The Passion...

[eegah]

Quicksilver I'm agnostic, atheism is just as silly as fundamentalism. To be atheist, you must believe nothing bigger exists, so essentially you think you're the center of the universe.

Oh, please. How is lacking a personal belief in a god or gods as "silly" as wanting to force unproven beliefs on others? And your assertion that atheists believe that they are the center of the universe is just stupid. Saying "I don't believe that a god exists" does not lead to that and you know it.

Ok, As I always remember atheism as being, one who doesnt not believe in a higher power. Now what I'm saying is how can you not believe in anything bigger than us? That's what I'm getting at. I'm not saying you not believing god is silly. I'm saying not believing that something out there in the reaches of the universe is bigger than us. Bigger is kind of a figurative thing, but I mean it as something that could disprove god or prove him, or have absolutely nothing to do with the notion but points to a grander vision of the universe. Like different dimensions, scales, aliens, well lots of things we cannot comprehend. To throw that out, would seem silly to me. Maybe you dont believe were the only thing in the universe and that something is out there, but that's what I came to believe atheism to be. Mind you I used to call myself an atheist, but I kind of changed my title so to speak, because I do believe in something.     

I have faith that there's something out there. Basically, maybe it's god maybe not, I dont really care, because it has to be faith on some level. I have faith that there isnt a brick wall out in space somewhere. Not that a brick wall out in space would lead one to say, well who built the damn wall and what's on the other side. I've spent far to many nights of my youth debating this argument on supposed illicit substances to drop this altogether.

btw what the hell is hitler doing in this thread? he was an idiot and insane. The Arian race is fictitious, not to mention you dont hurry along evolution by killing people in ovens, he was just a sick fuck, plain and simple.

Mind you, I'll most likely have to dig to find this reply again as I'll be gone for about 8 hours, this is a lively one again. I'll tell you where we end.....a circle

I believe in things when there is evidence to support them. There is no evidence for a god, so I don't believe. That does not mean that I'm arrogant ("To be atheist, you must believe nothing bigger exists, so essentially you think you're the center of the universe") or that I believe in nothing. I really get tired of hearing that so excuse me if I seem annoyed.

Maybe you dont believe were the only thing in the universe and that something is out there, but that's what I came to believe atheism to be.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with anything else.

[msmpls]

isn't that at the heart of all this religious intolerance nonsence? People just interpreting the same metaphors in different ways?

I don't believe so. It's true, all three modern religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) were derived from the same Abrahamic philosophy; but the Quran's message of intolerance and of militaristic conversion of others who don't share the same faith as you is quite different from the Christian (in general) idea of nonviolence and love. I think it's more than just a gross negligence or "misinterpretation" - to me it's a logical fallacy and an incredibly outdated mode of thinking. Not intentionally singling out Islam, but when your entire religion forces women to cover up everything but their hands and faces, but then rewards you for blowing up "Infidels" with 72 brown-eyed virgins in Heaven? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me.

Your statement assumes that all Muslims interpret the Quran the way that the Islamic zealots do. It's always important to keep in mind that there are verying degrees of religious conservativism not just Christianity, but in all religions.

This mode of thinking is like saying that all Christians are like the fanatics in Jesus Camp.

I worked closely with the Muslim Students Alliance at my college for several semesters and not one of them ever expected me to cover my hair or tried to convert me.

[torgosPizza]

You're right - I should have worded my statement differently.  I understand there are conservatives and moderates in all religions, I think I was overgeneralizing (is that even a word?) .. Sorry.

I have faith that there's something out there. Basically, maybe it's god maybe not, I dont really care, because it has to be faith on some level. I have faith that there isnt a brick wall out in space somewhere. Not that a brick wall out in space would lead one to say, well who built the damn wall and what's on the other side. I've spent far to many nights of my youth debating this argument on supposed illicit substances to drop this altogether.

That sounds more like what Einstein and Hawking meant when they refer to "God." The Einsteinian God is much more related to the cosmos, to nature, and to the unifying force in the known universe.

btw what the hell is hitler doing in this thread? he was an idiot and insane. The Arian race is fictitious, not to mention you dont hurry along evolution by killing people in ovens, he was just a sick fuck, plain and simple.

Hitler is almost always brought up by some of the Christians who argue that atheism is evil. They cite him as their first example, along with Stalin and Karl Marx, even though Hitler was actually Roman Catholic. Bill O'Reilly used this same argument when he talked with Richard Dawkins earlier this week - after Dawkins corrected him, O'Reilly said that he "rejected it early on." Except, we have writings and personal accounts (not including some of what's written in "Mein Kampf" that solidifies HItler as a believer in Jesus. Not saying that's what made him evil, of course, but he wasn't evil because of his religion, or his belief in evolution as Moon Blast suggested earlier.

[J-Proof]

Hitler was baptized Catholic but was definitely /not/ an active member of the fmaily - no? Catholics were actually one of his targets. A lot of murdered priests were canonized as Saints after the Hitler insurrection.

[torgosPizza]

I don't think it matters if you're active or not, he was still a firm believer.

"I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity. No, it is not that we have deserted Christianity; it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics, which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine of the Confessions or with their religious freedom, nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends.

"There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.

"The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934. )


---

I'm just saying, the argument that he was an atheist is not an argument at all.

[J-Proof]

Hitler's "belief" can pretty much be associated with the same extremism that terrorists use -- a mix of delusion and brainwashing....

His belief was uniquely his -- and fit into no context of Christianity except that he manipulated Christian words (in the same way, Islam is twisted around by warlords to try and justify what they do).

You have to separate people from doctrine. Hitler said he was something but that doesn't mean he truly was. Look at all those wannabe "punk" bands out there -- same principle.

Separate people from doctrine.

[msmpls]

If fact what boggles my mind is look at the Flagellum for example, a single cell organism, seems simple in terms of functionality right, well look at the inside and you can find that there is a very complex working of a motor system that causes the organism to move about. This alone to me suggests that there is intelligent design at work. If we are to believe that single cell organisms were the first the arrive at the beginning of time then how does one explain the complex motor that belongs to a supposedly simple organism that slowly evolved over many eons, makes no sense.

as a microbiology student I can tell you with full certainty that a Flagellum is not a monocyte. It is a structure used for locomotion by many microorganisms (and even some of our cells! +1 to anyone that can name this haploid cell)
But why does the fact that these complex organisms exist have anything to do with intellegent design ? Couldn't the organism (and I'm talking generations and generations or organisms) have adapted to changes in their enviroment? Perhaps movement became beneficial when it was not necessary before?
 

[ScottotD]

So he was 'christian' in the same way that Felps nutjob is?

[torgosPizza]

Which is my problem with people like Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, and all the others who use the Christian doctrine to push their hate speech, segregation, and bigotry.

If there is a God, I would hope that he'd take offense to his name being used in such blatantly offensive ways.

[ScottotD]

It's not as though it's only a few people, read any 'letters to the editor' column in any newspaper.  I tend to like the idea of religion but find that people screw it up by taking the whole thing too seriously/not seriously enough.

[BathTub]

If fact what boggles my mind is look at the Flagellum for example, a single cell organism, seems simple in terms of functionality right, well look at the inside and you can find that there is a very complex working of a motor system that causes the organism to move about. This alone to me suggests that there is intelligent design at work. If we are to believe that single cell organisms were the first the arrive at the beginning of time then how does one explain the complex motor that belongs to a supposedly simple organism that slowly evolved over many eons, makes no sense.

as a microbiology student I can tell you with full certainty that a Flagellum is not a monocyte. It is a structure used for locomotion by many microorganisms (and even some of our cells! +1 to anyone that can name this haploid cell)
But why does the fact that these complex organisms exist have anything to do with intelligent design ? Couldn't the organism (and I'm talking generations and generations or organisms) have adapted to changes in their environment? Perhaps movement became beneficial when it was not necessary before?
 

I believe he is grasping for the old Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity argument

[Tyrant]

It's not as though it's only a few people, read any 'letters to the editor' column in any newspaper.  I tend to like the idea of religion but find that people screw it up by taking the whole thing too seriously/not seriously enough.

 
  Amen to that. Though being the entirely imperfect beings we are, it follows that we should take something that should be perfect and twist it out of shape. This is why religions fight each other. This is why sects inside a religion fight each other. Hell, even aethiests fight each other.

 By the way, I understand when you say you only made this thread to comment on The Passion, but you should have known this debate would have to come up. Just by the very subject's nature. If people don't want a debate on this forum, then the two taboo subject rule needs to apply (ie: when in company, don't discuss politics and religion). It's like seeing a "Beware of Dog" sign up in someone's yard, going into the yard, and then wondering why you're getting mauled by the yard-owner's pit bull. Not saying they shouldn't be brought up, but anyone who brings them up should expect a debate.  

Item 1: Convinience of faith. Believe it or not, alot of us don't go around assigning everything to God. As an example, my aunt died a number of years ago from cancer. I suppose I could have sat around blaming God or saying crap about how it was His will or whatever. But I actually blamed my Aunt because she smoked for 20 years. Go figure. Also, not all of us are equipped either theologically or scientifically to answer every little debate question, and so "because God did it" is thrown in. Doesn't mean there isn't a logical answer. Sounds like a cop-out, I know, but I'm sure aethiests have been stumped in a similiar manner. There are a lot of questions out there neither group can answer. Truly. It's an arrogance on both parties if they think they can.

Item 2: I've said this in other threads, but it bears repeating. Science is about opening doors, not closing them. Science enables us to explore and learn about our universe. It piques our curiosity. It makes us ask questions and then makes us want to answer them. It's a tool for discovery. I would never be too harsh on an agnostic because agnostics keep all doors open. Did God create the universe? Maybe. Let's find out! Was everything due to random chance? Maybe. Let's find out! Let's keep exploring. Let's keep all possibilities open. This is the very essence of science. That aethiests outright cry 'no' to God and any kind of spiritual concepts is, to me, a fallacy. To say that all reality, in all its wonderful complexities, beauty  and nuances, was all some nearly impossible (considering the odds), random accident and to leave it at that without ever considering anything different is as narrow minded as the most rigid Bible-thumper, and actually requires a great deal more faith than I could ever muster.

Item 3: Prove God doesn't exist. Do it. Now. Don't present evidence. Evidence is not the same thing as solid proof. PROVE it. Without a shadow of a doubt. 100%.

  You can't. I may not be able to prove He does, but that He doesn't can't be proven either. This backs up item #2.

Item 4: Religion may decrease, but it will never go away completely. Heck, we still have some brave hold outs from religions that far pre-date Monotheism. And just because it's old doesn't mean it might not be true.

Torgo, you asked earlier how one interprets what is metaphor and what is true in the Bible. I will say that thousands of people have labored for countless years to make it understandable, and their studies have resulted in countless study texts which do that very function. As with science, knowledge in religion is built on the earlier knowledges of others.

[ScottotD]

I seriously didn't think any debate would start, I just don't think about religion and the fact it's important to people that often.  I was starting a thread about a bad movie I'd seen.

[BathTub]

Item 3: Prove God doesn't exist. Do it. Now. Don't present evidence. Evidence is not the same thing as solid proof. PROVE it. Without a shadow of a doubt. 100%.

No. It is not the unbelievers job to prove that nothing exists. The person who claims something has to prove it exists.

[Tyrant]

Item 3: Prove God doesn't exist. Do it. Now. Don't present evidence. Evidence is not the same thing as solid proof. PROVE it. Without a shadow of a doubt. 100%.

No. It is not the unbelievers job to prove that nothing exists. The person who claims something has to prove it exists.

Nothing is a something. It's a factor in our reality. Bits of our mathmatics system is based on this. I think my challenge stands.