![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYes, I know that large chunks of the Bible are based on Jewish National Myth and 'make believe'.
But so are lots of English and American 'history'. It doesn't have to be absolutely true to be inspiring, uplifting or instructive to contemplate.
Dawkins claims that teaching the Christian faith, or any other religious faith to children is a form of child abuse. Me, I am not so sure. Children can be told the story of Noah's ark, but when they get to be old enough to ask serious questions, we can tell them the facts as we know them, that it never really happened.
This would give them a grounding in the culture that they were raised in, and also help them to think critically about their world in other areas - like politics maybe. "The value of fairy tales is not what they tell us about dragons, but they tell us how dragons can be beaten", to paraphrase Chesterton. The Christian faith gave us more than the Crusades and the Inquisition - ask for details ;)
But so are lots of English and American 'history'. It doesn't have to be absolutely true to be inspiring, uplifting or instructive to contemplate.
Dawkins claims that teaching the Christian faith, or any other religious faith to children is a form of child abuse. Me, I am not so sure. Children can be told the story of Noah's ark, but when they get to be old enough to ask serious questions, we can tell them the facts as we know them, that it never really happened.
This would give them a grounding in the culture that they were raised in, and also help them to think critically about their world in other areas - like politics maybe. "The value of fairy tales is not what they tell us about dragons, but they tell us how dragons can be beaten", to paraphrase Chesterton. The Christian faith gave us more than the Crusades and the Inquisition - ask for details ;)
(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 16:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 17:41 (UTC)he is not promoting a particular faith.
(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 17:58 (UTC)The one true faith of Atheism.
(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 18:03 (UTC)atheism is not a faith
(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 19:21 (UTC)The Religious are not just mistaken they are heretics against science.
(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 22:58 (UTC)you are completely wrong
why do you persist in making shit up?
(no subject)
Date: 25/7/11 19:53 (UTC)How would you define it?
(no subject)
Date: 24/7/11 19:13 (UTC)If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 24/7/11 19:25 (UTC)Can you offer definitive proof that there is no God and/or other form of supreme being or metaphysical energy.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 24/7/11 23:12 (UTC)So, unless you are going to say that somebody who puts their non-belief in God at 99.9% is an agnostic, you need to acknowledge that atheism is not a faith.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 25/7/11 20:15 (UTC)And yet he persists in getting in people's faces for not sharring his particular world-view.
Same creature, different color.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 25/7/11 20:18 (UTC)Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 25/7/11 21:50 (UTC)He has a 'belief' position. And he insists that you gotta share it.
A metaphysical God stands outside the scope of physical science, by definition. Science can neither prove nor disprove God- just test people's ideas on anything they claim God id or didn't do.
You say that God does exist or does not exist on equally faith based assumptions. Not on physical evidence, either way.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 26/7/11 07:40 (UTC)and if your belief about a teapot on mars, and this other groups belief about a coffeepot on venus, and yet another groups faith in a george foreman grill on jupiter--if y'all fight over this shit and interrupt the nice planet that me and the other sane people want to live on, well, yeah, i'll get in your face too
(not to mention the teapot has some strange demands on folks)
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 27/7/11 20:16 (UTC)As there is no way to know for sure any position one way or the other falls under the perview of belief. An emotional decision vice a rational one.
I am enough of a scientists to understand tha own belief in the metaphysical is irrational, but in the absense of evidence any position to the contrary is equally so.
The only logically defensible position is no position at all.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 28/7/11 04:01 (UTC)santa clause doesn't exist. deal with it.
even though we cannot PROVE a negative, it's true, and any reasonable scientist will say so
now, with that said, any scientist worth their salt also knows that they are humans and humans are fallible
but that is NOT the same as saying we shouldn't take any view
the teapot around mars is as likely as santa
disbelief in santa is completely logically defensible. same goes for the teapot.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 29/7/11 05:20 (UTC)I am not trying to argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old I am simply pointing out that the Bible/Torah/Quaran/Dhama be taken litterally, Only that Prof. Dawkins and your argument is childish on it's face.
"God does not exist because I declare it so.
PS: Religion is silly"
If one accepts the law of causality one must accept the existance of an ultimate cause. If the universe is simply an elaborate simulation what does one call the programer? If Drake's equations prove true are the inhabitants of a Type III civilization not godlike?
What do you say to someone who's prayers have been answered? do you have evidence that is more compelling?
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 29/7/11 08:26 (UTC)go read david hume and you will discover that causality cannot be proven
"What do you say to someone who's prayers have been answered? do you have evidence that is more compelling?"
see above.
p.s. prayers get answered all the time. sometimes the answer is NO
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 29/7/11 18:41 (UTC)Hense the all-important "If" at the beginning of the statement.
To postulate that "Cause and effect" is a fundimental aspect of the universe is not as intellectually unfounded as you seem to be treating it.
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 29/7/11 08:30 (UTC)my view:
P1) all books are written by humans
C1) so-called "holy" books are also written by humans
P2) evidence of something greater than mankind cannot come from mankind
C2) books cannot contain evidence of something greater than mankind
C3) outside direct experience with the divine (which is virtually impossible to effectively argue against) we cannot have evidence for the divine
P3) don't argue for things you cannot show evidence for
C4) don't argue for god
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 29/7/11 19:38 (UTC)^ Tit for tat ^ ;)
#1) Causality is a fundimental element of our percieved universe.
#2) From #1; Everything that happens has a cause (even if that cause is not immediatly apperant)
#3) If everything that happens were to be caused to by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. (infinite regression)
#4) Because or percieved universe has a finite beginning and likely an end (as supported by scientific observation regarding the overall expansion and cooling of the interstellar medium) #3 can't happen.
Conclusion) From #2 and #4; There must be an "Ultimate" or "First Cause" beyond which nothing more can be sought. Such an "Ulimate Cause" would logically imply some kind of creative force intellegent or otherwise. Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover".
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 30/7/11 04:55 (UTC)here is why:
#2 should read as:
From #1; everything that happens appears to have a cause
since 1 admits that it is an element of our perceived universe--our perceptions aren't always correct (e.g. we sit on a rock and that rock appears to be standing still and not in motion, but we know that the rock is spinning and the earth is circling the sun)
as such we can accept our perceptions as perceptions and not attempt to claim them as truths
#1 is true. causality is part of our perceived universe. that does not entail our perception being correct