Christianity vs. Evolution

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Always bringing the mathematics into this, Mike. Makes sense, though.tycoonmike

Well, am I wrong? Show me something in human existence that you can't find an equivalent in math.

All due respect, you have contradicted yourself. (See bold) In another context, what you're saying is that a particular sect of the Christian religion, say the Baptist sect, for sake of argument, isn't a religion because it doesn't conform to Christianity's original form, Catholicism. All atheists have one thing in common, the disbelief in any God, singular or plural. In no form of Atheism is that idea not perpetuated, therefore Atheism is an institutionalized belief, without basis on evidence and based on faith.

By your exact words, Atheism is a religion.

tycoonmike

Notice the word disbelief? A disbelief is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

[QUOTE="diz360"]Galileo was imprisoned for his astral observastions, proving that we revolve round our sun. Silver_Dragon17

Galileo was NOT persecuted for his findings.:|

Yes, he most certainly was.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="diz360"]Galileo was imprisoned for his astral observastions, proving that we revolve round our sun. Decessus

Galileo was NOT persecuted for his findings.:|

Yes, he most certainly was.

anyone who says he wasn't is blind. ;p

[QUOTE="ab1205"]

Christians rationalizing? You mean, using the "pick & choose" method to ignore the contradictions in the Bible that my brother can solve? (he's going into Grade 1) such as the ones I posted

Silver_Dragon17

You are so ignorant, it's amazing.:roll:

When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2

Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1

Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

The guy who replied to my post how the heck are these metaphors and not contradictions? It's like me saying "I was born in 1990" and then saying "I was born in 1985" no **** it's a contradiction you guys are more blind than an actual blind person.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="cooldude855"]

Atheism is also irrational, and you must also take a leap of faith to deny God;).

tycoonmike

Absolutely not. I can justify my belief in atheism entirely rationally. I can use scientific method as a basis for reason.:D

There is no way that the existance of any deity can be proven.:(

I'm pleased you agree that your faith is irrational.:D

The universe is a wonderous place indeed. Shame it was not described in your scriptures. Its wonderful that the mechanisms of life and the universe can be explained. Scientists are not scared of saying they don't know.;)

As revealed a few posts ago, people were killed by the church for offering evidence of the scientific truth, as recently as 400 years ago.

I'd have thought that if scientists accepted the "word of god" unquestioningly, we would still be in the middle ages.

With the exception of architecture, I can't think of one thing that christian faith has done to progress society.

Funnily enough, scientists don't endevour to explain our origins because they believe in god. They believe in the finding the truth. The driver in scientific research is progress and discovery of the truth. God just doesn't come into it, thank goodness.

Another interesting thing I found, well, a person I found that had done some interesting research.

You all know who Keith L. Moore is, right? He has co-written (with professor Arthur F. Dalley II) Clinically Oriented Anatomy, which is the most popular English-language anatomy textbook in the world, used by scientists, doctors, physiotherapists and students worldwide. The book is especially popular because of its 'blue boxes' - passages of text on blue background that relate the classical anatomy to real-world concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of human patients. The book now exists in multiple versions - one with American-English spelling and one with British-Englist spelling, and also a shorter version that is more suitable as a reference or revision guide.

Ok, now let's get to the point. He said this:

Moore has written on "references to embryology in the Qur'an, for instance, in an article for The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol. 18, Jan-June 1986, pp. 15-16.

During a conference in Cairo, Keith Moore said: It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'ân about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore

Of course I don't accept things right away. At the wikipedia link it gives links to a couple links backing him up, and a couple links refuting him. I'm viewing the refuting ones atm

Edit: Here's the refuting links:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/embryo.html

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryology.htm

The main refutations are that Muhammed copied early Greek philosophers that had already discovered the embryology stuff., such as Hippocrates.

So I guess it evens out between people that think Muhammed copied from the other philosophers, and people who think he didn't.

My opinion? If just I had a time machine...I'd know.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="cooldude855"]

Atheism is also irrational, and you must also take a leap of faith to deny God;).

diz360

Absolutely not. I can justify my belief in atheism entirely rationally. I can use scientific method as a basis for reason.:D

There is no way that the existance of any deity can be proven.:(

I'm pleased you agree that your faith is irrational.:D

The universe is a wonderous place indeed. Shame it was not described in your scriptures. Its wonderful that the mechanisms of life and the universe can be explained. Scientists are not scared of saying they don't know.;)

As revealed a few posts ago, people were killed by the church for offering evidence of the scientific truth, as recently as 400 years ago.

I'd have thought that if scientists accepted the "word of god" unquestioningly, we would still be in the middle ages.

With the exception of architecture, I can't think of one thing that christian faith has done to progress society.

Funnily enough, scientists don't endevour to explain our origins because they believe in god. They believe in the finding the truth. The driver in scientific research is progress and discovery of the truth. God just doesn't come into it, thank goodness.

I'll talk abvout the architecture. The Muslims & Jews that lived under Christian rule were the ones who worked on Art & Architecture, and because of their skills in that aspect, they were not killed or forced to move out. It was on a documentary on TV a couple days ago, channel 43 in Canada Shaw Cable. (searched on Shaw site and the channel was WTVS - PBS Detroit)

Another interesting thing I found, well, a person I found that had done some interesting research.

You all know who Keith L. Moore is, right? He has co-written (with professor Arthur F. Dalley II) Clinically Oriented Anatomy, which is the most popular English-language anatomy textbook in the world, used by scientists, doctors, physiotherapists and students worldwide. The book is especially popular because of its 'blue boxes' - passages of text on blue background that relate the classical anatomy to real-world concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of human patients. The book now exists in multiple versions - one with American-English spelling and one with British-Englist spelling, and also a shorter version that is more suitable as a reference or revision guide.

ab1205

That knowledge was already available, postulated by the Greek doctor Galen, who lived in 150 AD. Mohammadans used much pre-existing Greek knowledge in compiliing the koran...

Please do some research outside the scope of religion, as these deceptions blind you to the realities of discovery.

[QUOTE="ab1205"]

Another interesting thing I found, well, a person I found that had done some interesting research.

You all know who Keith L. Moore is, right? He has co-written (with professor Arthur F. Dalley II) Clinically Oriented Anatomy, which is the most popular English-language anatomy textbook in the world, used by scientists, doctors, physiotherapists and students worldwide. The book is especially popular because of its 'blue boxes' - passages of text on blue background that relate the classical anatomy to real-world concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of human patients. The book now exists in multiple versions - one with American-English spelling and one with British-Englist spelling, and also a shorter version that is more suitable as a reference or revision guide.

diz360

That knowledge was already available, postulated by the Greek doctor Galen, who lived in 150 AD. Mohammadans used much pre-existing Greek knowledge in compiliing the koran...

Please do some research outside the scope of religion, as these deceptions blind you to the realities of discovery.

Did you read my post? I already did that research and said that people fit in 2 groups. ughhhhh lol you reworded my post.

Well, at least you and me find things and then refute them. Unlike COUGH COUGH Silver_Dragon

Anyways, I'm watching this anti-evolution documentary atm, I'll share it:

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

It only works on Internet Explorer, didn't work on my firefox.

I'll talk abvout the architecture. The Muslims & Jews that lived under Christian rule were the ones who worked on Art & Architecture, and because of their skills in that aspect, they were not killed or forced to move out. It was on a documentary on TV a couple days ago, channel 43 in Canada Shaw Cable. (searched on Shaw site and the channel was WTVS - PBS Detroit)

ab1205

I'd prefer that you talk about faith.

Architectural innovation would have existed outside of the christian faith.

The christians chose architecture as a way of demonstrating the majesty of god to the unwashed masses.

In those days, people were impressed by tall buildings. Unfortunately, they were repressed once inside them!

[QUOTE="ab1205"]

I'll talk abvout the architecture. The Muslims & Jews that lived under Christian rule were the ones who worked on Art & Architecture, and because of their skills in that aspect, they were not killed or forced to move out. It was on a documentary on TV a couple days ago, channel 43 in Canada Shaw Cable. (searched on Shaw site and the channel was WTVS - PBS Detroit)

diz360

I'd prefer that you talk about faith.

Architectural innovation would have existed outside of the christian faith.

The christians chose architecture as a way of demonstrating the majesty of god to the unwashed masses.

In those days, people were impressed by tall buildings. Unfortunately, they were repressed once inside them!

lol

I can imagine that.

"Whoa what a crazy building, let's go inside and take a look"

"help!"

lol

Seriously though, the Jews & Muslims were the masters of art & architecture and to save their lives that's what they did. Of course they got no credit, they were just making stuff for the Christians.

Did you read my post? I already did that research and said that people fit in 2 groups. ughhhhh lol you reworded my post.

Well, at least you and me find things and then refute them. Unlike COUGH COUGH Silver_Dragon

Anyways, I'm watching this anti-evolution documentary atm, I'll share it:

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

It only works on Internet Explorer, didn't work on my firefox.

ab1205

You edited your post. I responded to the original post.

You said in your original post that you were looking (atm) at the counter arguments to that assertion.

I thought your contributions to this thread have been to portray islam as having "truths" in it that could not have been known at the time. I think they have ALL been de-bunked in this thread.

Your posting has seemed to be as biased as mine - you for islam and me for atheism. Are you changing your tune now?

lol

I can imagine that.

"Whoa what a crazy building, let's go inside and take a look"

"help!"

lol

Seriously though, the Jews & Muslims were the masters of art & architecture and to save their lives that's what they did. Of course they got no credit, they were just making stuff for the Christians.

ab1205

Why do you think they built huge churches, mosques and cathedrals with so much ornate decoration and ever-increasing heights?

These great buildings had no equivalent outside of religious practice.

Oh...sorry about the edit, it was before I saw your post.

My view has been neutral with islam and atheists, I'm pretty much agnostic-theist, well, I jump between the 2 every week lol. I'd say I'm fairly anti-Christian however, especially since the Earth is not frikin flat and the math contradictions.

I'm never anti-atheist though. I just compare Islam vs atheism for my own benefit, to refute myself. However, when Silver_Dragon keeps bringing in Christianity, it's like 2 semi-smart people debating and a random person jumping in yelling "jesus loves you!!!! omg!!!". If you get what I mean...sorry I'm a bit tired atm. I respect atheists/agnostics more than the others, because the majority of them know what they're talking about.

ab1205

No need to apologise.:D

Its good that you look at all sides, rather than stick to biased sites.

[QUOTE="Siddiqui"]

Note that there are two shades of green. Note how the area to the south contains dark green for 40 miles or so. The map images in the link are not topographical maps. There is no region on earth with such low land. Check Death Vally and Lake Assal - they have neither as much area nor as much depth.

As for observation, due to the curve of the earth this would neither be an accurate nor a precise method to use even if the Mediterranean is used as a reference [I'm not completely sure if or where both seas can be seen at once.] In addtition, there is no way of knowing if other lands are similarly below sea level or not. All of Europe, Africa, Australia, North and South America, and the rest of Asia needs to be taken into account.

diz360

I agree that the dead sea is the lowest point in the earth. The dead sea ridge includes the mountains on either side and rises to elevations well above sea level so the dead sea ridge is not the lowest part of the earth.

The dead sea ridge is part of the dead sea region. As I said, the verse only specifies region. This land is the lowest on earth and reaches a depth of 400 meters below sea level. Similarly, Mt. Everest is the highest mountain on earth and reaches a height of 9000 meters or so.

[QUOTE="Siddiqui"]Human beings can observe changes in pressure only to a very small extent. It is even more imprecise than visual observation. And again, the other continents need to be taken into account.

diz360

Humans can observe increases in pressure, like going below sea level quite markrdly. We don't need to be precise here either. The Koran is not since it makes no comparisons or gives no measurements.

The Quran makes no comparisons? The comparison is to the entire earth. It has to be the lowest of the whole planet. All the continents need to be considered.

[QUOTE="Siddiqui"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Siddiqui"]The first link seems to be about some guy a couple of hundred years after the Prophet [peace be upon him] making a writing specifically to attack Muslims, Jews and Nestorians. On the other hand, the copies in Tashkent and Istanbul are within two decades of the Prophet's death and their compilation is well documented. There's no comparison.

And the verses you linked to do not seem to contradict me. They are being taken out of context. For example, some of them are not even actually related and are instead talking about free will vs. stubbornness/ignorance and so on. Others are being taken completely out of situational or historical context.diz360

My links are all valid. They quote directly from the koran. They show how, despite context, that the koran can be seen to incite hatred with non-believers.

You have chosen to respond to someone else's argument with a weak response that contradicts itself on its main fact - that the area was below sea level. This can be debated as a fabrication, since you yourself admit the main battles took place in Jerusalem (hundreds of meters above sea level).

Despite context? The verses are taken out of context. Even their adjacent verses are not shown in the last one.

I'm not going to quote the entire koran. That was just a small selection. Can you justify the relevence of any one of them today? I think these versions are worth comparison, as they differ.

Sure:

From the link:
"It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith" (2:6).

The full verse:

002.006
YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
PICKTHAL: As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.

This is referring to the fact that some people don't want to believe even if you try to convince them. Some people will believe if you convince them, others don't really care. The practical application is that muslims shouldn't think they can somehow convince everyone out there to become muslims. If they really don't seem to care, leave them alone and move on.

People who will eventually believe after the message or a certain part of the message is presented to them are not clasified in this category and are instead cIassified as believers. Their example is dealt with earlier in the chapter in verses 2 to 5.

The incorrect application of verse six is to assume that anyone who is not currently a muslim will never be a muslim. Fortunately, nobody's that stupid. The idea defies common sense since pretty much the entire first generation of Muslims were converts - they HAD to be converts. The religion had to start somewhere.

Conversion rates are still high and in the West our most prominent leaders are converts [Sheikh Yusuf Estes, Imam Hamza Yusuf, Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Imam Zaid Shakir, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, etc.]

[QUOTE="Siddiqui"]

I did not say the main battles took place in Jerusalem.

I said the main battle (singular) took place at Jerusalem. However, it was the entire region the persians and the romans fought over and the romans were defeated in. For example:

"According to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, this war was fought in Syria at a place between Adhru'at and Busra."

diz360

Not near the dead sea, but northwest, beyond the mountains and above sea level.

- http://www.islamibayanaat.com/EnglishMaarifulQuran/English-MaarifulQuran-MuftiShafiUsmaniRA-Vol-6-Page-657-719.pdf[see page 718]

Adhru'at is modern day Dir'a and is a little to the west of Busra. These two cities are east of the golan hieghts.

Siddiqui

Golan Heights - doesn't sound promising... Its a mountain range.

The best attested event of these wars was the siege and capture of Jerusalem, widely regarded as a disaster for all Christendom as well as the empire. Led by Shahrbaraz, the Persian forces moved on Galilee and the Jordan valley, then took Caesarea, which they made their base. After ensuring control of the entire coastal region, Shahrbaraz demanded the surrender of Jerusalem. The archbishop Zacharias and the officials in the city, despairing of relief from the Empire, agreed to terms, offered gifts and accepted a Persian garrison. Within a short time, however, the local youth, led by the ever-turbulent circus factions (the partisans of the games and races in the Hippodrome) revolted, killed the Persians and attacked the Jewish population. Shahrbaraz now moved on the offensive. A small detachment. of imperial reinforcements from Jericho was soon dispersed and the Persians attacked the city with siege towers and heavy equipment."

- http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=177023

"The city of Amman has a long history and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities... During the Byzantine period the city acted as theseat of a Christian bishop and many large churches were built. In 613 AD the city was run by Persian Sassanians."

- http://emi.pdc.org/cities/CP-Amman-July2006.pdf

[613 AD is one year before the capture of Jerusalem in 614.]

Siddiqui

Jericho - Yes!, oh no, the reinforcements were only from Jericho.

Jerusalem was themost importantroman defeatand it was the culmination of the previousbattles but it was by no means the only one or the only significant one.

Again, the link explains how the verse only specifies region, not a specific spot (the use of 'fi' vs. the use of 'ala.') If an argument is strong, there is no need to put words in someone elses mouth to help support it. The Qur'an only says what it says.

If I've written anything good it's from God so praise Him. If I've written anything wrong it's from me so please forgive me.

Siddiqui

All those places you mentioned are all nowhere near the lowest area on earth. This is without the context of the boundaries of the known world to the authors of the koran.

One thing I don't understand is this, from your link:

As I have clearly proven above, when Allah Almighty said في ادنى الارض , He Said: "in the lowest of the earth" --OR-- "in the lowest part on earth" in Noble Verses 30:2-3.

"In the lowest of the earth" is not the same as "in the lowest part on earth".

It could mean underground, but that's just my interpretation. Mining has existed since pre-history.

This "proof" that the koran predicted scientific facts does not sway me - there's way too much room for interpretation.

As I've said, the Quran is not referring to a specific spot but rather a more general region - the region they were defeated in - such as Palestine/Israel. The Quran is not being so specific in that way. It is, however, still being very specific in that it would have to to be the lowest and it would have to be of the entire earth. There's no need to put words in anyone's mouth - the Quran says what it says.

The places I mentioned are in the general region and some are deep within it. I don't know what arbitrary border you chose to exclude all of those places. As for your sarcastic comment on Jericho: Jericho was in the hands of the Romans before it was in the hands of the Persians therefore the Romans had to have lost it. Also, apparently you have poor reading comprehension because I said the place between Dir'a and Basrais east of the golan heights not in the golan heights. Also, The Jordan Valley and Galilee are below sea level. Actually, the Dead Sea is pretty much in the Jordan Valley so it is definately the same region.

If I've written anything good it's from God so praise Him. If I've written anything wrong it's from me so please forgive me.

If I may, Religion has set back Science advances. (most particularly Christianity).

150 AD - Ptolemy (Arabic scientist) - major works included 'Almajest' where he codifies the concept of a geocentric universe, which actually prevailed for centuries. At those times, when people would watch the night sky, and see planets, moon and sun 'wandering' in peculiar directions, it was a complete mystery. The fact that people really did not understand what was going on in the 'heavens' was considered natural and expected because it was 'the work of the gods.' The attitude was 'You're never going to understand what God is doing up there, so don't lose sleep over it.' And for centuries no one questioned anything, until finally, Galileo and Copernicus were able to look past the religious 'mental block' that had been raised, and contributed their input.

1615- Galileo "The bible tells you how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go." Although he was a religious man, Galileo was actually one of the first to say, if there's any point or purpose for religion, it is not to serve as a science textbook (ie. the Quran is not a credible source to derive your scientific knowledge from; it belongs on the shelf of the theological department only)

1687 - Newton (The Principia) - There possibly was no greater genius to ever walk the surface of this earth than Sir Izaak Newton. If anyone read any of his works, you know what I'm talking about. This man was brilliant beyond belief even for our time. He discovered the laws of motion F=ma, laws of gravity and so forth.

Note this:

When Newton discusses motion, there's no reference to God. When he explains the universal laws of gravitation that he deduced, there's no mention of God. God didn't play a role because Newton understood everything, he was on top of it (even though those explanations were given to God before he proposed his theories). Here you have Newton abandoning references to god UNTIL, he reaches his 'limits' and cannot immediately account for the stability of the solar system.

Instead of trying to develop a new equation to add to the two body force calculations in order to stabilize the solar system, Newton just hands the job over to God saying - "But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give Earth to so many regular motions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Here we have Newton invoking God at the 'limits' of his knowledge, and I say 'limits because Newton could have easily calculated the stability of the solar system. To make a sad story short, Newton's discoveries came to a halt once God entered the picture.

And so continued our painfully slow and grueling enlightenment as scientists constantly stopped their search to bask in the 'awe of God' when they could not understand something.

1696 - Huygens (Cosmotheros) - Calculated the planet orbits and so forth, but when he reached the concept of biology, something not well understood at the time, he began to reference God. No where else did he mention Godexcept in the domains that he did not fully understand.

1799 - P.S. Laplace - wrote that brilliant 5 volume piece of work on celestial mechanics, developed the perturbation theory (exactly what Newton relied on God for). Laplace discovers this, doesnot invoke God, because he figured it out.

Napoleon then asked Laplace, what role did God play in the construction and regulation of the heavens? Laplace replied, "I had no need for that hypothesis."

1859 - Darwin - The Origin of Species - Need I say more?

Religious people absolutely HATED Darwin for this. The church wanted to burn him on a stick.

The point is this. When society was strongly influenced by religion, the scientists reached a point where they were basking in the majesty of God, and their discovery just stops. They become useless in advancing that frontier, waiting for someone to come behind them that doesn't have 'God' on the brain, and says, that's a really cool problem, I want to solve it. Just look at the time delays!

[QUOTE="Siddiqui"]

[QUOTE="Decessus"]I think this illustrates the difference between the way you and me think about things. You are willing to believe an idea is true, and continue to believe it is true until it is shown to be false. When I am presented with an idea, I don't believe it to be true until there is enough evidence to support that idea. Decessus

I don't assume anything to be true OR false until enough evidence is given.

I also weigh the probabilities of various things being true and then make my descision.

For example, I know if I get into my car and drive I might get into a horrible accident on the way but the probability is low so I don't worry about it too much. Just put on my seatbelt and go.

If I've written anything good it's from God so praise Him. If I've written anything wrong it's from me so please forgive me.

Then what credible evidence to you have to support the idea that the specified passage (the one about the lowest point on earth) can be interpreted in more than one way? That website you linked to earlier is not a credible source. A website that is willing to publish nonsense such as this, which claims that 9/11 was faked and a drone is what crashed into the Pentagon, does not cl@ssify as being credible. If they have no problem putting something like that as one of their feature articles, then they have no problem with lying about other things as well.

I don't know if there is a peer reviewed journal for linguists, but without something more solid than a website anybody could have made at home, your claim is irrational and unwarranted.

I no longer need to base my argument on the website.

Here are the materials at my disposal

1. The arabic Quran [you can find the arabic script here: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ArabicScript/sindex.htm

2. Translations by three reasonably well respected translators. [link: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html ]

The verse in question uses the a word that is also used in other verses.

I simply need to look up examples where this word 'adni' -in other verses- is translated as 'low' by respected translators.

I've done this and, as I expected, the website is not lying about the quran.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy theory on the site and its reliability, all I'll say for now is that while I don't agree with the conspiracy theory the reliability of the site is no longer relevant so i'll drop the issue.

If I've written anything good it's from God so praise Him. If I've written anything wrong it's from me so please forgive me.

Contrary to my previous post:

Some scientists who believed in the existence of God:

• Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)
• Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)
• Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)
• Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)
• Louis Pasteur (the greatest name of bacteriology; he declared war against Darwinism)
• John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)
• Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)
• John Ray (the most important name in the British natural history)
• Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)
• Carolus Linnaeus (the father of taxonomy)
• Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)
• Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)
• Thomas Anderson (one the first people who studied in the field of organic chemistry

My little "theory" is that mostly everyone was religious in those times, it was considered a fact that God existed in those times.

I don't know man, religious is too complicated. Life is complicated, and if God is Merciful, there should be no worries if I do good in my life. God will understand, and if He doesn't, he's not God and no need to worry. That's my little theory :)

If just I lived some thousand years ago, I'd be famous.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

The dead sea ridge is part of the dead sea region. As I said, the verse only specifies region. This land is the lowest on earth and reaches a depth of 400 meters below sea level. Similarly, Mt. Everest is the highest mountain on earth and reaches a height of 9000 meters or so.

Siddiqui

It is only your inference that expands the region to fit the writings. If is the general region where all this took placem, then the general region is not "in the lowest of the earth". Mt everest is the highest place on earth, but the himalayas are not, as they include the lowlands...

The Quran makes no comparisons? The comparison is to the entire earth. It has to be the lowest of the whole planet. All the continents need to be considered.

Siddiqui

But were they? How do you know this? I repeat that by observation, it can be seen and felt that the dead sea (not the actual area of the battles) was lower than the surrounding geography, due to the vantage points on the high mountains surrounding it.

From the link:
"It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith" (2:6).

The full verse:

002.006
YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
PICKTHAL: As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.

This is referring to the fact that some people don't want to believe even if you try to convince them. Some people will believe if you convince them, others don't really care. The practical application is that muslims shouldn't think they can somehow convince everyone out there to become muslims. If they really don't seem to care, leave them alone and move on.

People who will eventually believe after the message or a certain part of the message is presented to them are not clasified in this category and are instead cIassified as believers. Their example is dealt with earlier in the chapter in verses 2 to 5.

The incorrect application of verse six is to assume that anyone who is not currently a muslim will never be a muslim. Fortunately, nobody's that stupid. The idea defies common sense since pretty much the entire first generation of Muslims were converts - they HAD to be converts. The religion had to start somewhere.

Conversion rates are still high and in the West our most prominent leaders are converts [Sheikh Yusuf Estes, Imam Hamza Yusuf, Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Imam Zaid Shakir, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, etc.]

Siddiqui

Did you just point out that the koran is wrong there? Oh, I suppose you're interpreting it differently somehow...

What about 2.7:

2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.

or 2:10?

2:10In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease.A painful doom is theirs because they lie.

As I've said, the Quran is not referring to a specific spot but rather a more general region - the region they were defeated in - such as Palestine/Israel. The Quran is not being so specific in that way. It is, however, still being very specific in that it would have to to be the lowest and it would have to be of the entire earth. There's no need to put words in anyone's mouth - the Quran says what it says.

The places I mentioned are in the general region and some are deep within it. I don't know what arbitrary border you chose to exclude all of those places. As for your sarcastic comment on Jericho: Jericho was in the hands of the Romans before it was in the hands of the Persians therefore the Romans had to have lost it. Also, apparently you have poor reading comprehension because I said the place between Dir'a and Basrais east of the golan heights not in the golan heights. Also, The Jordan Valley and Galilee are below sea level. Actually, the Dead Sea is pretty much in the Jordan Valley so it is definately the same region.

Siddiqui

So it is being specific while not being specific. That's a very good way to confuse. The koran says what it says and you make your inferences from it. Others make different inferences from it. How can that be a rational basis for belief?

All the places you mention are ABOVE sea level, except for Jericho (no battles fought there) and the wrong sea - of Galilee - not the lowest part of the earth! My point is that the sea of galilee is not the dead sea. If stuff happened there, then surely the koran would have been mistaken in mentioning the dead sea.

You gather I have poor reading comprehension from your vague reference to "east of the golan heights". You never said how far though... Please have a look at a relief map of the area to the East to see the height above sea level for yourself. I think you read too much into some things and not enough into other things, to suit your assertions.

These rather silly justifications of the validity of the koran do not detract from some of the seriously inflammatory writings within it.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

All due respect, you have contradicted yourself. (See bold) In another context, what you're saying is that a particular sect of the Christian religion, say the Baptist sect, for sake of argument, isn't a religion because it doesn't conform to Christianity's original form, Catholicism. All atheists have one thing in common, the disbelief in any God, singular or plural. In no form of Atheism is that idea not perpetuated, therefore Atheism is an institutionalized belief, without basis on evidence and based on faith.

By your exact words, Atheism is a religion.

Decessus

Notice the word disbelief? A disbelief is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

The lack of a belief is, in itself, a belief, just as much as the concept of zero, despite it not having a value, is still a number.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="cooldude855"]

Atheism is also irrational, and you must also take a leap of faith to deny God;).

diz360

Absolutely not. I can justify my belief in atheism entirely rationally. I can use scientific method as a basis for reason.:D

There is no way that the existance of any deity can be proven.:(

I'm pleased you agree that your faith is irrational.:D

The universe is a wonderous place indeed. Shame it was not described in your scriptures. Its wonderful that the mechanisms of life and the universe can be explained. Scientists are not scared of saying they don't know.;)

1a. As revealed a few posts ago, people were killed by the church for offering evidence of the scientific truth, as recently as 400 years ago.

b. I'd have thought that if scientists accepted the "word of god" unquestioningly, we would still be in the middle ages.

2. With the exception of architecture, I can't think of one thing that christian faith has done to progress society.

3. Funnily enough, scientists don't endevour to explain our origins because they believe in god. They believe in the finding the truth. The driver in scientific research is progress and discovery of the truth. God just doesn't come into it, thank goodness.

1a. And yet, we still talk about people like Galileo Galilee, who was persecuted by the church, but whose findings were never destroyed to the point as if they never existed. The church never silenced their antithesis, the scientists, completely; it allowed their works to be saved by the believers.

b. Then I suppose people like Michael Faraday, or Robert Boyle, or Blaise Pascal, or Gregory Mendel weren't scientists? Mind you, they did believe in God, so I guess all their theories were just as much bull**** as religion is, right?

And if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Whether or not someone believes in God does NOT make their theories any more wrong, especially if they can provide evidence for them. Perhaps you'd like to try another logical fallacy, for an ad hominem won't work on me.

2. Ever hear of the Dark Ages? A time of anarchy and misery for all people involved. And who do you suppose brought the people together, but the Roman Catholic Church?

3. Or, perhaps It does? As you said, scientists believe in finding truth. Perhaps they, like me, want to understand God's creation, and they don't have enough evidence to talk about our creation, be it by evolution, or simply creation?

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

By your exact words, Atheism is a religion.

tycoonmike

Notice the word disbelief? A disbelief is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

The lack of a belief is, in itself, a belief, just as much as the concept of zero, despite it not having a value, is still a number.

Here is the Wiki definition of religion:

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

By that definition, atheism is not a religion. Its a belief that is arrived at entirely personally. There is no atheist doctrine, laws or shared acts of worship. Atheism is not really a group activity.

Atheists believe in other structures but not religious ones. The nearest atheists can get to "group" activities are in the sub-cultures of humanism and naturalism. Thankfully, scientific method is not tied to, a or governed by, theology of any sort. This freedom enables questioning and discussion - a feature that religions often suppress.

I wish atheism was considered a religion. If so, it would be the main one in the UK. The "tolerance" for religions currently excludes atheist views. Atheist groups would not currently get the same UK and US tax breaks as "proper" religions.

If atheism ever was considered a religion, I'd become an atheist preacher without a second thought.

I'm offended by the title of this thread. I'm Christian but I also believe that the theory of evolution is the best way we humans can explain how life on Earth came to exist as we see it today. Creationism is the biggest load of BS because it doesn't explain how anything works. It just leaves it up to God. How are we supposed to make sense of our universe by sitting back on our asses and saying "oh...God did all that....lets just make babies and go to church on Sundays."? Get a reality check. God blessed us with intelligence. Please don't waste it on fanatical ideas that hinder the progression of society. >__> /RANTselbie

amen

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="cooldude855"]

Atheism is also irrational, and you must also take a leap of faith to deny God;).

tycoonmike

Absolutely not. I can justify my belief in atheism entirely rationally. I can use scientific method as a basis for reason.:D

There is no way that the existance of any deity can be proven.:(

I'm pleased you agree that your faith is irrational.:D

The universe is a wonderous place indeed. Shame it was not described in your scriptures. Its wonderful that the mechanisms of life and the universe can be explained. Scientists are not scared of saying they don't know.;)

1a. As revealed a few posts ago, people were killed by the church for offering evidence of the scientific truth, as recently as 400 years ago.

b. I'd have thought that if scientists accepted the "word of god" unquestioningly, we would still be in the middle ages.

2. With the exception of architecture, I can't think of one thing that christian faith has done to progress society.

3. Funnily enough, scientists don't endevour to explain our origins because they believe in god. They believe in the finding the truth. The driver in scientific research is progress and discovery of the truth. God just doesn't come into it, thank goodness.

1a. And yet, we still talk about people like Galileo Galilee, who was persecuted by the church, but whose findings were never destroyed to the point as if they never existed. The church never silenced their antithesis, the scientists, completely; it allowed their works to be saved by the believers.

b. Then I suppose people like Michael Faraday, or Robert Boyle, or Blaise Pascal, or Gregory Mendel weren't scientists? Mind you, they did believe in God, so I guess all their theories were just as much bull**** as religion is, right?

And if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Whether or not someone believes in God does NOT make their theories any more wrong, especially if they can provide evidence for them. Perhaps you'd like to try another logical fallacy, for an ad hominem won't work on me.

2. Ever hear of the Dark Ages? A time of anarchy and misery for all people involved. And who do you suppose brought the people together, but the Roman Catholic Church?

3. Or, perhaps It does? As you said, scientists believe in finding truth. Perhaps they, like me, want to understand God's creation, and they don't have enough evidence to talk about our creation, be it by evolution, or simply creation?

1A. Quantifiable, verifiable, repeatable evidence is hard to ignore and suppress. Galileo built on the work of his earlier peers. Look at the current christian viewpoint changing in the face of incontrovertible evolutionary evidence.

1B. Yes they were - look at the time period they lived in for a context of the beliefs of the day. But these people did question the "word of god" in their search for the truth.

If their beliefs were treated to the same scientific scrutiny as their discoveries, the result would be unfounded beliefs due to a lack of supporting evidence.

2. The dark ages - yes - wasn't that when the English and European churches kept and suppressed the research from Greek and Roman endevour because they were the most powerful institution of that period? I thought the church did this in order to continue subjugating the people of that era. The findings from literature kept secret by the church potentially held science back for hundreds of years. Perhaps you should read up some history on this fascinating period. Some catholic apologists refer to it as a period of spiritual enlightenment, rather than the anarchy you describe.

3. It seems that god has all the answers for theists. Why bother searching for the "truth" when its being shoved down your throat every sunday? Scientific discoveries have made some scientists doubt their own faiths. Rember that Darwin kept his work quiet for 10 years after writing "the origin of species" in the fear of offending the dominating religious views of the time.

Here is the Wiki definition of religion:

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

By that definition, atheism is not a religion. Its a belief that is arrived at entirely personally. There is no atheist doctrine, laws or shared acts of worship. Atheism is not really a group activity.

Atheists believe in other structures but not religious ones. The nearest atheists can get to "group" activities are in the sub-cultures of humanism and naturalism. Thankfully, scientific method is not tied to, a or governed by, theology of any sort. This freedom enables questioning and discussion - a feature that religions often suppress.

I wish atheism was considered a religion. If so, it would be the main one in the UK. The "tolerance" for religions currently excludes atheist views. Atheist groups would not currently get the same UK and US tax breaks as "proper" religions.

If atheism ever was considered a religion, I'd become an atheist preacher without a second thought.

diz360

For one, you really shouldn't use Wikipedia for your research.

For two, let's take that definition apart, and examine the pieces:

1. A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people

You would agree that athiesm is a common belief, namely the disbelief in God, singular or plural, held by a specific group of people?

2. often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.

Often, yes, but not necessarily. An athiestic ritual could easily be a scientific experiment, and that "religious" law could just as easily be the "Laws" of Modern Science (those of Gravity, Thermodynamics, and so forth)

3. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions

Separation of Church and State, Secularism, Religious Freedom, and so forth

4. writings, history

Scientific Treatises

5. and mythology

It is impossible to prove that God does not exist, therefore it is a part of an athiest's mythology that It doesn't.

6. as well as personal faith and mystic experience.

You have faith that God doesn't exist, and that mystic experience doesn't exist.

7. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

See points 6., 2., and 4., respectively, for each bold term.

When interpreted like this, athiesm is a religion.

For one, you really shouldn't use Wikipedia for your research.

For two, let's take that definition apart, and examine the pieces:

1. A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people

You would agree that athiesm is a common belief, namely the disbelief in God, singular or plural, held by a specific group of people?

tycoonmike

That's the only definition of religion that atheism adheres to.

2. often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.

Often, yes, but not necessarily. An athiestic ritual could easily be a scientific experiment, and that "religious" law could just as easily be the "Laws" of Modern Science (those of Gravity, Thermodynamics, and so forth)

tycoonmike

What? That's not a part of atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. It doesn't include science experiments at all. :?

3. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions

Separation of Church and State, Secularism, Religious Freedom, and so forth

tycoonmike

Where are you getting this from? Atheism is the belief that there is no god, not that church and state should be seperated and all of that other stuff that you mentioned. Stop adding things to atheism.

4. writings, history

Scientific Treatises

tycoonmike

WTF WHERE DO YOU GET THIS TRASH FROM??

Atheism

n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Stop injecting that stuff into atheism, it isn't a part of it.

5. and mythology

It is impossible to prove that God does not exist, therefore it is a part of an athiest's mythology that It doesn't.

tycoonmike

Nope, that line of thinking isn't a part of atheism, either. Atheism is just the belief that there is no god, how you get to that belief is up to you.

6. as well as personal faith and mystic experience.

You have faith that God doesn't exist, and that mystic experience doesn't exist.

tycoonmike

Like I said, how you get there is up to you.

7. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

See points 6., 2., and 4., respectively, for each bold term.

When interpreted like this, athiesm is a religion.

tycoonmike

You interpreted it incorrectly by adding your own garbage to the definition of atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it does not include science, treaties, theories, church and state, or w/e the hell you invented.

1. The dark ages - yes - wasn't that when the English and European churches kept and suppressed the research from Greek and Roman endevour because they were the most powerful institution of that period? I thought the church did this in order to continue subjugating the people of that era. The findings from literature kept secret by the church potentially held science back for hundreds of years. Perhaps you should read up some history on this fascinating period. Some catholic apologists refer to it as a period of spiritual enlightenment, rather than the anarchy you describe.

2. It seems that god has all the answers for theists. Why bother searching for the "truth" when its being shoved down your throat every sunday? Scientific discoveries have made some scientists doubt their own faiths. Rember that Darwin kept his work quiet for 10 years after writing "the origin of species" in the fear of offending the dominating religious views of the time.

diz360

1. And yet, look at the result. I am not so proud as to ignore the bad things the Dark Ages did to Europe, but now Europe, and its child in the USA, are among the most powerful of nations on Earth. With that power, of course, came corruption, in the form of colonization/subjugation of millions of native peoples, but had the Dark Ages never come, I can guarantee you that I, at least, wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the Dark Ages was alleviatied by religion.

Like it or not, religion creates an attraction to keep people together through the toughest of times. That is what the Roman Catholic Church did. Who has time for scientific research when the barbarians are knocking down doors and looting all that which your family has? When in a time of crisis, one's own life must come first, and if that means suppressing science, then so be it. Only once the people are able to be relatively safe in their lives will science advance at breakneck speed.

2. Why bother letting it be shoved down your throat? Every Christian has the ability to not go to church and, instead, worship in his or her own home. In fact, that's what I do. In my honest opinion, and according to what research I've been doing on the subject, every established church has some essence of hypocrisy within it, so I don't bother with them.

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

1. What? That's not a part of atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. It doesn't include science experiments at all. :?

2. Where are you getting this from? Atheism is the belief that there is no god, not that church and state should be seperated and all of that other stuff that you mentioned. Stop adding things to atheism.

3. WTF WHERE DO YOU GET THIS TRASH FROM??

Atheism

n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Stop injecting that stuff into atheism, it isn't a part of it.

4. Nope, that line of thinking isn't a part of atheism, either. Atheism is just the belief that there is no god, how you get to that belief is up to you.

DeeJayInphinity

1., 2., 3., Science is a part of athiesm because it attempts to explain the Universe WITHOUT having God simply create it. I am not about to say that God does exist definitively, but so long as science exists, it is the justification of athiesm. Why else would every single athiest on this website, indeed, the world, use science to "debunk" the idea that God exists?

2., especially, All the mentioned ideas remove the effect of religion on society. It's simple logic, if athiesm is about the disbelief in God, then spiritualism in society must also be an "enemy," therefore it must be removed from society. That is what the Separation of Church and State is about, removal of religion from the government.

4. So then you have proof that God doesn't exist? If you don't, then your belief is simply faith, or mythology.

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

tycoonmike

Looks like you're wrong again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Darwin would never renounce his belief in evolution. He did, afterall, spend a large portion of his time studying it and doing research on the matter.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

DeeJayInphinity

Looks like you're wrong again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Darwin would never renounce his belief in evolution. He did, afterall, spend a large portion of his time studying it and doing research on the matter.

Hmm, that's odd. I thought I remembered watching a movie in Biology that claimed that he did. Oh well, it must have been for someone different.

Oh, now I remember, it was his faith in God. We all make mistakes, after all, we are only human.

I'm a Christian and I beleive in Evolution.

So just so you know not every Christian is the stereotypical person you expect.

If that makes me less of a Christian or whatever I don't care, I didn't wake up 1 day and say "I'm gunna choose a religion and follow it 100%" I was just born 1 day and my mum decided to make me Christian :lol: (plus like the majority of people where i live are)

That wasn't my choice so...

1., 2., 3., Science is a part of athiesm because it attempts to explain the Universe WITHOUT having God simply create it. I am not about to say that God does exist definitively, but so long as science exists, it is the justification of athiesm. Why else would every single athiest on this website, indeed, the world, use science to "debunk" the idea that God exists?

2., especially, All the mentioned ideas remove the effect of religion on society. It's simple logic, if athiesm is about the disbelief in God, then spiritualism in society must also be an "enemy," therefore it must be removed from society. That is what the Separation of Church and State is about, removal of religion from the government.

4. So then you have proof that God doesn't exist? If you don't, then your belief is simply faith, or mythology.

tycoonmike

No, you're adding crap to it. Stop doing that. Atheism has a very simple definition; that you don't believe in god. You don't have to do scientific experiments and all of this other trash in order to stop believing in god. I could care less if some atheists are scientists, and most atheists believe that church and state should be seperated. I care about the definition of atheism, which I have already explained to you numerous times. It's a very simple concept, I'm still trying to figure out why you are making crap up. The fact that atheists share various other common beliefs is irrelevant.

I could say to you that clowns love balloons. It's a common preference among clowns but that doesn't mean that a clown must have a balloon or must like balloons in order to be a clown.

I don't believe in god because nobody has been able to prove him to me. I'm not saying that I can prove he doesn't exist, I could care less. Unless someone proves to me that there is a god, I don't believe in one.

Just like if someone comes up to me and says there's a live chicken in their pocket. I'm not going to believe in the chicken until it's proven to me that it exists in the pocket.

[QUOTE="diz360"]

Here is the Wiki definition of religion:

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

By that definition, atheism is not a religion. Its a belief that is arrived at entirely personally. There is no atheist doctrine, laws or shared acts of worship. Atheism is not really a group activity.

Atheists believe in other structures but not religious ones. The nearest atheists can get to "group" activities are in the sub-cultures of humanism and naturalism. Thankfully, scientific method is not tied to, a or governed by, theology of any sort. This freedom enables questioning and discussion - a feature that religions often suppress.

I wish atheism was considered a religion. If so, it would be the main one in the UK. The "tolerance" for religions currently excludes atheist views. Atheist groups would not currently get the same UK and US tax breaks as "proper" religions.

If atheism ever was considered a religion, I'd become an atheist preacher without a second thought.

tycoonmike

For one, you really shouldn't use Wikipedia for your research.

For two, let's take that definition apart, and examine the pieces:

1. A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people

You would agree that athiesm is a common belief, namely the disbelief in God, singular or plural, held by a specific group of people?

2. often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.

Often, yes, but not necessarily. An athiestic ritual could easily be a scientific experiment, and that "religious" law could just as easily be the "Laws" of Modern Science (those of Gravity, Thermodynamics, and so forth)

3. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions

Separation of Church and State, Secularism, Religious Freedom, and so forth

4. writings, history

Scientific Treatises

5. and mythology

It is impossible to prove that God does not exist, therefore it is a part of an athiest's mythology that It doesn't.

6. as well as personal faith and mystic experience.

You have faith that God doesn't exist, and that mystic experience doesn't exist.

7. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

See points 6., 2., and 4., respectively, for each bold term.

When interpreted like this, athiesm is a religion.

I don't have to research atheism. I have been involved with the concept for over 26 years - since my teens.

1. A belief is not the same as a dis-belief. Atheists are not "groups" of people in the same way as theists are. There is no shared identity, cause, belief system, or dogma.

2. Science has nothing to do with atheism or theism. You yourself state that scientists can be religious. The laws of dynamics, gravity and the like have no basis in irrational thought. The starting point is always scepticism for science. I believe in scientific endeavour because it offers an impartial framework for evidence and proof.

3. Secularism has been arrived at in some western democracies because there are so many conflicting theist religious groups and ideas. "Religious freedom" does not include atheism, by definition.

"Separation between Church and State" does not exist in the UK. It could be argued that the high level of religious activity in the US is precisely because of the separation between church and state and the freedom of religious thought there. Again, this is not due to atheism, but due to the conflicting religious arguments at the time.

4. Why not use impartial accounts of actual history? Why not use evidence from human psychology? Again, the connection between science and religion (or atheism) is not there, as scientists use positive proof to evidence their theories.

Scientific treatises focus on proving real concepts rather than aiming to disprove religious dogma.

5. There is no mythology in atheism - its the opposite. Perhaps we should discuss your interpretation of "mythology" to clarify this point.

6. Your definition of "faith" needs to be explored too. I have beliefs in those respects, but no faith.

7. How can "beliefs arrived at personally" stem from a "shared conviction"?

As I said before, I wish you were right. I can't see how the definition of atheism being a religion is so bad anyway. But when I rationalise the concepts of belief, faith, mythology and religion, my conclusion is that atheism is the antithesis of religion.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

tycoonmike

Looks like you're wrong again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Darwin would never renounce his belief in evolution. He did, afterall, spend a large portion of his time studying it and doing research on the matter.

Hmm, that's odd. I thought I remembered watching a movie in Biology that claimed that he did. Oh well, it must have been for someone different.

Oh, now I remember, it was his faith in God. We all make mistakes, after all, we are only human.

His faith in god? Why would that matter? Darwin was attempting to explain how we got here, and evolution answered that question for him. God had nothing to do with it.

Maybe you should also read this article on wikipedia about his faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

And before you start spouting off anti-wiki statements, check out the sources.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

1., 2., 3., Science is a part of athiesm because it attempts to explain the Universe WITHOUT having God simply create it. I am not about to say that God does exist definitively, but so long as science exists, it is the justification of athiesm. Why else would every single athiest on this website, indeed, the world, use science to "debunk" the idea that God exists?

2., especially, All the mentioned ideas remove the effect of religion on society. It's simple logic, if athiesm is about the disbelief in God, then spiritualism in society must also be an "enemy," therefore it must be removed from society. That is what the Separation of Church and State is about, removal of religion from the government.

4. So then you have proof that God doesn't exist? If you don't, then your belief is simply faith, or mythology.

DeeJayInphinity

No, you're adding crap to it. Stop doing that. Atheism has a very simple definition; that you don't believe in god. You don't have to do scientific experiments and all of this other trash in order to stop believing in god. I could care less if some atheists are scientists, and most atheists believe that church and state should be seperated. I care about the definition of atheism, which I have already explained to you numerous times. It's a very simple concept, I'm still trying to figure out why you are making crap up. The fact that atheists share various other common beliefs is irrelevant.

I could say to you that clowns love balloons. It's a common preference among clowns but that doesn't mean that a clown must have a balloon or must like balloons in order to be a clown.

I don't believe in god because nobody has been able to prove him to me. I'm not saying that I can prove he doesn't exist, I could care less. Unless someone proves to me that there is a god, I don't believe in one.

Just like if someone comes up to me and says there's a live chicken in their pocket. I'm not going to believe in the chicken until it's proven to me that it exists in the pocket.

I know you don't have to perform science to stop believing in God. I would suggest not making up "crap" yourself before telling me to stop making it up. I never even once hinted to that. You have it reversed. I can only think of one common example of what I'm trying to describe: Decessus.

Decessus uses science to justify his belief in athiesm, specifically biology, his field of study. That is exactly what I am saying. Athiests use science, just as many thiests use their respective holy books, as justification and proof of their belief. I am in total agreement with you that you don't need science to be an athiest, but you, specifically, would need something other than faith to fortify your belief. If it isn't science, then what is it?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

DeeJayInphinity

Looks like you're wrong again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Darwin would never renounce his belief in evolution. He did, afterall, spend a large portion of his time studying it and doing research on the matter.

Hmm, that's odd. I thought I remembered watching a movie in Biology that claimed that he did. Oh well, it must have been for someone different.

Oh, now I remember, it was his faith in God. We all make mistakes, after all, we are only human.

His faith in god? Why would that matter? Darwin was attempting to explain how we got here, and evolution answered that question for him. God had nothing to do with it.

Maybe you should also read this article on wikipedia about his faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

And before you start spouting off anti-wiki statements, check out the sources.

I "spout" anti-wiki statements because I could just as easily turn that article into a rant about religion. I don't care about the sources, because the sources are most likely correct. I don't trust the middleman, who wrote the article, to tell the whole truth. That is why I dislike Wikipedia. But if you're willing to use it, then so am I...

Perhaps you should also read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views

It clearly states that Darwin lost all faith in Christianity.

I know you don't have to perform science to stop believing in God. I would suggest not making up "crap" yourself before telling me to stop making it up. I never even once hinted to that. You have it reversed. I can only think of one common example of what I'm trying to describe: Decessus.

Decessus uses science to justify his belief in athiesm, specifically biology, his field of study. That is exactly what I am saying. Athiests use science, just as many thiests use their respective holy books, as justification and proof of their belief. I am in total agreement with you that you don't need science to be an athiest, but you, specifically, would need something other than faith to fortify your belief. If it isn't science, then what is it?

tycoonmike

Like I said, it doesn't matter how you get there as long as you get there. It doesn't matter if ALL atheists used science to become atheists, it doesn't matter if they all used theories and formulae to become atheists, as long as they don't believe in god(s), they are atheists. Why haven't you gotten that concept yet?

I would agree with you if atheism fit the criteria for a religion. It only comforms to one of the criteria so it can't be a religion, You're twisting around facts and preferences to attempt to give atheism the religious twist that you wish it had. It doesn't work that way. ;)

I "spout" anti-wiki statements because I could just as easily turn that article into a rant about religion. I don't care about the sources, because the sources are most likely correct. I don't trust the middleman, who wrote the article, to tell the whole truth. That is why I dislike Wikipedia. But if you're willing to use it, then so am I...

Perhaps you should also read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views

It clearly states that Darwin lost all faith in Christianity.

tycoonmike

Umm.. yeah that's what my article stated.. :?

I think we're confused here.. I'm trying to say that he didn't denounce evolution before dying.

The reason I gave you the first link is to prove that god had nothing to do with his belief in evolution because he didn't believe in the same god that christians believe in, so evolution and god could coexist in his mind.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

I know you don't have to perform science to stop believing in God. I would suggest not making up "crap" yourself before telling me to stop making it up. I never even once hinted to that. You have it reversed. I can only think of one common example of what I'm trying to describe: Decessus.

Decessus uses science to justify his belief in athiesm, specifically biology, his field of study. That is exactly what I am saying. Athiests use science, just as many thiests use their respective holy books, as justification and proof of their belief. I am in total agreement with you that you don't need science to be an athiest, but you, specifically, would need something other than faith to fortify your belief. If it isn't science, then what is it?

DeeJayInphinity

Like I said, it doesn't matter how you get there as long as you get there. It doesn't matter if ALL atheists used science to become atheists, it doesn't matter if they all used theories and formulae to become atheists, as long as they don't believe in god(s), they are atheists. Why haven't you gotten that concept yet?

I would agree with you if atheism fit the criteria for a religion. It only comforms to one of the criteria so it can't be a religion, You're twisting around facts and preferences to attempt to give atheism the religious twist that you wish it had. It doesn't work that way. ;)

So then how do you justify your belief to the point where you believe it as fact?

[QUOTE="diz360"]

1. The dark ages - yes - wasn't that when the English and European churches kept and suppressed the research from Greek and Roman endevour because they were the most powerful institution of that period? I thought the church did this in order to continue subjugating the people of that era. The findings from literature kept secret by the church potentially held science back for hundreds of years. Perhaps you should read up some history on this fascinating period. Some catholic apologists refer to it as a period of spiritual enlightenment, rather than the anarchy you describe.

2. It seems that god has all the answers for theists. Why bother searching for the "truth" when its being shoved down your throat every sunday? Scientific discoveries have made some scientists doubt their own faiths. Rember that Darwin kept his work quiet for 10 years after writing "the origin of species" in the fear of offending the dominating religious views of the time.

tycoonmike

1. And yet, look at the result. I am not so proud as to ignore the bad things the Dark Ages did to Europe, but now Europe, and its child in the USA, are among the most powerful of nations on Earth. With that power, of course, came corruption, in the form of colonization/subjugation of millions of native peoples, but had the Dark Ages never come, I can guarantee you that I, at least, wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the Dark Ages was alleviatied by religion.

Like it or not, religion creates an attraction to keep people together through the toughest of times. That is what the Roman Catholic Church did. Who has time for scientific research when the barbarians are knocking down doors and looting all that which your family has? When in a time of crisis, one's own life must come first, and if that means suppressing science, then so be it. Only once the people are able to be relatively safe in their lives will science advance at breakneck speed.

2. Why bother letting it be shoved down your throat? Every Christian has the ability to not go to church and, instead, worship in his or her own home. In fact, that's what I do. In my honest opinion, and according to what research I've been doing on the subject, every established church has some essence of hypocrisy within it, so I don't bother with them.

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

The powerful nature of our countries is entirely due to the industrial revolution (I'd call it the genesis of scientific freedom). You can not make those guarantees about what would have happened. That is sheer speculation and counter arguments are easy to make when you look at other countries and civilisations without such a vice-like religious grip in those times.

Please do a bit of research on the dark ages to see how corrupt and powerful the church was in those times. The industrial revolution occurred after a relaxation of religious bias and a more direct and meaningful approach to interpreting the bible in the 1700s.

I suppose you don't have to go to get the same messages today, as there are plenty of TV channels, web sites and radio stations that perpetuate these irrational (yet comforting) beliefs. Your dim view of churches seems to stem from the inconsistencies and varying interpretations that the irrational theist belief systems churn out. It makes sense to me to thoroughly investigate these inconsistencies independently to arrive at your own view.

So then how do you justify your belief to the point where you believe it as fact?

tycoonmike

I'm not saying that it's a fact and I didn't use science to form my opinion.

I don't believe in god since nobody has proved him to me yet.

Please note: Darwin disowning his views has already been discussed in this thread - find it if you dare!

Evidence from his immediate family and biographer support the view that he died an agnostic and believed in his evolutionary theories until the end.

A creationist preacher wrote an article that lied about Darwin denouncing his findings. As a scientist, Darwin opened his theory of evolution to scientific scrutiny and discussion.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="diz360"]

1. The dark ages - yes - wasn't that when the English and European churches kept and suppressed the research from Greek and Roman endevour because they were the most powerful institution of that period? I thought the church did this in order to continue subjugating the people of that era. The findings from literature kept secret by the church potentially held science back for hundreds of years. Perhaps you should read up some history on this fascinating period. Some catholic apologists refer to it as a period of spiritual enlightenment, rather than the anarchy you describe.

2. It seems that god has all the answers for theists. Why bother searching for the "truth" when its being shoved down your throat every sunday? Scientific discoveries have made some scientists doubt their own faiths. Rember that Darwin kept his work quiet for 10 years after writing "the origin of species" in the fear of offending the dominating religious views of the time.

diz360

1. And yet, look at the result. I am not so proud as to ignore the bad things the Dark Ages did to Europe, but now Europe, and its child in the USA, are among the most powerful of nations on Earth. With that power, of course, came corruption, in the form of colonization/subjugation of millions of native peoples, but had the Dark Ages never come, I can guarantee you that I, at least, wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the Dark Ages was alleviatied by religion.

Like it or not, religion creates an attraction to keep people together through the toughest of times. That is what the Roman Catholic Church did. Who has time for scientific research when the barbarians are knocking down doors and looting all that which your family has? When in a time of crisis, one's own life must come first, and if that means suppressing science, then so be it. Only once the people are able to be relatively safe in their lives will science advance at breakneck speed.

2. Why bother letting it be shoved down your throat? Every Christian has the ability to not go to church and, instead, worship in his or her own home. In fact, that's what I do. In my honest opinion, and according to what research I've been doing on the subject, every established church has some essence of hypocrisy within it, so I don't bother with them.

Didn't Darwin also denounce his own work as well, before his death?

The powerful nature of our countries is entirely due to the industrial revolution (I'd call it the genesis of scientific freedom). You can not make those guarantees about what would have happened. That is sheer speculation and counter arguments are easy to make when you look at other countries and civilisations without such a vice-like religious grip in those times.

Please do a bit of research on the dark ages to see how corrupt and powerful the church was in those times. The industrial revolution occurred after a relaxation of religious bias and a more direct and meaningful approach to interpreting the bible in the 1700s.

Of which, there were none. The only country that even came close to this was, maybe, Poland, and it, with all do respect to anyone from Poland on this site, has been overrun numerous times in war, starting in Napoleonic times.

You see, you're not in the mindset of someone from this time period. I don't know about you, but if some barbarian was treatening my family, I would try to find someone to protect us, and if they need to take away some rights, then so be it. I don't want to face the alternative, death.

However, in this time of high technology and freedom, we don't have to worry about barbarians knocking down our doors, instead we have to worry about them nuking our cities. Look at America, for God's sake! Illegal wire tapping? Wouldn't you call that overprotection? The Patriot Act, and all the political warfare that's been happening since the Democrats took control of Congress is a sign that the government, specifically the President, is trying to act like the Church did in the Middle Ages, and we, the people who are used to freedom aren't having any part of it. Had the people of the Middle Ages known anything different, they would have reacted similarly.