RoderickSpode

How is if my parents are CULTURAL CHRISTIANS or BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS relevant to what I believe and why? You asked "What do I believe and why."

You're the teacher, present the evidence and let's figure out if it's compelling. 

If you can't think of anything in the intelligent design proposition that doesn't make sense, or in Christianity, then I'm going to accuse you of having a closed mind. Explain a loving god providing children with cancer. 

Maybe we should just start with the idea of 'intelligent' design. Because no organisms on earth look like anything a fist year engineering student would 'design.' Bee wings for example. 

"The question was what do I believe and why, how is that relevant?"

"Such a character could have been involved in literally anything."

"Evolution is science, this is philosophy."

So then you do not think 'militancy' = 'removal of ten commandments from land owned by the state'?

Just so I'm clear, are you using "atheist militancy" as interchangeable with "advocate for the separation of church and state"?

the positive being aiding a fellow human in need (true religion). 

I object to this statement. You are not describing religion here you are describing empathy. Religion is not necessary for humans to aide one another in need

This comment made me feel like we were close to agreeing on terms but then

Sadly another straw man. Perhaps for the rest of the conversation you will allow me to make my own arguments? Because of you are just going to make up arguments and pretend they are mine... well you don't really need me for that.

so long as your cult organizes peacefully does not expect their beliefs to form legostlation and they do not use their faith as an excuse to practice criminality cult on brother.

Wow seems like your the one with a negative view on cults. To be fair many religions/cults can be dangerous but even if we follow your definition the fact that a religion is not a world religion does not automatically make it dangerous just like being a major world religion doesn't stop a religion from being dangerous. That is largely determined by the practitioners not the belief.

the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

-John Adams

You are fixated on Christianity here. I mean no religious legislation. This applies equally to all religions.

You see your problem...even you, a staunch ID must be taught in some capacity at public schools proponent, can't figure out a way to wring any education from the proposition. Any test answer could be "because it was designed that way," even the answer to "Why can't we find evidence of a creator?" As far as why I think atheists are critical thinkers, it's because every one I've met in real life arrived at atheism through rational thought, while the critical thinking Christians I know basically apologize for their Christianitiy, saying things like 'I know, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but still. This is how I was raised." As a result, they're forcing themselves to maintain belief out of comfort. 

"I'm a Christian because my parents are. What does that have to do with whether life was designed or not, philosophically?"

"I'd need to see the evidence to make a conclusion."

"It's A possibility but one without evidence to support it."

"I'm an 11th grader / junior in college taking an elective...I don't know what the multiverse or string theory is, but what do they have to do with philosophy or if there was a creator? Are we ever going to talk about Kant?"

PLease explain this italicized part. How does one teach intelligent design to a Hindu, a Scientologist, a Mormon and a standard Protestant Christian? Is the answer "remove all religious implications to the topic"? 

The 'negatives' of evolution? Give an example. Because I can't think of another scientific theory where you would teach the 'positives' and 'negatives' of that theory, you would simply teach the FACTS and METHODS OF DERIVING SAME. For example, germ theory of medicine: Positive would be medical advancement and much longer lifespan. Negative would be "but then demons might not be real." Negatives of 'gravitational theory,' or 'plate tectonic theory,' it sounds ridiculous. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by negatives of evolutionary theory. Please clarify?

Yeah, this is kind of what it has to be about if it wants to be science. At least we can both agree it's not science and belongs nowhere near science, because it does not withstand scientific rigor, at all. If you can find me another proposition that falls apart as easily as ID does that's taught as science, I'd

be very interested. So let's look at the philosophical issues instead. Because it sounds to me like you think philosophy classes are

basically campfire chats with a youth pastor, and not formal schools of thought to ponder. A philosophy class is very difficult, it features things like

"Situational ethics" and "utilitarianism" and many very formal concepts. Your questions, I'll play your standard student.

This also does not address the topic at hand. You said "atheists want to be able to sin whenever they want, that's one reason they're mad at god and Jesus, because if they're real, then atheists would feel too bad about sinning," essentially. My point is that's exactly true of Christians and their once saved, always saved doctrine. Jesus came down, somehow absolved all past and future sins which means if you're Christian you get to go to his house when you die, and not the lake of fire like the starved Sudanese infant has to. Christians are the ones with sin-proof armor. When I do something bad, I have to take into account the feelings of others and how my actions impact them: no reward for me, no punishment, but I have to weigh real world impact. Yeah, some Christians think if you die after sinning, you go to hell, and a lot more believe if you know Jesus, no matter what you do, whether it's molest a child who's working in your church, cheat on your wife with her sister, order a thousand gay people rounded up and tortured, or jerk off when you're horny, you get to go to heaven. This is a blank check for sinning if your doctrine is true: I can sell women as prostitutes all day long. If on my death bed, I have a sincere conversion experience, and die 'with Jesus in my heart,' guess what? Almost every denomination of Christianity says I go to the same heaven as the most righteous. That you hail as perfect justice. It's the appeal of Christianity: you're told you're born a disgusting piece of worm ridden filth sinner whom God reviles, but lucky you, he already killed his own kid for you! (???) So now he loves you again, no matter how many times you punch your wife, so long as you're sincerely sorry and have Jesus, so you better get your ass into church and donate. It's your only hope.

Scam.

And you saying it doesn't mean it makes sense: the overwhelming, OVERWHELMING majority of American Christians are born into American Christianity. They don't choose it. That's how they're born. Sensibly, the OVERWHELMING majority of American atheists are therefore NOT born into it, they figure it out. It's not sensible to say that people who didn't become believers must have had a REASON not to, when in fact the only reason required not to believe in something is simply because it doesn't make sense. Do you need a reason not to believe Harry Potter is a documentary and that Hogwarts School of Wizardry isn't real? What reason do you have for not believing in the Roman Pantheon? You're inventing things out of whole cloth. Your reason may have covered like half a percentage point. And you don't address my question: First of all, what percentage of religious adherents are  purely atheistic and choose their religion based on its menu of prohibitions? Have you ever met anyone who, when asked, "how did you choose your religion," said "I looked at what I was allowed to do, and when I found one I could put up with, I decided that must be true?" 

ID shouldn't be taught in science class because it isn't science, as it cannot be tested or demonstrated. As far as "it opens up too many questions," that's half the problem: it opens up too many questions that do not have answers that can be...TESTED OR DEMONSTRATED. I would sure love to hear you detail what you think the ID portion of science would sound like as a teacher, and what EXACTLY it teaches. What does it explain? Don't confuse how with why, here, a common issue. "How does the sun shine" and "Why does the sun shine" have exactly the same answer. "How was the earth created" and "Why was the earth created" do not. Okay, so we can leave it out of science entirely as it is not in any way subject to the examination of the scientific method, agree? Let's look at it in a philosophical but non-denominational way.

Philosophically, "the cosmos might have been created by an intelligent agent" is as far as you can go in a public school, you figure, in order to be fair to all faiths. Okay, so then what would a universe with a creator look like and why? The WHY is the philosophical portion, as far as I can tell. How would a philosophy teacher help students learn to think about this portion? You won't like the answers. I'm all for including it in philosophical

discussion, but I bet that only wins more converts to atheism, at least among the critical thinking crowd. We can play the questions out if you like, but

you never seemed to enjoy that as much as I do, and you disappear when I do it, and I like having you around. 

Okay, now I see what you're driving at. No, I don't think this is at all an accurate portrayal for several reasons. First of all, what percentage of religious adherents are  purely atheistic and choose their religion based on its menu of prohibitions? Have you ever met anyone who, when asked, "how did you choose your religion," said "I looked at what I was allowed to do, and when I found one I could put up with, I decided that must be true?" Compare that number to, say, the number of Christians who had Christian parents. And no, Christians expressly DO NOT have to embrace the sin concept, it's like the leading thing they love about Jesus! He sucked all those sins up for them! You must be aware of the doctrine "once saved, always saved." Similarly, no atheist says "I sort of believe in God, but if I could only jack off without him getting so mad...you know what, I'll be an atheist, solved!" {ZIP!} I misunderstood what you were implying about premarital sex, I thought you were saying that Christians are super moral because they're monogamists (they're not, as the bible shows) and therefore they don't have premarital sex (they do, as every study about the topic ever conducted shows). 

For the most part I have no issue with religious people. I am a firm supporter of separation of church and state, however. When religious people attempt to cross that line, I take issue. When they attempt to corrupt science with religious doctrine, that crosses the line. When they attempt to force religion into schools in order to indoctrinate my children, that crosses the line.  

I have no problem with mentioning such conjectures, as long as it's made clear that it is sheer conjecture. In fact, I have no problem mentioning ID, as long as it's made clear that it is pseudoscience. In fact, it might be instructive to spend class time showing what pseudoscience looks like, to help reinforce what true science is. In high school, though, there are probably better uses of limited class time.

Whether or not it is science is crucial to whether or not it is religion. If it is science, then it is not religion.

I posted the article because it points out something that many theists can't seem to wrap their heads around--most non-believers don't have some ulterior motive for their non-belief.

Militant atheists are a small minority of all atheists. Most atheists just want to be left alone by religion, and that includes teaching pseudoscience to their children in a thinly veiled attempt to indoctrinate them.

Whether ID is science or religion was not at all a side issue in the Dover trial. It was the central issue. Mandating a particular religious view be taught alongside actual science in a biology class is clearly unconstitutional. If ID's proponents had instead wanted it taught in a philosophy class, that would be an entire different matter.

What are you talking about? Of course the article gives the real reason, plain as day. It couldn't be simpler.

"...most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true."

Saying that they are mad at God is absurd, since they don't believe in God.

Not all have left the faith when they leave the church, sure, but it is clear that most have, unless you think no longer believing a faith is true is somehow different than leaving the faith.

First of all, I bet I know more atheists than you, and in real life, not here. And none of the ones I know got into it because they "wanna sin!" or they're mad at god. Uniformly, they just don't have any reason to believe in god. And almost as uniformly, I find them more morally upstanding and WAY more egalitarian than the loudmouth Christian on Sundays. Saying an atheist is an atheist because they're mad at god is not only incorrect (much like me saying you don't believe in the One Ring because you're mad at Sauron). An atheists' assessment of god's moral character as a thuggish baby doesn't mean atheists are mad at god, any more than saying people who read Harry Potter books don't follow Voldemort because he's evil. It's simply a reading of the character in the book, it has nothing to do with them being real. 

And some, like me, are still counted among the Catholics because I've not been excommunicated. My point is that leaving "the church" is not the

same as "leaving the faith." Yeah, plenty of people leave and come back. But more and more people don't go in the first place, according to the

numbers, and a subset of those people do so because they simply don't believe. Why is it that hard to get this idea down? 

Please explain.

Theists often misunderstand why most atheists don't believe, saying it is because they hate God, or don't wish to obey Him, or don't want to follow religious morality. This article describes the real reason, which most atheists already knew.

If you refer to scientists, then that's just another really dumb thing to say.

Notice that you are talking about some other organization that I did not refer, which means you have created a Strawman Argument, most likely because you can't form a valid argument.

Of course, they should, if they don't then they are against the word of their God. This is the problem faced by multiple denominations, they show just how stupid they are by deciding what their God says as opposed to what their God demands of them. Christians fail miserably at understanding this simple concept.

Nope, it's actually a pejorative term bestowed on some atheists by alarmed conservatives and theists. There is no term universally used among atheists themselves. In general, these are atheists who "don't know their place". They're activists, energetically pushing back against the encroachment of religious symbology, beliefs, and legislation into the common space. They file suits against local governments that allow the Ten Commandments to adorn their walls and which endorse manger scenes on their lawns at Christmas. They complain and litigate against prayers opening public business meetings. And so forth. This naturally infuriates the theistic majority, which assumes that they can always retain the power they've enjoyed until now. Consequently they have tried to smear the atheistic efforts by calling them "militant" and styling themselves as innocent victims of overly aggressive troublemakers.

You're certainly not right.

If I grant this broad definition then atheism is still not my religion. It is just a natural consequence of my skepticism.

I don't know how you got the idea that I am somehow against the idea of organized religion. I am against the idea of the intigration of church and state and also against religious based discrimination and the indoctrination of the young but if like minded eople wish to gather peaceably and practice their belief I do not object indeed that would be an infringement of their freedom of religion, the same thing that protects my right to be an atheist.

so long as your cult organizes peacefully does not expect their beliefs to form legostlation and they do not use their faith as an excuse to practice criminality cult on brother.

Stheism is not an organization. Atheist organizations are not religious.

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

"consumerism is the new religion"

If there are religious humanists there are also phylisophical, political and practical humanists. Religious humanism could be a cult (depending on your

definition of cult which I still have both seem) but humanism as a philosophy would not seem to be.

I object to atheism being called a religion. Since I consider cult and religion synonyms I object to that word equally and for the same reasons.

Now do you have a good working definition of cult or is the difference just opinion based?

When we discuss the cult of Christianity however we are teferencing the Christian church, a religious organization. Belief is not a cult the christian church is more than just the belief of an individual.

No.

This is a Calvinist teaching, and we have never had such doctrine.

Sure, there are some who know God. Doesn't change the fact that they aren't with the Christian church. They have an incomplete faith.

Yes, that would be something a Dumbass Christian would say.

Again, prove this or admit you're just making up more bs to defend your argument.

This is as bad as your EU argument in the other thread, they are not the same thing at all.

So what. Scientists and atheists don't have a God who wrote a book outlining exactly how YOU are supposed to think and behave. This argument

has failed miserably Rod, you're just yanking a straws now.

Well, at least you've got one sensible thing to say.

They help humans, yes. They're not in it for themselves as the Churches are to get converts.

Prove that or admit you're lying, because you are lying, again.

The things we might be at variance about are the kind of things that aren't doctrine. We pretty much agree on doctrine.

I don't think it would be right of me to say whether or not salvation is contingent on knowing, but I will say that it is written...

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

And these are the words of Jesus.

We know what we teach, while most evangelical/protestant churches don't even seem to know the God they profess to worship. I say that as someone who has a lot more experience as a protestant/evangelical than an Orthodox.

In general I would only consider religious organizations cults. Atheism is neither an organazation nor religious and humanism is, while aeguably organized, not religious.

If hiwever being a religious organization is not necessary to cult status then I would still need to know your prefered definition before I could be certain if it applies.

Oh I'm sorry I thpught your answer was

If this is not a workable definition one wonders why you gave it in the first place. If the above is not actually a definition you accept then please present the actual definition.

So basically what constitutes a cyly is largely a matter of opinion?

Thank you for your input. I feel that you have confirmed that religion is synonymous with cult. Unless of course you would like to expand upon the definition "any religion but mine".

Different beliefs about the nature of the eucharist. Homosexual marriage. If works is important to salvation. Whether textual criticism is mutilating scripture or not. Whether babbling in gibberish is a gift of the holy spirit or of the devil. How worship should be conducted. 

There are so many things that I couldn't make an exhaustive list.

You will forgive me but I was under the impression that cult and religion were synonyms. If that is not the case what precisely is the difference between a cult and a religion?

There is no "evangelical church" in the sense that you are implying.

Back when everyone understood there was one church, schism was seen as a very wicked thing. The thing that defines evangelical/protestant Christianity is that there are no end to its schisms.

If you want to make a topic, I will take part in it. However, I don't really see why I should be excluded from this one.

There are some mighty big irreconcilable differences between the protestant/evangelical churches. 

We're already there, he is a dictator and he loves nazis because that's how he rules. He doesn't have brains in his head so he's forced to behave like a dictator. This will all come out in the wash and folks like yourself who supported Trump will be the most humiliated folks on the planet. Actually, you probably already are.

And, that's because the vast majority of Americans are Christian, Rod? Lol.

You will never be able to support that claim for the simple reason that there are tens of thousands of denominations fighting each other over who has the best brand of Christianity, that is by far one the stupidest things about Christianity. You can't even agree with each other let alone anyone else.