Teach the opposite in religion classes?

[ebia]

Lord of the Rings says "this happened then...". Do you suppose Tolkien was trying to convey geographic and historical facts?

 

[mulimulix]

Lord of the Rings says "this happened then...". Do you suppose Tolkien was trying to convey geographic and historical facts?

Ok, this argument is futile. I cannot believe you think what you just said above is a valid argument!

No, the Lord of the Rings isn't mean to be taken literally because ALL OF IT IS FICTION, whereas you're saying the Bible has SOME PARTS fiction and some parts true! This doesn't work when the wording is the same!

It would not work if there was a movie which was a true story about (for example) how someone invented the internet and then in the sequel, he creates a webpage. Then it is found out that the internet was created in a completely different way to the one depicted in the movie. Not only does this disprove the first part of the series, it also put a whole lot of doubt upon the second, as part of the same story was a lie, who is to say the second isn't either?

 

[Exial]

Allah is Arabic for God and is the same God recognized in the bible.

But what about Zeus? Ra? Odin? Horus?

Christians don't believe in those gods

That makes them atheistic too. You dismiss all over gods except your own.

 

[ebia]

Ok, this argument is futile. I cannot believe you think what you just said above is a valid argument!

No, the Lord of the Rings isn't mean to be taken literally because ALL OF IT IS FICTION, whereas you're saying the Bible has SOME PARTS fiction and some parts true! This doesn't work when the wording is the same!

So, we've seen that some texts are more literal than others. Now we have to take on board that the bible is not a single text but a collection of texts. Even Genesis is a collection of texts. Pick up a magazine, or (let's say) the Works of GK Chesterton, and you'll find in them a variety of genres.

 

[Spirko]

No, we just don't believe in any god(s).

Just like you don't believe in Allah or Zeus.

So your an atheist too, we just take our atheism one step further

No, actually, I'm not. I'm an agnostic when it comes to those gods, not an atheist, because unlike atheists, I have the intellectual integrity to admit that I don't know whether they exist or not.

 

[Spirko]

But what about Zeus? Ra? Odin? Horus?

Christians don't believe in those gods

That makes them atheistic too. You dismiss all over gods except your own.

That's not what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of the idea that God exists, not proclaiming the authority of one god over another.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I just read something someone has posted and it got me thinking:

If creationists insist of teaching the opposing views in science classes (specifically evolution), why aren't the opposing views taught in religion classes? What case can a creationist make that would mean teaching creationism in science classes but not opposing Christian views (i.e. biblical contradictions, reasons not to believe etc.) in their classes?

Not having climbed the ladder quite that high into academia myself I can't know for sure, but I would assume that a good religious course would do exactly that, or at least discuss opposing/different view points both from various theological perspectives as well as discuss rational arguments used by skeptics.

Being ignorant of opposing and differing positions and viewpoints doesn't do anyone any good.

However, I must also point out that I don't believe Creationism has a place in a science class room. Creationism (not just Young/Old Earth Creationism, but even Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution) doesn't have a place in a science class room. When I, as a Theistic Evolutionist, speak of God using the natural processes of evolution and natural selection to create, sustain and bring into fruition the natural order I'm not speaking from a scientific position, but a theological one. It therefore belongs in a theological setting, not a scientific one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CryptoLutheran]

That's not what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of the idea that God exists, not proclaiming the authority of one god over another.

For what it's worth, one of the common charges which Roman authorities laid against Christians in court was atheism. Since Christians denied the existence of the Roman gods they were counted as atheists (as were Jews from the Greco-Roman perspective) and as such were seen as a source of impiety and as social deviants leading good, upstanding Roman people away from virtue and being good, gods-fearing citizens.

It was only one charge which Roman authorities made, others included charges of being anti-family, being unpatriotic, anti-social, and being the cause of natural disasters and catastrophe. There's a certain level of irony here especially in light of what certain dim-witted churchmen have said at various times in the past few years in regard to persons of less esteemed social rank in our culture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Spirko]

For what it's worth, one of the common charges which Roman authorities laid against Christians in court was atheism. Since Christians denied the existence of the Roman gods they were counted as atheists (as were Jews from the Greco-Roman perspective) and as such were seen as a source of impiety and as social deviants leading good, upstanding Roman people away from virtue and being good, gods-fearing citizens.

It was only one charge which Roman authorities made, others included charges of being anti-family, being unpatriotic, anti-social, and being the cause of natural disasters and catastrophe. There's a certain level of irony here especially in light of what certain dim-witted churchmen have said at various times in the past few years in regard to persons of less esteemed social rank in our culture.

-CryptoLutheran

That's nice. Nothing you've said negates what I said.

 

[Exial]

No, actually, I'm not. I'm an agnostic when it comes to those gods, not an atheist, because unlike atheists, I have the intellectual integrity to admit that I don't know whether they exist or not.

So you consider it a possibility that Zeus, Thor and every single other god ever invented by man could exist?

If so, you are holding double standards, since these gods have exactly the same amount of evidence to support their existence as the Christian god does (i.e none). You consider the existence of other gods in a rational and logical manner but why do you abandon that when considering the existence of the Christian god?

That's not what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of the idea that God exists, not proclaiming the authority of one god over another.

Atheism is just not believing in god(s). I do not know in absolute certainty that a god(s) does not exist, anyone who claims to know that is indeed intellectually dishonest because you cannot prove a negative. However, we can infer from the lack of evidence that god most likely does not exist in the same way we can infer that unicorns, floating teapots and chimeras are likely to not exist. In practical terms, we can safely say that god(s) like unicorns don't exist.

 

[Spirko]

So you consider it a possibility that Zeus, Thor and every single other god ever invented by man could exist?

Yes.

If so, you are holding double standards, since these gods have exactly the same amount of evidence to support their existence as the Christian god does (i.e none).

Really? Could you please point me to the historical evidence for any of these gods?

You consider the existence of other gods in a rational and logical manner but why do you abandon that when considering the existence of the Christian god?

I don't, but your childish insults are duly noted.

Atheism is just not believing in god(s).

No, atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

I do not know in absolute certainty that a god(s) does not exist, anyone who claims to know that is indeed intellectually dishonest because you cannot prove a negative.

But you can prove a positive and atheists refuse to do so. By the way, you can prove a negative.

For instance, if I say "John is not in the house", then I can prove that John is not in the house by searching the house.

However, we can infer from the lack of evidence...

Why do you believe there is a lack of evidence? There is manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence, statistical evidence, historical evidence, anecdotal evidence...

In practical terms, we can safely say that god(s) like unicorns don't exist.

Actually, unicorns do exist. Rhinos are a good example of a unicorn.

The problem isn't that unicorns don't exist, but that you have redefined unicorn to mean something that cannot exist.

 

[Exial]

Yes.

Fair enough

Really? Could you please point me to the historical evidence for any of these gods?

I do not consider historical evidence as valid when trying to prove the existence of the supernatural.

I don't, but your childish insults are duly noted.

Do you feel insulted?

Atheism is the rejection of the idea that God exists

You changed your definition.

No, atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

For instance, if I say "John is not in the house", then I can prove that John is not in the house by searching the house.

What if John left the house as soon as you entered to search and went back in the house as soon as you left?

Or what if John was also moving around the house, always in a different room to where you are searching?

Why do you believe there is a lack of evidence? There is manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence, statistical evidence, historical evidence, anecdotal evidence...

This is not the kind of evidence that would convince me that the supernatural exists.

I am looking for empirical evidence, maybe I should of been more clear.

Actually, unicorns do exist. Rhinos are a good example of a unicorn.

Lol. So a dwarf ginger Irishman is evidence of leprechauns?

The problem isn't that unicorns don't exist, but that you have redefined unicorn to mean something that cannot exist.

I'm fairly sure they don't exist

 

[Spirko]

I do not consider historical evidence as valid when trying to prove the existence of the supernatural.

So then, it's not that there is no evidence. It's simply that you won't hear the evidence.

Do you feel insulted?

How I feel about it is irrelevant.

You changed your definition.

No, that's always been the definition.

What if John left the house as soon as you entered to search and went back in the house as soon as you left?

Then John is not in the house and my assertion is proven true.

This is not the kind of evidence that would convince me that the supernatural exists.

Then, again, it isn't that there is no evidence, as you claimed, it's that you don't want to hear the evidence.

I am looking for empirical evidence, maybe I should of been more clear.

And yet, when I listed six different kinds of empirical evidence, you say that you will not accept them.

Lol. So a dwarf ginger Irishman is evidence of leprechauns?

Only if that's the definition of a leprechaun.

 

[Exial]

So then, it's not that there is no evidence. It's simply that you won't hear the evidence.

There is no evidence to my satisfaction.

How I feel about it is irrelevant.

Then do not claim it as an insult if you are not insulted.

No, that's always been the definition.

But you quite clearly gave two different definitions.

Atheism is the rejection of the idea that God exists
this?

or

No, atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
this?

Then John is not in the house and my assertion is proven true.

You ignored the second argument, I shall repeat it.

What if John was also moving around the house, always in a different room to where you are searching?

Then, again, it isn't that there is no evidence, as you claimed, it's that you don't want to hear the evidence.

manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence, statistical evidence, historical evidence, anecdotal evidence

I do not accept these as evidence of the supernatural. If you do, thats fine but I require something of more substance to convince me.

And yet, when I listed six different kinds of empirical evidence, you say that you will not accept them.

How do any of those methods rely on testing and observation?

Only if that's the definition of a leprechaun.

Then leprechauns exist!!

 

[Spirko]

This is were our discussion ends.

Since you've already admitted that you will not even hear any evidence I present, I would have to agree.

 

[HisHomeMaker]

In my Anglican church it is not uncommon for the priests to offer scientific views that may seem counter to Christian views on an issue but they can provide scripture and historical reference that bring the two ideas together. I am thankful that our priests are very well educated. I know of several scientists, teachers and university professors who are members of my church. God's world and the natural world are one. Conflict between the two are created by man.

Dr. Denis Alexander is a fellow of St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge, and director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion; he is a peer of one of our church leaders . Dr. Alexander is both an evangelical Christian and a professional biologist. He is also a Darwinist, not a creationist. His book is called “Creation or Evolution – do we have to choose?”
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?: Amazon.co.uk: Denis Alexander: Books

Last night at a home Bible study group we discussed the Christian perspective of creation vs. evolution. Another member is a born-and-raised Anglican who is temporarily preaching in a Baptist church; his interpretation favours creation and Bible literalism. A physician and scientist, also a church leader and a member of our group was also present; of course he argued heavily for evolution.... and he is a devout Christian. On some things there was agreement to disagree, but everyone present -- scientists included -- agree that God created the earth and that at some point in human development humanity became aware of God.

 

[razeontherock]

obviously you think children need a creator to be morally (or otherwise) guided. Two points arise from this:

I simply believe this is incorrect. There are millions of children brought up without guidance from a creator

There is simply no basis to say we need guidance from a creator to be raised properly. I am living proof of this, as well as all my friends, as well as many millions of people around the world.

You have absolutely no proof of any such thing. You can fairly say you are unaware of any such guidance, but that is the extent of what you can assert.

 

[Exial]

You have absolutely no proof of any such thing. You can fairly say you are unaware of any such guidance, but that is the extent of what you can assert.

How ironic.

You ask for proof, yet the very assertion you make that God exists has not been proven either by the standard of evidence you are asking of him. He doesn't need to prove he isn't affected by a guidance, that makes no sense. The burden of proof is on you to prove that this guidance even exists.

You think objective morality exists and that it is given by a god?

I challenge you to name one moral action that a man of faith could do that couldn't be done by an atheist.

 

[mulimulix]

You have absolutely no proof of any such thing. You can fairly say you are unaware of any such guidance, but that is the extent of what you can assert.

Are you serious? Just watch this video that I made a while back:

YouTube - "Peace is non-theistic." Or is it...?

How ironic.

You ask for proof, yet the very assertion you make that God exists has not been proven either by the standard of evidence you are asking of him. He doesn't need to prove he isn't affected by a guidance, that makes no sense. The burden of proof is on you to prove that this guidance even exists.

You think objective morality exists and that it is given by a god?

I challenge you to name one moral action that a man of faith could do that couldn't be done by an atheist.

This.

 

[razeontherock]

This is not the kind of evidence that would convince me that the supernatural exists.

I am looking for empirical evidence, maybe I should of been more clear.

You're looking for physical evidence of the Spirit. Good luck with that