Abbott thinks reading the Bible should be compulsory in schools (1 Viewer)

[Ethanescence]

Lol, and giants did, in the form of dinosaurs. Dispute they existed?

Are you implying that humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

This just keeps getting more interesting.

 

[0bs3n3]

Are you implying that humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

This just keeps getting more interesting.

I don't even know what passage he is referring to at the moment, so I'm not implying anything.

Secksi simply said that the Bible says giants (or dinosaurs) did once exist. Fact: Dinosaurs did once exist. I was making a general statement.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

you know there are a lot of important scientists who were clergymen, and it wasn't Copernicus who was persecuted, it was Galileo who faced criticism, Pope Clement VII was actually a strong supporter of Copernicus' theories.

if you're going to be a good atheist at least know your scientific history seeing how science is what you fundamentally base your beliefs on

Yes you're right, but galileo faced criticsm on his work, which was based on the copernicus thing.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Lol, and giants did, in the form of dinosaurs. Dispute they existed?

For historicity visit this: The Christ Files | thechristfiles.com.au

Can't be bothered writing it at the moment.

So it must've been humans who caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and plunged the earth into the ice age!

YOU sir, have opened my eyes!

 

[Ethanescence]

I don't even know what passage he is referring to at the moment, so I'm not implying anything.

Secksi simply said that the Bible says giants (or dinosaurs) did once exist. Fact: Dinosaurs did once exist. I was making a general statement.

There are around 19 direct mentions of giants within the KJV of the Bible.

You can find those passages here:
BibleGateway.com - KeywordSearch: giant

For one, I doubt that any of those passages listed are using "giants" as a synonym for "dinosaurs". Secondly, why did you dismiss your reference to dinosaurs as giants as a general statement as soon as I challenged it? If you weren't willing to back up your statement, or your statement had no relevance to the discussion, it seems you were just trying to dodge the issue altogether.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Secksi simply said that the Bible says giants (or dinosaurs) did once exist. Fact: Dinosaurs did once exist. I was making a general statement.

Giants as in david and goliath?

 

[philphie]

Yes you're right, but galileo faced criticsm on his work, which was based on the copernicus thing.

it's not a thing, it's heliocentricism. does atheism mean anything anymore? i really don't know how you could call yourself an atheist when you base your belief on scientific generalisations

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

it's not a thing, it's heliocentricism. does atheism mean anything anymore? i really don't know how you could call yourself an atheist when you base your belief on scientific generalisations

Alright, well you've attacked and undermined my point on copernicus. Well done! What about my other points? Giants? Bloody river? Sea suspended in mid air? "Sun standing still"? These are all mentioned in the bible, yet there are NO other reliable proof.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

i really don't know how you could call yourself an atheist when you base your belief on scientific generalisations

Lol, and I'm kinda bouncing back and forth between atheism and agnosticism now.

 

[0bs3n3]

There are around 19 direct mentions of giants within the KJV of the Bible.

You can find those passages here:
BibleGateway.com - Keyword�Search: giant

For one, I doubt that any of those passages listed are using "giants" as a synonym for "dinosaurs". Secondly, why did you dismiss your reference to dinosaurs as giants as a general statement as soon as I challenged it? If you weren't willing to back up your statement, or your statement had no relevance to the discussion, it seems you were just trying to dodge the issue altogether.

Nice Google searching skills.

I didn't dismiss it, it WAS a general statement :/

And no I wasn't trying to dodge the issue. I wanted Secksi to reference the passage he was talking about so I could continue.

 

[Ethanescence]

it's not a thing, it's heliocentricism. does atheism mean anything anymore? i really don't know how you could call yourself an atheist when you base your belief on scientific generalisations

I thought I addressed this in my earlier post.

Atheism does not equate to scientific understanding.

Babies are born with a lack of belief in gods/deities and remain that way unless they are indoctrinated or choose to become involved in religion or spirituality at a later age. Therefore atheism (or more accurately, agnostic atheism) is a default position.

Though, within many cultures the trend is towards early childhood religious indoctrination, which means children become involved in religion before they can fully comprehend it. Sometimes children are also dissuaded from questioning their religious beliefs, which can lead them to blindly accept the dogma of their parents or the church.

Therefore this means most atheists are those who have questioned their religion, most commonly spurred by an inability to reconcile scientific understanding with delusional religious beliefs. And yes, usually these individuals have an above-average grasp of scientific concepts.

This does not account for all atheists, however.

 

[philphie]

Alright, well you've attacked and undermined my point on copernicus. Well done! What about my other points? Giants? Bloody river? Sea suspended in mid air? "Sun standing still"? These are all mentioned in the bible, yet there are NO other reliable proof.

i'm not a christian so i'm not here to defend the accuracy of the bible, and anyway all the things you REPEATINGLY mention are in the old testament and most normal christians understand that as allegory and fable.

Lol, and I'm kinda bouncing back and forth between atheism and agnosticism now.

well i'm agnostic and if you're thinking of converting at least make it an informed decision, or better yet just put youself in 'no belief', no belief is actually not atheism.

 

[philphie]

I thought I addressed this in my earlier post.

Atheism does not equate to scientific understanding.

Babies are born with a lack of belief in gods/deities and remain that way unless they are indoctrinated or choose to become involved in religion or spirituality at a later age. Therefore atheism (or more accurately, agnostic atheism) is a default position.

Though, within many cultures the trend is towards early childhood religious indoctrination, which means children become involved in religion before they can fully comprehend it. Sometimes children are also dissuaded from questioning their religious beliefs, which can lead them to blindly accept the dogma of their parents of the church.

Therefore this means most atheists are those who have questioned their religion, most commonly spurred by an inability to reconcile scientific understanding with delusional religious beliefs. And usually these individuals have an above-average grasp of scientific concepts.

This does not account for all atheists, however.

actually what you call agnostic atheism is what i understand it as simply classified as 'no belief'.

and you're correct that not all athiests have an above average grasp of scientific concepts, most of them actually belong in 'no belief' but atheism has become some sort of fad as recent.

i remain a dedicated moderate agnostic

 

[0bs3n3]

i'm not a christian so i'm not here to defend the accuracy of the bible, and anyway all the things you REPEATINGLY mention are in the old testament and most normal christians understand that as allegory and fable.

I thought I said that like two minutes ago, lol. But whatever.

 

[philphie]

I thought I said that like two minutes ago, lol. But whatever.

yeah but i think he'll only accept that if it was coming from a nonchristian

 

[Ethanescence]

actually what you call agnostic atheism is what i understand it as simply classified as 'no belief'.

and you're correct that not all athiests have an above average grasp of scientific concepts, most of them actually belong in 'no belief' but atheism has become some sort of fad as recent.

i remain a dedicated moderate agnostic

"No belief" or "non-belief" is an incorrect term in most cases as it does not specify what the lack of belief is in reference to, which could lead to confusion. Atheism is specific towards a lack of belief in gods/deities, and therefore is more appropriate.

And I don't see why atheism is a "fad".

Personally, I feel agnosticism would be more appropriately described as a fad, rather than atheism. Even though I am agnostic atheist, people tend to misapply the term "agnosticism" and use it to disguise their own subtle leans towards theism.

An agnostic was originally defined as someone who denies claims to ultimate knowledge (e.g. they would deny someone's claims if they claimed "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" as that employs absolutes and implies that the speaker knows that god does/doesn't exist - even though that is impossible).

Thus agnosticism as a position on knowledge is compatible with atheism or theism, which are positions on belief.

However, many people now seem to apply agnosticism to describe how they are "unsure" on issues of religion or spirituality, or to proclaim that "we can't know for sure if god exists or doesn't exist, so I am agnostic".

There is no problem with the above. Definitions change, words take on new meanings. But I feel it is a fad when people only describe themselves as "agnostic" without even attempting to describe their viewpoint on either atheism/theism. Or even being pretentious enough to criticise both theists and atheists.

Really, why is it that gods/deities seem to be the only concept that affords the prestige of having people say "I don't believe, but I don't lack belief either - I am agnostic". Why aren't people "agnostic" about unicorns, or ghosts?

Note: philphie, this isn't directed at you, but more towards some other agnostics I have encountered in my life.

 

[philphie]

Really, why is it that gods/deities seem to be the only concept that affords the prestige of having people say "I don't believe, but I don't lack belief either - I am agnostic". Why aren't people "agnostic" about unicorns, or ghosts?

Note: philphie, this isn't directed at you, but more towards some other agnostics I have encountered in my life.

well i'll say this, humanist beliefs in general are subject to changing interpretations as you pointed out and i suppose this is appropriate just like with any other religion, dogma does gradually change.

and haha i guess why people never apply their ambiguity to things like unicorns or ghosts because let's face it, unicrons have nothing on God.

i sometimes believe in ghosts when i am at my most irrational and particularly in situations where i think i 've had 'encounters', haha

 

[Will Shakespear]

Well, I don't think I would be wrong to say that atheism is a belief. And

yeah you would

it's like saying non-stamp-collecting is a hobby

 

[jellybelly59]

hrmmm... abbott lost my vote.

I don't understand simply how it's going to be a critical study of text. Given that such a large proportion of australian teachers are christian it's impossible to say that some won't teach it based on influences on the structure of western society etc. etc. but rather as a text of moral instruction, values and religion.

Also, how is it not swaying younger minds to christianity - access becomes a critical issue. Amount of bibles on access vs amount of other religious texts available for access.

I might be wrong on what i'm saying but that is simply still how i feel despite reading 11 pages of this thread LOL.

 

[0bs3n3]

Really, why is it that gods/deities seem to be the only concept that affords the prestige of having people say "I don't believe, but I don't lack belief either - I am agnostic". Why aren't people "agnostic" about unicorns, or ghosts?

Because people aren't ignorant tards like you. Obviously the idea of God carries a bit more weight and significance than the idea of unicorns. If unicorn do exist, how does that change your life? God has universal relevance, I'm afraid.