for God to create life. You could think of possible other ways that would be better. For example: God could´ve just created animals or humans withoud the biological mechanisms of evolution or do you think God is dependent on evolution to create life? I don´t think so. So why would God choose A instead of B or C, a way in which his creatures had to go through pain, death and agony, a very brutal way in which only the strong will survive, when B or C seems to be a better way?

 

You may ask, what do you mean by "better"? Better for whom? God? In this sense you could think evolution is a better way, in terms of easier, less complicated. It may or may not be easier to create the first cell and let it evolve on it´s own like creating everything oneself. Somewhat like a computer scientist who lays the ground and then let the programme do the rest. But I don´t think it makes sense to think in this dimensions like "easy" and "difficult" because for God it would be equal. Think of a mathematician for example. For us it may be easier to count 2+3 than 156+213 but for a good mathematician it really wouldn´t matter. God is a good mathematician, so it really would´t matter in terms of easy and difficult. Then what about better method for animals? I think creating every animal on its own would be way better for the animals than causing unnecesarry pain and random mutations that often result in negative results and even mistakes through evolution. So, all in all, evolution does not seem to be a very noble method in which we would expect God to create.

 

Thank you and God bless,

 

Michel

 

Germany

 

Answer

 

Thank you for your thoughtful question, Michel! I also commend you for your excellent English.

 

The signoff to your letter suggests that you are a (Christian) theist, which makes me wonder if this is really an argument intended to support, not atheism, but creationism over against evolution. Creationists often maintain that God and evolution are incompatible, but rather than deny God they deny that life was created by means of evolution. Indeed, your argument does not have the valid logical form that you suggest and could as easily be taken as an argument against the fact of evolution as against God. To have the valid form you suggest the second premise of your argument should be

 

2´. God did not create life in the best possible way.

 

In order to support (2´) you would have to show both that evolution is not the best possible way to create life and also that life was created by means of evolution. The creationist would agree that evolution is not the best possible way to create life but he would deny that life was created by means of evolution.

 

Let’s take it for granted, though, that life was created by means of evolution. Then you need to support the claim that evolution is not the best possible way to create life, as you have tried to do. It seems to me, however, that both premises (1) and (2´) of the argument are vulnerable to defeat.

 

Consider first (1). You take this premise to be obviously true. In fact, it is far from obvious. It commits the same mistake that your compatriot Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made when he thought that a perfect being would create the best possible world. Leibniz’s error lay in assuming that there is a best possible world! Like the natural numbers, it may well be the case that for any world you pick there is always a better world than that. Just as there is no highest natural number, there may be no best possible world. If so, then God cannot create the best possible world because there is no such thing. This has profound implications for discussions relevant to the problem of evil. It implies that no matter which world God creates there is always a better world that He could have created. But God cannot be faulted for creating the world He has chosen, for any world that He picks will be less good than an infinite number of other worlds. A perfectly good being must merely choose a good world, even though that implies that there will be better worlds that he could have chosen.

 

Similarly in this case: there may be no best possible way to create life. So a perfectly good being must simply choose a good way to create life. There may be better ways to create life than through evolution, but so long as this is a good way, a perfect being cannot be faulted for choosing it. Hence, premise (1) might actually be necessarily false!

 

What about premise (2´)? I think this premise is also very vulnerable. You seem to fault evolution because of the pain and suffering it involves. But this makes a very simplistic equation between suffering and badness. We should have learned from discussions of the problem of evil that persons can have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering, so that a world which includes suffering is better than a world without it.

 

This raises precisely the question you ask: what do we mean by “better”? Better for whom? For God? Certainly not! He’s already perfect. And as you point out, for an omnipotent being all ways of creating life are equally easy.

 

Better for the animals involved? Hard to say! Any viable ecosystem will involve animal predation and death for the health of the system as a whole (e.g., the re-introduction of wolves was necessary in Canada in order to preserve the health of the caribou herds upon which they preyed because in their absence the caribou were overgrazing and dying). As proponents of the Gaia hypothesis have taught us, you can’t just consider “every animal on its own,” as you suggest. Moreover, given almost all animals’ apparent lack of self awareness, it is far from clear that animals suffer in the same way that we do. Maybe a world with evolution is a richer and more wonderful world of creatures. After all, seriously, aren’t you glad that God created the dinosaurs? I am! Ever since I was a boy, I’ve been thrilled with the age of the dinosaurs and the Ice Age with their wonderful prehistoric creatures. What’s not to love about these wonderful, fascinating, colorful, and often bizarre creatures? Why shouldn’t God delight, as we do, in all creatures great and small?

 

Or do we mean better for human beings? Aye, and there’s the rub! God’s ultimate purpose on this planet concerns bringing men and women freely into His Kingdom. The evolutionary history of the Earth is ecological scene-setting for the advent of human beings and the working out of God’s purposes among them. The primeval forests of those prehistoric ecosystems laid down the deposits for the fossil fuels which have made human advancement and modern civilization possible. Should God have just created the Earth with the illusion of age? Why think that that would have better achieved God’s purposes for humanity? How do you know that God’s purposes for the human race are not better achieved by having a genuine ecological history of the Earth rather than by creating an illusory history or a world with no apparent history at all? How do we know how many people or what percentage of people would have freely come to find God and His salvation in such worlds? We are in no position at all to speculate about such matters. But then we are in no position to speculate as to whether evolution was the best way for God to create life on this planet.

 

by William Lane Craig | Submit your question to Dr. Craig

 

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/an-evolutionary-argument-against-christian-theism

[monty]

I am having flashbacks of a few months ago when an indentical discussion turned into a flame war lol.

 

 

It's like a bunch of kids calling each other stupid lol. No you are because you believe in xyz. No you are because you don't think they exist.

 

Personally I don't think it is utterly ridiculous to believe in some form of a god or intelligence to the universe. Perhaps just like the strong force/weak force there is another fundamental force to the universe that carries information/ consciousness. If we are just beginning to realize that plants may have some form of nervous system that can communicate I think it is pretty feasible that we have missed other notable aspects to the universe. Maybe god is some kind of being that exists in another dimension (insert beastie boys song lol).

 

For me though my beliefs are private. I have had times where I feel connected with something outside of myself, call it god, call it schizophrenia lol. I have felt this my entire life and I actually find I comforting and cannot imagine my life without it.

 

Lets not sit here and pretend like everything we do in life is based entirely on perfectly thought out reasonable arguements...well that would be pompous. Ever loved someone and couldn't explain why? Ever got completely hammered even though you knew it was poison and hugged a toilet for hours after.

 

I do not have a problem with atheists and can see where they are coming from. Don't forget though you share genes and have an almost identical nervous system to all of us illogical flakes... what makes you so sure your reasoning is not just as flawed if we believe in unicorns.

 

The universe is a big place and our senses can only pick up a small amount of the environment around us. I am just not the type of person that looks at a scientific explanation of how something works, like a cell and say to myself, well now that I have an understanding of it works God doesn't exist. To me that doesn't follow. God was never something I used to explain a lack of knowledge.

 

I get why someone who only wants to base their belief system of the conclusions of modern science would find this unacceptable for them. Personally, I just don't think that science has all the meaningful answers to my life and I am living a successful happy life with my belief in god

[nosuperman]

To feel good about themeselves and smart.

 

Or because the other person's belief system is used to fight against science and moral progress. Its used to influence domestic and foreign policy. It endorses bigotry and sexism. If religious people would just keep their beliefs out of everyone else's business then nobody would have a problem with it.

 

You don't see people who believe in Elvis still being alive desperately trying to change what is taught in classrooms. You don't see people who believe in bigfoot using that as a basis for which direction they vote in public elections and using bigfoot-belief as a surrogate marker for one's morality. You don't see atrocious acts of violence being blamed on the belief that a my little pony character runs the universe and divinely endorses their behaviour. You don't see 9-11 truthers protesting outside of clinics and on school campuses treating people like **** and putting doctors lives in danger. These beliefs are all ridiculous but nobody gets up in arms about them because they are at most minor annoyances.

 

If you want people to stop bothering you about religion, make your churches pay taxes or prevent them from politicizing issues, take away funding for the catholic school board, stop bothering people who want abortions or want to marry the person they love or not be bullied for being different, stop using ancient scripture to battle present day science, take your God out of public documents, stop Christians from calling my work on their Holidays to yell at me and my employees for working on one of their Holidays and failing to recognize whichever ancient text they were brought up with.

 

Edit: The fact that in light of all of this you think its about feeling good or smart represents a lack of empathy and self awareness on your part. These stories are used to justify all kinds of invasive and detrimental behaviours and you wonder why people take issue with those who do this? Nobody has a problem with whatever beliefs another person needs to get up in the morning or deal with issues of spirituality or mortality. Western Buddhism (not the sects using the religion to justify ethnic cleansing of Muslims) is a great example.

 

I think a lot of its doctrine is not real (being born from a slit in his mother's side, battling a demon) or perhaps metaphorical but Buddhists aren't fighting evolution (or any other science) nor are they actively politicizing their religion (in the west) to influence policies that affect me or my loved ones.

[Orcamute]

To feel good about themeselves and smart.

 

Man..there are so many problems in religion. Religion is based on fundamentals of hatred. Its just a way for people to segregate themselves from somebody else.

 

Do you see atheists going around bombing buildings, preaching anti-homosexuality in marriages, preaching fear in their children to do good or they will go to hell, not taking pharmaceuticals/ eating meat because its against their religion or knocking on church's doors because they aren't teaching the contrary??

 

What is this;

 

 

absolutely nuts.. and it is even questionable that the majority of Medical Students here believe in something that has absolutely no scientific or factual evidence whatsoever.

[duck_season]

Point noted. Harassing others is wrong no matter what your beliefs.

Realistically speaking however, there will always be some friction among different groups (whether they represent religious bodies, political lobbies, interest groups, etc.) as they vie to steer government funding/law-making towards their agendas.

And that will always create hiccups.

[dowatugottado]

I disbelieve in the fairytale, childish God that atheists are obsessed with.

[NutritionRunner]

It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and also be a scientist. Believing in God and Jesus Christ doesn't mean you believe that the Bible is literal or that evolution didn't happen. Most Christians that I know (I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools my entire life), do NOT take the Bible literally. They recognize that it was written by people (divinely inspired, but still flawed humans) who were writing for a particular audience at a particular time. It is not to be taken literally. Even the Vatican has scientists in residence these days, including an official Vatican astronomer!

 

Here is some terrific information from Denis Lamoureux from the University of Alberta on how it is possible to be Christian and be a scientist.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/ilj_preface.pdf

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/1_beyond/index.html

As he says: "the Bible teaches us THAT God is the creator, and not HOW"

[Orcamute]

It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and also be a scientist. Believing in God and Jesus Christ doesn't mean you believe that the Bible is literal or that evolution didn't happen. Most Christians that I know (I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools my entire life), do NOT take the Bible literally. They recognize that it was written by people (divinely inspired, but still flawed humans) who were writing for a particular audience at a particular time. It is not to be taken literally. Even the Vatican has scientists in residence these days, including an official Vatican astronomer!

 

Here is some terrific information from Denis Lamoureux from the University of Alberta on how it is possible to be Christian and be a scientist.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/ilj_preface.pdf

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/1_beyond/index.html

As he says: "the Bible teaches us THAT God is the creator, and not HOW"

 

The scientist who coded the entire human genome was a Christian.

[megaMooMoo]

I disbelieve in the fairytale, childish God that atheists are obsessed with.

 

 

check the new testament, i heard that dude looks like a handsome skateboarder, ripped as $hit and is a better doctor than Mc-dreamy