The Atheist Corner

[The Atheist]

Well perhaps some churches take this view, the spread of approaches and beliefs is actually quite broad in Christianity. Of course each faction insists that they are right and that the others are all wrong

You know, the irony of that does make me laugh.

This goes back to the nub of this thread and the OP.

Surely cognitive dissonance at the very least is required to see that this is quite incompatible with the central concept of "one god".

Take a look at C S Lewis and his opinion that all extant and previous religions are merely misunderstood versions of the YHWH fantasy. This dovetails beautifully with Roman Catholicism, but very few other christian sects. Catholicism does the "self-exclusion" from god thing, which is quite universalist, so at least they get away from saying "UNBELIEVERS AND NON-CATHOLICS GO TO HELL!!11!!"

Now, take a look at Red's comments on Calvinism; "They are wrong". The end. There are also quite a number of churches around which claim the Catholic church is a minion of Satan.

But they all 100% correct in their theology, their reading of the bible, their treatment of god and their beliefs...

In the face of this, the amusement level for atheists rises to hysterical levels when we are - as often happens, including in this very thread - accused of claiming that science is absolute!

To be honest I've not found a Christian who actually wants to express an opinion on evolution and its ramifications (if any) for the Christian faith.

Crikey, you must go a really small church!

I've never found anything else. The vast majority, like the Pope and his crowd, accept that it happened and are busily looking for the hand of god in it. Other sects claim it's all complete lies and the earth was created ~6012 years ago. (Although the fundies around my way will admit to up to 10,000 years ago.)

An even better example is one you'll know all about - the dear old Anglicans. Rowan Williams ( a man I have enormous respect for, by the way ) and his mob are pretty well trusting of all major scientific belief that Rowan himself is in danger of becoming a full-on agnostic humanist. I also know heaps of Anglican scientists*, but no fundy ones.

My point is its not really as simple as bible literalists and non-literalists. Most recognise that the bible is not a literal document, full of metaphor and allegory, and at best gives (in a direct sense) only a vague and obscure picture of God and Christ. Few will actually say that though, most "handle" the issues by simply avoiding them and having faith.

I'm what you'd call an "activist" or "militant" atheist, although I don't like the latter term, it being a touch too militant for my pacifist/humanist nature, so I'm fully aware of the depth, breadth and height differences between almost all sects of the christian churches. Just an aside, but I'm even working on a database right now of the differences between the churches. Give it another month or so and it'll be up on my site. The differences between literalists and non-literalists again shows up what we both said above - they all believe their theology, even unto death!

Also, is it your assertion that " if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong." because that's not logical, or were you just echoing the beliefs of fundamental bible literalists?

Yeah, I did start that sentence with a "bible literalists" - obviously it only applies to literalists.

Again, Anglicans are an excellent example. I'm pretty sure Rowan himself made a statement that a christian need not even believe in the virgin birth? Catholics, of course, would still put you in the iron maiden for such heresy. That's as far from a fundy as it's possible to be without being an atheist.

I should say that I live in the UK, I've never met an overt bible literalist and I have in the past been members of evangelical churches, the largest of which had over 400 members and 4 pastors.

Yes, England is indeed the last bulwark against fundamentalism. It has a horrible hold here, unfortunately. Nowhere near as bad as USA, but there are two schools within 5km of my place that teach biblical literalism.

For most Christians I've met theology and theological debate are almost taboo, you simply have faith or you don't. So arguments against literalist christian faith is pretty much irrelevant to Christianity in the UK (in my experiance).

Again, I think this is a symptom of England, where a stated belief in god is likely to lead to severe taking of the Michael in almost any social situation.

I'm in agreement with many other atheists with experience of the British system who thinks that by miles the best safeguard against fundamentalism, zealotry and other kinds of religious abuse is to have a state religion and compulsory RE.

Long live The Queen! (No, I'm not a monarchist, but if you get rid of her, you can kiss goodbye to CoE)

*How many of them are Anglican to the extent that they are firm believers, and how many profess to be to partake in the enormous Commonwealth Anglican old boys' network, I don't know. I'm quite sure some fall into the latter group.

[DapperDrake]

Yes, England is indeed the last bulwark against fundamentalism. It has a horrible hold here, unfortunately. Nowhere near as bad as USA, but there are two schools within 5km of my place that teach biblical literalism.

I'm in agreement with many other atheists with experience of the British system who thinks that by miles the best safeguard against fundamentalism, zealotry and other kinds of religious abuse is to have a state religion and compulsory RE.

Don't get me wrong, it is a fundamentalist church, you just wouldn't know it unless you asked some of the senior members specific questions about the contentious fundamental issues. I mean, I'm looking at their website right now and in the questions answered section they say that dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago and that the "behemoth" in Job is a dinosaur.
Now to be honest I find that pretty hard to swallow. I'm guessing you don't get a lot more fundamental than that
Just in British churches I guess they're tired of arguing with the largely atheist population and so tend to keep quiet about those bits.

[The Atheist]

Don't get me wrong, it is a fundamentalist church, you just wouldn't know it unless you asked some of the senior members specific questions about the contentious fundamental issues. I mean, I'm looking at their website right now and in the questions answered section they say that dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago and that the "behemoth" in Job is a dinosaur.
Now to be honest I find that pretty hard to swallow. I'm guessing you don't get a lot more fundamental than that

I reckon!

Interesting that you clearly have a problem with it, then. Do those senior people know that you feel that way?

Just in British churches I guess they're tired of arguing with the largely atheist population and so tend to keep quiet about those bits.

Yes, but it can't simply be the level of secularism, because those numbers are higher elsewhere, yet the same disregard for religion doesn't happen to the same level as England. Might just be a function of the unique Pom ability to not take themselves too seriously.

[DapperDrake]

Oh yes, I made it clear to my pastor that I don't believe the bible is a literal document and that I believe evolution is the best theory to fit the evidence and many other things of that sort.
He didn't seem to mind too much, beyond mock grimaces, but its was plain that he disagreed with me - however he didn't try and convince me he was right, he didn't even discuss it really.

I haven't been to church or considered myself a Christian for nearly three years by the way. - I don't want to divert the thread to discussing myself but I thought I should point that out.

[mangueken]

Dapper,
here in the US the literalists and ID groups have been actively trying to get creation to be included in science classes. Recently, it looks like they had some success in Kansas by having the state laws redefine "science". My question about why do they pick on evolution and not the other sciences so much is really about this redefining of science.
There are many who try to equate the scientific work on evolution with belief. The fact is that even for all the holes that exist in evolutionary theory, scientist are able to explain many things through the scientific based work in exactly the same way that physicists do.
As an atheist, I don't care what people believe, I think it's a very personal question. If believers in whatever see contradictions between what science is able to explain and their own beliefs then it is their contradiction not mine. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be the least bit sad if evolution turned out to be completely wrong and a new scientific theory had to be adopted. I doubt that will happen but you never know.
I happen to live in the great state of Kentucky where the first (as far as I know in the US) museum based on Biblical creationism. In there, they show humans living at the same time as dinosaurs. I think it's great they have their own place. I also think they should teach creationism as much as they want at home and at Sunday school. But when they try to get creation taught in schools they force scientists and atheists to come out against them. I find it a great waste of time. It's against our constitution for one and it just isn't science.
If Christian creation can be taught in science class I guess the various Native American religious beginnings can also be taught. Soon every religion with a creation story will be allowed to be taught in science classes. I'm pretty positive that American fundamentalists haven't thought about that but what a can of worms it opens.
I have to admit that the ID portion of creationists have certainly become more sophisticated. Now I think it's time for scientists to up the ante and start working harder on their popular explanations as well as explaining that science and it's method has no fight with religion.

[The Atheist]

I have to admit that the ID portion of creationists have certainly become more sophisticated. Now I think it's time for scientists to up the ante and start working harder on their popular explanations as well as explaining that science and it's method has no fight with religion.

Very good post.

I think that's what some scientists are trying to do, but it isn't easy going!

[DapperDrake]

Well so far as I know there is no evidence for creationism, and a lack of firm contradictory evidence is not evidence, although it is worth noting.

Science is about evidence, empirical evidence that is observable and reproducible. Theory only comes into play in science when there is relevant evidence - the theory is an attempt to explain the evidence and the goal is always to disprove the theory - the theory is set up as a target for other scientists to take pops at, if they come up with good contradictory evidence then a new or modified theory is made based on the new evidence.

With no actual evidence creationism has no place in science, never mind in a school which ought to be teaching those things which have the most evidence to support them (at least in a science class anyway).

Evolution is not a complete theory, we can't explain every aspect of how it works, we don't have infallible evidence, but we do have a wealth - an absolute tonne - of indirect and direct supporting evidence, hence the theory. Plus I don't think there is any competing scientific theory, which given all the evidence we have, is a pretty strong indicator that we're on the right track.

Now that's my opinion as an ex science student and that opinion did not change when I became a Christian.

However just because a theory has no scientific basis does not mean it is incorrect and this is where science and religion clash.
Science says objective evidence provides us with objective theories and that only objective theories are worth pursuing.
Religion says subjective evidence provides us with objective theories - religion is wrong. Actually the essence of religion is to turn the subjective into the objective through a mechanism called faith, this directly contradicts scientific method hence friction when religious folk and scientists get together and discuss theories.

[mangueken]

However just because a theory has no scientific basis does not mean it is incorrect and this is where science and religion clash.
Science says objective evidence provides us with objective theories and that only objective theories are worth pursuing.
Religion says subjective evidence provides us with objective theories - religion is wrong. Actually the essence of religion is to turn the subjective into the objective through a mechanism called faith, this directly contradicts scientific method hence friction when religious folk and scientists get together and discuss theories.

It's not that science arbitrarily decided only objective theories are worth pursuing. It's the only way the scientific method can work. Science has no tools to measure, define, quantify or study anything that is not objective. There really isn't much to be discussed between them.
As an atheist, I would like to see people depend less on the supernatural and more on the rational. At least in public policy. I'm really surprised to have to listen to religion be used as a cover for ignorance and intolerance.
I don't blame religion for all the ignorance and intolerance, don't get me wrong. Some ignorant and intolerant people would find another mechanism if religion didn't exist (social Darwinism, IQ tests for example). But as a social institution, religion and religious leaders do act in the public in a very ignorant / intolerant way.
I have to admit that I have a problem understanding how belief works for people who believe. I can see it's historical importance for the development of human society but to be in the 21st century with the same views as 2000 or more years ago is difficult for me.

[Hobbes]

I am an athiest, but I like the idea of religion. I just can't believe anything.
Atheism:
The composition of space is all breakable down to universal forces and strings of energy. The Universe is a system in itself where everything creates and breaks back down. etc.

Religion:
To follow Steven Kings Idea of Religion (Strange I agree) With God he puts a lot more emphasis on rude creation, intuition and less on influenced natural laws. A true Romantic apparently.

[The Atheist]

I am an athiest, but I like the idea of religion. I just can't believe anything.

That's fairly common, and I feel the same way myself - I think religion has some benefits for society. I just wish they'd stick to something like Unitarianism, where you get the social benefits without the dogma.

[Josef K]

Some good discussion here

<--- Militant Atheist

[The Atheist]

Some good discussion here

<--- Militant Atheist

Welcome to the forum!

Few posts already, looks like you've made yourself at home straight away.

[Hisnibs]

It's not that science arbitrarily decided only objective theories are worth pursuing. It's the only way the scientific method can work. Science has no tools to measure, define, quantify or study anything that is not objective. There really isn't much to be discussed between them.

Not entirely in keeping with that sentiment, but that reminds me of something similar to two videos I have just watched with Sam Harris:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdQhLXTvNM

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqF0jnv3tZY

In other words, I think that if morality et al are subjective, science may very well be beginning to measure and quantify etc, non objective phenomena.

[mangueken]

Not entirely in keeping with that sentiment, but that reminds me of something similar to two videos I have just watched with Sam Harris:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdQhLXTvNM

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqF0jnv3tZY

In other words, I think that if morality et al are subjective, science may very well be beginning to measure and quantify etc, non objective phenomena.

Thanks for the links. I'll have to check out his books. While I agree with some of his overall sentiment it still needs to be backed up with the results from scientific study. I don't think it is impossible to measure subjective things, for example there are ways to indirectly measure pain relatively accurately. I do think the questions he raises interesting to discuss and debate openly in society even if it is only on a philosophical level.

[Hisnibs]

Thanks for the links. I'll have to check out his books. While I agree with some of his overall sentiment it still needs to be backed up with the results from scientific study. I don't think it is impossible to measure subjective things, for example there are ways to indirectly measure pain relatively accurately. I do think the questions he raises interesting to discuss and debate openly in society even if it is only on a philosophical level.

Why only on a philosophical level?