The Atheist Corner

[Redzeppelin]

As you say, they should have "eternal accountability" in mind, but being only human, they don't always act that way.

Sad, but true - but whether we act like it or not, we will be held accountable, and according to the Bible, we will be held even more accountable than many others because we knew better. Kind of like the fact that cops who commit crimes are given stiffer penalties - because they knew the law and swore to uphold it.

So I wonder whether it isn't because the "rules" that believers should follow create so many high expectations that we're necessarily disappointed when they don't follow them.

Christianity isn't about following "rules" - it's about a relationship with the God who created the universe - a God who desires to be in relationship with His creatures, and a God who values us so much that He sacrificed Himself (in the form of Jesus Christ) to pay the penalty of sin that we could not have escaped on our own. Once a person knows Christ, obeying the "rules" becomes a pleasure - not a chore.

I suppose what I meant was that atheists seem, in general, to be more tolerant of differences.

Except those concerning religion - check out the vitriol from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al.

That when you have a set of rules and interdictions to obey, you're going to be less open-minded.

Except when it comes to religion and belief in God - then we're told that we're mentally unsound (cf. Freud's assessment of religion).

Atheists like to speak of the moral laws of God as if they are merely random restrictions, the only purpose of which is to cut down on our fun here on earth. This is patently wrong and shows a serious ignorance of human nature and the consequences of exercising our freedoms in whatever way we wish. If you think about it, what kind of world would we have if we honored the Golden Rule and if we actually kept the 10 commandments? Seriously, how can observing those rules make things worse (except that we don't get to indulge our lower natures as freely as we'd like)? How has sleeping with whomever we wish, lying, stealing, cursing, coveting that which isn't ours, etc helped us become better, happier people?

Being moral doesn't make you "narrow minded" anymore than not wanting to use drugs, booze or cigarettes makes you an ascetic.

And I must confess that, to my mind, atheism goes with education: religion, nowadays, often seems to thrive in uneducated (poor) countries or milieux. And education, once again for me, encourages open-mindedness, which in turn seems to be the one thing to make the world a better place.

Another stereotype. There are plenty of educated people who believe. Education is often a catalyst for people choosing (notice I said choosing) atheism because the theories that abound to explain our existence in the absence of God seem to make more sense to us (largely because we came up with them, and in the absence of God, what choice do we have in terms of explaining how we got here?). This is leftover stuff from the Enlightenment - science managed to explain some things that had erroneously been attributed to God, so we decided to push the argument all the way and decide that we've figured the universe out, and God isn't in it - because if He did exist, certainly we'd have seen Him [smart as we are] or He'd have bothered to prove His existence to us. Since He won't , He doesn't exist.

I don't think, however, that religion has damaged the world. If you reread my previous post, you'll see I admitted it probably had a civilizing influence - at a time when secular laws were perhaps not strong enough to protect the weakest (especially). Nowadays, in most Western countries at least, I don't see the need for religion.

Some of the most heinous atrocities in the world have been committed by ostensibly atheistic governments. The numbers are staggering. Communist Russia comes to mind as the most obvious example.

As for your second point, I certainly don't know the Bible well enough to argue with you convincingly but what I read in it does allows me to agree with you (up to a point: if women have to "submit" to their husbands, it does sort of imply they're inferior, no?).This said, too many people have used the Bible to defend sexist ideas... all those debates about the souls of women, or her association with the devil...

Ephesians chapter 5 says this:
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Paul tells husbands and wives to submit to each other - but their submission is different. Wives are commanded to defer to their husbands' authority; our feminist culture recoils at that, but look at what the man is asked to do: he is asked to love his wife sacrificially, as Christ did. Christ gave his life for the church - we men are asked to do the same. Think about that: wives are commanded to defer to our authority (but only if we are loving them sacrificially); we are commanded to love sacrificially - do you know what that means? That means we are to love with no thought to what we get in return. That is no easier for a man than submitting to a man's authority is for a woman. We have more responsibility, but we're asked to pay the higher price. My principal makes more money and has more power than me, but he also pays a heavier price than I do when something goes wrong at my school. I may envy his power, but I don't want to deal with his responsibilities. Women may desire the authority that God gave men, but do they want to pay the same price?

Example: women pushed to be allowed to enter the combat portion of the military; well, they got their wish - which now means that if the draft ever gets reinstated, they'll have no legitimate argument to get excused from being drafted. Most of my female students seem less than excited with having this "privilege" of being equal with the boys. The Bible may give more authority to men, but this doesn't make us better or more important; it primarily means more gets asked of us in terms of the relationship.

[Jozanny]

As I created this thread to discuss the rise of secular atheism and its significance, if any, in the West, I am going to reorient this discussion along those lines, and refuse to get drawn into a never ending head game with forum believers in theism, and in fact received an interesting ethical issue in my Nightline email, which I will quote in part here:

Heartwrenching Debate

On one side are evangelical Christian missionaries campaigning against infanticide they claim is still widely in practice among some ancient tribes of Brazil. On the other side is the Brazilian government, which claims that the missionaries are exaggerating how many babies are killed in the name of religious conversion, and by doing so, assisting in the demise of the nation's ancient civilizations. ABC News correspondent Dan Harris takes a hard look at a delicate debate.

For those of you who want to keep making the case for God and your particular set of beliefs and faiths, you have plenty of other threads to do that in. Thank you for respecting the fact that I am after something else here and want to continue pursuing my motifs for future article ideas.

[Pendragon]

isn't it bad company? to have rapport with,say. gays?

Why? Are they subhuman or something? If you feel they are wrong you can't help them by pretending they don't exist or by avoiding them. Practicing their sin would be wrong for one who feels it wrong and that isn't going to happen. But I can befriend them and will.

[absurda]

I have been to a Christian Church this month, and the minister said in other words: People who haven't found Christ will go to hell. Imagine the people you love in hell. If that's not what you want, then you have to do something.
Now, if I was a Christian who believed all the minister said, I would be desperatly trying to convince every family member and every friend to become Christian too!

[Bitterfly]

Sad, but true - but whether we act like it or not, we will be held accountable, and according to the Bible, we will be held even more accountable than many others because we knew better. Kind of like the fact that cops who commit crimes are given stiffer penalties - because they knew the law and swore to uphold it.

Are you sure about that? I do remember being told all infidels would go to hell, whether they had been good or not during their lifetimes. Maybe the Church is more tolerant now...
What I meant by the rules were things like the Ten Commandments. Seeing as most of them are now inscribed in "profane" law, I don't see why we need an set of religious rules to abide by - I don't find them necessary.

Except those concerning religion - check out the vitriol from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al.

A few atheists react like that, and probably because they're in a religious country. I know I would get rather het up if religion was allowed a greater say than science in my country. That said, I don't meet many vitriolic atheists... Those you have cited are exceptions more than rules, no?

Except when it comes to religion and belief in God - then we're told that we're mentally unsound (cf. Freud's assessment of religion).

I think you'd need to nuance that.

Atheists like to speak of the moral laws of God as if they are merely random restrictions, the only purpose of which is to cut down on our fun here on earth. This is patently wrong and shows a serious ignorance of human nature and the consequences of exercising our freedoms in whatever way we wish. If you think about it, what kind of world would we have if we honored the Golden Rule and if we actually kept the 10 commandments? Seriously, how can observing those rules make things worse (except that we don't get to indulge our lower natures as freely as we'd like)? How has sleeping with whomever we wish, lying, stealing, cursing, coveting that which isn't ours, etc helped us become better, happier people?
Being moral doesn't make you "narrow minded" anymore than not wanting to use drugs, booze or cigarettes makes you an ascetic.

I'm not sure all atheists think that way: Judeo-Christian laws seem to be at the foundation of our laws, and I think they were designed first to protect people, not to restrict their freedom. But, as I said above, are they really necessary now? Especially as they aren't incredibly subtle, are they? I'd say condemnation of adulterous women was perhaps a fine thing long ago (and then, I'm not even sure), but now we've reached a clearer understanding about causes of adultery, and can forgive it more easily, no?

And you mustn't forget atheists can have ethics and morals: I, for one, don't think murder is condonable. But I do think you're an ascetic if you don't use drugs, booze or fags!

Another stereotype. There are plenty of educated people who believe. Education is often a catalyst for people choosing (notice I said choosing) atheism because the theories that abound to explain our existence in the absence of God seem to make more sense to us (largely because we came up with them, and in the absence of God, what choice do we have in terms of explaining how we got here?). This is leftover stuff from the Enlightenment - science managed to explain some things that had erroneously been attributed to God, so we decided to push the argument all the way and decide that we've figured the universe out, and God isn't in it - because if He did exist, certainly we'd have seen Him [smart as we are] or He'd have bothered to prove His existence to us. Since He won't , He doesn't exist.

It might be a stereotype, but it often checks out: look at the most underdeveloped countries in the world, and you'll find that they're often the most religious.
And why consider atheism as the result of a choice? In my personal experience, it hasn't been that: I didn't choose not to believe in God, I just can't - and haven't been able to since the age of ten or thereabouts. Believing in God requires a leap of faith which I wasn't able to make. Afterwards, thinking about things made me certain a God could not exist, and what I read seemed to corroborate that.

Some of the most heinous atrocities in the world have been committed by ostensibly atheistic governments. The numbers are staggering. Communist Russia comes to mind as the most obvious example.

Communism is an ideology that needs to be separated from atheism. The nazis and fascists - as well as the collaborationist regime in France - put priests in concentration camps, yet I hear nobody putting their crimes on the account of atheism.

Women may desire the authority that God gave men, but do they want to pay the same price?

Erm... yes? Because having responsibilities means being an adult? And not a perpetual minor? Your argument reminds me of how Victorians (among others) considered women: as charming little things to be protected for their own good - if they could not be give civic responsibilities, it was to spare their great emotiveness.

Example: women pushed to be allowed to enter the combat portion of the military; well, they got their wish - which now means that if the draft ever gets reinstated, they'll have no legitimate argument to get excused from being drafted. Most of my female students seem less than excited with having this "privilege" of being equal with the boys. The Bible may give more authority to men, but this doesn't make us better or more important; it primarily means more gets asked of us in terms of the relationship.

So those who have greater authority are not more important? Are you sure of yourself there?? Isn't your principal "more important" than you are?
As or women not being happy about drafted, I don't consider that to be relevant: lots of men haven't felt very enthusiastic, in history and nowadays, about military service. If women want to be considered equal, they need to have equal duties (and rights, of course).

[Cellar Door]

Quote:
Heartwrenching Debate

On one side are evangelical Christian missionaries campaigning against infanticide they claim is still widely in practice among some ancient tribes of Brazil. On the other side is the Brazilian government, which claims that the missionaries are exaggerating how many babies are killed in the name of religious conversion, and by doing so, assisting in the demise of the nation's ancient civilizations. ABC News correspondent Dan Harris takes a hard look at a delicate debate.

Jozanny, I am interested in this, but have some questions: why is infanticide occurring within the context of these civilizations? The quote is unclear (at least to me) what it has to do with religious conversion. If you would please expand or send me a link where I could read the article, I would like to discuss this rather than a tedious, never-ending diatribe on why one should/should not believe in anything.

[Redzeppelin]

As I created this thread to discuss the rise of secular atheism and its significance, if any, in the West, I am going to reorient this discussion along those lines, and refuse to get drawn into a never ending head game with forum believers in theism, and in fact received an interesting ethical issue in my Nightline email, which I will quote in part here:

For those of you who want to keep making the case for God and your particular set of beliefs and faiths, you have plenty of other threads to do that in. Thank you for respecting the fact that I am after something else here and want to continue pursuing my motifs for future article ideas.[/B]

The last time I checked the forum guidelines, I don't recall reading anywhere that thread initiators could dictate the contents of the thread they started. Any participant is free to redirect the discussion, but I don't recall that the thread initiator has the authority to direct participants to post elsewhere. Let me know if I skipped over that in my reading by quoting the forum rules that support your above quoted statements.

I myself did not show up here to defend God - I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system. I'm still waiting for it.

Are you sure about that? I do remember being told all infidels would go to hell, whether they had been good or not during their lifetimes. Maybe the Church is more tolerant now...
What I meant by the rules were things like the Ten Commandments. Seeing as most of them are now inscribed in "profane" law, I don't see why we need an set of religious rules to abide by - I don't find them necessary.

Hell is a choosen destination - not an assigned destination.

I don't know what "religious" rules are. God did not give us "religious rules" - He left us guidelines by which to lead happier, more fulfilling lives.

A few atheists react like that, and probably because they're in a religious country. I know I would get rather het up if religion was allowed a greater say than science in my country. That said, I don't meet many vitriolic atheists... Those you have cited are exceptions more than rules, no?

I find the number of atheists who can control themselves and have a reasoned discussion (like yourself) without being condescending and/or insulting in this forum to be in the minority.

I think you'd need to nuance that.

In subtle cases, a belief in God is likened to a childish belief in things like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy (see above comment); in more extreme cases, belief in God is attributed to ignorance; finally, some people (Freud, Dawkins) equate such belief with mental illness.

I'm not sure all atheists think that way: Judeo-Christian laws seem to be at the foundation of our laws, and I think they were designed first to protect people, not to restrict their freedom. But, as I said above, are they really necessary now? Especially as they aren't incredibly subtle, are they? I'd say condemnation of adulterous women was perhaps a fine thing long ago (and then, I'm not even sure), but now we've reached a clearer understanding about causes of adultery, and can forgive it more easily, no?

How can prohibitions against murder, stealing and adultery not be "necessary"?

And, a standard atheist tactic in condeming Bible morality is to pull stuff from the Old Testament. If you'll recall, Jesus did not advocate the application of Mosaic Law when the woman caught in the act of adultery was brought before him (cf. John, ch. 8). The Jewish cultural laws from Leviticus are not currently binding. OT law must be filtered through the NT revision of law and grace.

And you mustn't forget atheists can have ethics and morals: I, for one, don't think murder is condonable. But I do think you're an ascetic if you don't use drugs, booze or fags!

Of course atheists can have ethics and morals - but upon what are they based that you could point to as being solid and not prone to alteration?

It might be a stereotype, but it often checks out: look at the most underdeveloped countries in the world, and you'll find that they're often the most religious.

Like I said above...

Do you know why this is so? One reason is this: people who live in underdeveloped countries never lose touch with their needs; their lives are at the mercy of much more than those of us who can be relatively "self-sufficient" in developed countries. People who know their helplessness and their weakness tend to see their need for God much more clearly than those of us who live in relative comfort, with plenty of money and resources to shield us from hunger, fear, exposure, etc. It may be more that than education level that drives uneducated people in 3rd world countries to embrace religion. We who have everything have a hard time seeing our need for God; but - wait until that chronic, fatal disease strikes, or we lose our job - no matter how much money and education we have, we often - when faced with our mortality and weaknesses, turn to God.

And why consider atheism as the result of a choice? In my personal experience, it hasn't been that: I didn't choose not to believe in God, I just can't - and haven't been able to since the age of ten or thereabouts. Believing in God requires a leap of faith which I wasn't able to make. Afterwards, thinking about things made me certain a God could not exist, and what I read seemed to corroborate that.

If you look at the astronomical odds that exist for abiogenesis (roughtly 10 to the 33,000th power to one odds) to have occurred, you would see that believing in that requires just as much faith as believing in God.

Communism is an ideology that needs to be separated from atheism. The nazis and fascists - as well as the collaborationist regime in France - put priests in concentration camps, yet I hear nobody putting their crimes on the account of atheism.

But Communism is different from fascism - because it was the attempt to create a government that was fully secular in nature - a government that prohibited religious teaching and belief.

Erm... yes? Because having responsibilities means being an adult? And not a perpetual minor? Your argument reminds me of how Victorians (among others) considered women: as charming little things to be protected for their own good - if they could not be give civic responsibilities, it was to spare their great emotiveness.

You are creating a straw man in order to make me appear a chauvanist and I don't like it; I said nothing of the sort. Nothing I said could be construed to say that women are incapable of being responsible beings; I made the point that the leadership given to the male comes with a responsibility that is not given to the female. That doesn't mean she doesn't have equally important responsibilities. I'm suggesting that the authority given to the male comes with a serious price tag. It's not just free power to wield as we will.

So those who have greater authority are not more important? Are you sure of yourself there?? Isn't your principal "more important" than you are?

Straw man #2 - I did not say anything like that. I said that the authority given males comes with a responsibility that balances out that "power."

My principal is equally important as I in the education of children: I cannot do my job without him doing his, and he cannot do his without me doing mine.

As or women not being happy about drafted, I don't consider that to be relevant: lots of men haven't felt very enthusiastic, in history and nowadays, about military service. If women want to be considered equal, they need to have equal duties (and rights, of course).

It's relevant because it illustrates the flipside of demanding equality: once you get the same power, you get asked to pay the same price. Think about some of the young ladies you know around the 18-26 age - perhaps some you are related to: how do you think they would feel being drafted and sent to Iraq or Afganistan? How would you feel watching that?

The point I'm trying to make is that our sensitivity to making sure that men and women are "equal" in all ways creates situations that I find to be less than desireable - and I'd love to hear how many women really like the idea of being eligible for the draft - especially women who wish to talk about how they can do everything just as good as a man (but would laugh at a man saying the same thing to them).

[Jozanny]

Cellar,

I am going to ask the moderators to close the thread and see if they would be willing to grant my request. My *white whale* was something else here, and not really an argument about belief in a deity or lack thereof--and the Christians quoting the NT are offending me. They have 20 other threads to quote Paul's letters, but hey, they have the perfect right to drown out everyone else and other thought processes. I am better off going to a secular atheist forum. Once *they* turn the U.S. into a theocracy they will have destroyed my country, and I am just a disabled woman they are busy trying to kill through the system anyway. They're winning.

[Pendragon]

Cellar,

I am going to ask the moderators to close the thread and see if they would be willing to grant my request. My *white whale* was something else here, and not really an argument about belief in a deity or lack thereof--and the Christians quoting the NT are offending me. They have 20 other threads to quote Paul's letters, but hey, they have the perfect right to drown out everyone else and other thought processes. I am better off going to a secular atheist forum. Once *they* turn the U.S. into a theocracy they will have destroyed my country, and I am just a disabled woman they are busy trying to kill through the system anyway. They're winning.

And if you lock your thread, it will mean that people have won over you again. Make your points, but expect arguments. And as long as you are not being abused verbally, you will show strength even in your disability. I am a disabled Minister, so I sympathize.

Others may see quotations from especially Hitchens, as frontal attacks.

God Bless

Pen.

[Bitterfly]

Jozanny, pretty please about using the corner? Nobody was actually there, I think, when we got into the argument; plus redzeppelin is hardly a bible-thumpin' pagan-smasher.

I think atheism isn't a belief system; why: because all atheists seem to have elaborated their own value system. It's not because we all don't believe in God that we're all going to believe in the same values! I'm always a little surprised when all atheists are lumped together. But it's not because I don't believe in God that I don't have a value system. As you seem to be interested I'll explain it to you: it's probably not very different from yours (as in, i don't approve of murder, for instance), and it was undoubtedly influenced by the Judeo-Christian education I received. But it's also based on books that I've read, both fictional and philosophical; on my environment and what happened to me in my life; and on the questions I ask myself amost unceasingly. My value system has a few bases that don't change, but it evolves as I grow older and (hopefully!) in maturity?

About what you said on the subject of hell, I read yesterday, when researching religious joy,that interpretations of the Beatitudes seemed to say that faith didn't count as much as "good behaviour" to get into heaven, so perhaps you're right. i suppose there are different interpretations, no?

I don't know what "religious" rules are. God did not give us "religious rules" - He left us guidelines by which to lead happier, more fulfilling lives.

Ok, what about thou shalt no worship false idols. Isn't that a rule? Aren't the commandments rules?

In subtle cases, a belief in God is likened to a childish belief in things like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy (see above comment); in more extreme cases, belief in God is attributed to ignorance; finally, some people (Freud, Dawkins) equate such belief with mental illness.

Please could you refer me to the passage where Freud says that. I'm not familiar with his writings on religion (seriously). Furthermore, people who liken belief in a God to belief in the tooth fairy are probably carrying logical reasoning one step too far (as in, if you can believe in one thing that's irrational, why not believe in all the others). I don't happen to agree with them, having some good Christian friends whom I consider as intelligent and sophisticated.

How can prohibitions against murder, stealing and adultery not be "necessary"?

I knew I wasn't clear when I wrote that!!
I meant that religious injunctions not to murder etc didn't seem necessary anymore because we have "profane" laws which uphold the same ideas.

And, a standard atheist tactic in condeming Bible morality is to pull stuff from the Old Testament. If you'll recall, Jesus did not advocate the application of Mosaic Law when the woman caught in the act of adultery was brought before him (cf. John, ch. 8). The Jewish cultural laws from Leviticus are not currently binding. OT law must be filtered through the NT revision of law and grace.

True, true, true. But why do we pull stuff from the OT? Because it's there, for one thing!! And as far as I know, Biblical interpretation hasn't thrown it out with the dishwater. You'll often hear Christians quoting from it themselves, when defending (often rather intolerant) ideas. I know Jesus was open-minded; I think he was probably one of the first advocates for women.

Of course atheists can have ethics and morals - but upon what are they based that you could point to as being solid and not prone to alteration?

See above. And I think it's rather a good thing that our ideas (or rather my ideas, I can't speak for all atheists) are "prone to alteration": only fools do not change, aye?

Do you know why this is so? One reason is this: people who live in underdeveloped countries never lose touch with their needs; their lives are at the mercy of much more than those of us who can be relatively "self-sufficient" in developed countries. People who know their helplessness and their weakness tend to see their need for God much more clearly than those of us who live in relative comfort, with plenty of money and resources to shield us from hunger, fear, exposure, etc. It may be more that than education level that drives uneducated people in 3rd world countries to embrace religion. We who have everything have a hard time seeing our need for God; but - wait until that chronic, fatal disease strikes, or we lose our job - no matter how much money and education we have, we often - when faced with our mortality and weaknesses, turn to God.

Agreed - but it does make religion seem somewhat of a crutch. If you believe in God only because you're vulnerable and need to feel that there is order in this world, even if it's invisible to you...well...that sounds like myth-making to me (inventing reasons for phenomena you don't understand).

If you look at the astronomical odds that exist for abiogenesis (roughtly 10 to the 33,000th power to one odds) to have occurred, you would see that believing in that requires just as much faith as believing in God.

Thanks, I learnt a new word!
This said, abiogenesis as you call it has been scientifically proved - it's therefore easier to believe like someone like me that something that will never be proved (even if I am aware that science evolves, and often ends up calling into question theories that are considered foolproof).

But Communism is different from fascism - because it was the attempt to create a government that was fully secular in nature - a government that prohibited religious teaching and belief.

Ah, but didn't the communists try to wipe out ALL ideas that differed from their own ideology? I think religion was just one of the things they tried to snuff out. My point is that their crimes are not to be put on the account of atheism, but simply of communist ideas taken to an extreme.

You are creating a straw man in order to make me appear a chauvanist and I don't like it; I said nothing of the sort. Nothing I said could be construed to say that women are incapable of being responsible beings; I made the point that the leadership given to the male comes with a responsibility that is not given to the female. That doesn't mean she doesn't have equally important responsibilities. I'm suggesting that the authority given to the male comes with a serious price tag. It's not just free power to wield as we will.

I am happy that you dont like being pinpointed as a male chauvinist!!
What I still disagree with you about is that I don't see why you defend males' right to wield power/authority. Even if it comes with a price. Even if it's not to be used freely. Women have as much right to authority as them, and that's where I find the Bible sexist (by the way, this reminds me of the way women authors were seen: as unnatural or somehow deviant, because wielding authority!).

It's relevant because it illustrates the flipside of demanding equality: once you get the same power, you get asked to pay the same price. Think about some of the young ladies you know around the 18-26 age - perhaps some you are related to: how do you think they would feel being drafted and sent to Iraq or Afganistan? How would you feel watching that?

Hey, I'm one of them!And I've always defended female draft. This doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the fact that the fmale body is more vulnerable than the male's; but I just think they ought to be given suitable tasks.

[togre]

JThis said, abiogenesis as you call it has been scientifically proved

Really? Please define what it means for something to be proved scientifically and then please supply evidence that abiogenesis has indeed met these standard levels of proof.

[Pendragon]

Really? Please define what it means for something to be proved scientifically and then please supply evidence that abiogenesis has indeed met these standard levels of proof.

Second the motion!

[Bitterfly]

I must bow to popular demand.
As I said, I only learnt this word today, and you made me go and read about it! As it's late and I'm a little tired, and have no scientific training anyway, I will not venture to explain it to you myself, but will refer you to the (apparently trustworthy) article in Wikipedia on the subject (which I didn't totally understand, for that matter!!)

Now, on to define what "it means for something to be scientifically proved"... I don't know, I seem to trust clever people who spend their lives studying molecules or proteins more than I trust the people who wrote the Bible - they were possibly clever, but who knows, and especially they lived at a time when scientific progress was still in its first stages. I'm aware that science progresses by trial and error, and that we can presume that discovereries that are made nowadays may be one day revealed to be slightly erroneous - but I still trust scientists, and do not consider myself enough of an expert on the subject to cast doubt on what they assert.

[togre]

Thank you for your candor.

I only wish that those in who you trust were worthy of the confidence/faith you have in them.

[NikolaiI]

Jozanny, I hope you will forgive me for joining in even though it's not what you originally wanted, but I see an opportunity to share some hopefully useful ideas about God. First of all, Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion. Devotees of Krishna or Vaishnavas are also monotheistic. Lord Jesus Christ said in the Bible that to love God fully and wholly is the most important commandment. This being said, we may pass over this comment sometimes, but it is really one that would require more than a lifetime to understand. What is a life that is meant to be in worship of God? Vaishnavism comes in here so mercifully and explains: it is to meditate always on God.

Now having said this, I wish you to know I am not trying to speak for all theists. Not all have the same idea of God. However I realize that nothing I've said will probably convince any atheist so far, so I'd just like to say one thing about God. Many people have so many different ideas about God. First of all, it is not irrational to believe in God. God is a higher power, a higher force; even nature is a higher force than us! Some atheists might think there is no higher force than themselves, or than humanity, but I must disagree with this. So God is hidden from us. But we know that before we get to God, we get to reality-- since God is the source of reality.

It is worldwide and has been known since the dawn of philosophy that there are different levels of understanding. God for some is impersonal, for others is personal. God is actually identical to truth, and in precisely the same way, everyone sees Him through their own filters. God is the source of reality, the source of all that exists. Belief in the Absolute is not based on irrationality or need, although we do, in fact, need God in our lives...

Buddhist masters were not wrong. Vaishnava acaryas were not wrong. Christian saints and mystics and philosophers were not all wrong. We are infinitesimal in comparison to God. It's worldwide and has been known for millenia that there are different levels of understanding. No one has a monopoly on truth, yet truth exists in some parts in every path. Free inquiry is necessary for freedom. An environment which, if not nurturing is at least accepting of all perspectives, is absolutely necessary for any kind of sanity in community. Atheists as well as theists must be equally welcome. What can I say simply but that I was atheist, at one time, and now I am theist? They are the same, that is; I did not change my standards to become a theist, I simply realized that I was part of this matrix, this reality, playing my role and following the rules; an infinitesmial part of the Supreme Whole. First I learned the different approaches and ontologies and methodoliges of different religions and philosophies. Interested, I studied Buddhism. There are different levels of understanding. Buddha or God is a relative term; we exist as infinitesmial, fragmental parts and parcels of the Whole. It's said in scriptures, Buddha is identical to the cosmos, and that Buddha is identical to the realm of reality, and yet some Buddhists are perfectly well-allowed to think that Buddha doesn't exist or be atheist. In truth Buddha is teacher, similar to guru; one and many at the same time.

In the different levels of understanding; you have on one end ignorance, and at the other liberation. Buddha is the source of the dharma, or teachings. Jesus Christ said to live in love of God, that that is most important. If Christ is accepted as God, then this is the highest goal of life, the reason for living and the purpose of life. Lord Caitanya lived as a perfect example of this life, and taught also that the purpose of life was self-realization, and awakening this love of God. The highest state of any is love of God.

Now, Lord Caitanya taught that God had attributes; actually, gunanirguna, all auspicious qualities; as Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya before him also taught. I am not forcing this on anyone, however. I believe that I should not try to change people from their own course. But whether God has qualities or not, many people believe Him to be the source of reality, whether named or not, it is the spiritual source and force. Our existence is rooted in the source, our existence is rooted in reality. Reality is invisible, is it not? Yet this is our source. And it's said or understood that one of God's forms is the universe, or is reality. So I do not believe in Hell other than extreme suffering, everything I believe in is what I've learned or reasoned out to be true.