I think I understand now...

[civ_king]

You mean Believers have a proof for a subjective human construct? I gotta call BS on that.

most atheists I've met say beauty exists, but have no proof for it.

Do we have to go through another round of Catholic bigotry? Can't we just agree that people have different ideas about what Christianity means?

"their" own holy book disagrees with them

 

[Puck Nutty]

most atheists I've met say beauty exists, but have no proof for it.

Could you direct me to a "proof" of beauty? I'm genuinely curious to read up on that.

As I said, I'm pretty sure you can't prove something that has no definitive parameters or conditions. I still call BS.

 

[NovaKart]

OK Torquemada, if you can honestly swallow that then have at it.

Forget about a huge ambiguous book like that having different interpretations.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

most atheists I've met say beauty exists, but have no proof for it.

Neither do any Christians, they have their own subjective feelings (which most people admit to) about what is beautiful, but there is no definition of beauty.

 

[kiwitt]

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a good site to come to the conclusion not to take everything in the Bible for granted as many verses are contradicted in others. The site also includes Christian responses so is definitively worth a read

I see the Bible as simply an ancient textbook for a time when there was no or hardly any laws. With the introduction of governments, those days are long gone. The only messages I can take from the Bible (and also many other religious works) are;

Message 1) Love each other
Message 2) Do unto others as you would have then do unto you

Message 1), is why I go to church with my wife
Message 2), is one of my core principles in life

Everything else is simply bumpkin and should be ignored.

 

[Flying Pig]

Message 1) Love each other
Message 2) Do unto others as you would have then do unto you

That's pretty much what Jesus himself said. he wasn't of the belief that you need a huge body of litigation in order to know how to live your life - if you know who God is, and live in a way that you think will make him proud of you, then you're probably doing it right. Unfortunately the Catholic church doesn't seem to have remembered this lesson.

 

[Cashie]

What bugs me about people like Dawkins and Christian fundamentalists is the absolutism.

Evolution and Creationism do not, necessarily, negate each other. The theory of natural selection lacks a point of origin. And creationism lacks everything else. I don't think evolution can be denied - the best argument I can think of, though, is unnatural selection: selective breeding. Compare a St. Berndard and a Pekingese, both are domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), bred from wolves, but barely resemble each other.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

What bugs me about people like Dawkins and Christian fundamentalists is the absolutism.

Evolution and Creationism do not, necessarily, negate each other. The theory of natural selection lacks a point of origin. And creationism lacks everything else. I don't think evolution can be denied - the best argument I can think of, though, is unnatural selection: selective breeding. Compare a St. Berndard and a Pekingese, both are domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), bred from wolves, but barely resemble each other.

Actually evolution does negate creationism. Creationism's basic arguement is that God created us as we are now and that we will never change. Evolution shows us how species can change, the reasons for those changes, and the mechanisms for such change, and as a byproduct totally dismisses any validity within creationism, and actually shows us that a creator being is not neccessary. I think that last part is why creationism is so relevant to religious fundamentalism, as they realise what damage it does to their causes.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I knew someone who believed that God actually created the evolution and pushed it along at some points. Im not sure what to think of that.

 

[kiwitt]

That's pretty much what Jesus himself said.

And many others before and after him as well; e.g. Buddha, Mohammad, etc.

If you accept Jesus as just a "man" and not God (as some would have us believe) who simply had a good message to spread, there should be nothing wrong with that. His message was one of "Love" ...

 

[Bill3000]

I'd like atheists to prove beauty

Link to video.

proven
well okay it's obviously inherently religious but god doesn't need to exist for it to be the best piece of music composed!

 

[civ_king]

My point is it appears impossible to scientifically measure beauty

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a good site to come to the conclusion not to take everything in the Bible for granted as many verses are contradicted in others. The site also includes Christian responses so is definitively worth a read

I see the Bible as simply an ancient textbook for a time when there was no or hardly any laws. With the introduction of governments, those days are long gone. The only messages I can take from the Bible (and also many other religious works) are;

Message 1) Love each other
Message 2) Do unto others as you would have then do unto you

Message 1), is why I go to church with my wife
Message 2), is one of my core principles in life

Everything else is simply bumpkin and should be ignored.

I like how all the NT stuff appears to be answered by the text around the quotes

That's pretty much what Jesus himself said. he wasn't of the belief that you need a huge body of litigation in order to know how to live your life - if you know who God is, and live in a way that you think will make him proud of you, then you're probably doing it right. Unfortunately the Catholic church doesn't seem to have remembered this lesson.

Apparently the Apostles didn't either

 

[Bill3000]

My point is it appears impossible to scientifically measure beauty

What on earth does that have anything to do with atheism? Atheism isn't the same thing as logical positivism.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

My point is it appears impossible to scientifically measure beauty

Yeah, you can't quantatatively measure subjective things.

Are you saying that god is subjective?

 

[kiwitt]

I like how all the NT stuff appears to be answered by the text around the quotes

You'll need to clarify this statement for me.

As to my principle (read this)

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, an ethical code, or a morality, that essentially states either of the following:

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)
2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule)

The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others. A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group. The Golden Rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts.

The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms). As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s). The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.

Examples of statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in Ancient Egypt, for example in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."Rushworth Kidder states that "the label 'golden' was applied by Confucius (551–479 B.C.), who wrote, 'Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us.'" Kidder notes that this framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions".

and is part of all these belief systems;

Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Mohism, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca

So it is certainly not unique to Christianity

 

[bathsheba666]

How do you "accidentally" rape a cow?

Well, it's hard to tell them apart....

You think you have one convinced, and come back with the drinks, but meanwhile they swapped places with another one, and you just got straight down to it without verifying.

Easily done...

 

[El_Machinae]

Meh, "beauty" is merely a neurological process similar to "tasty" or "looks nice", but is just more loosely defined. Science can figure out what's 'tasty' and what 'looks nice'.


My "problem" with Christianity is that it doesn't have a system to update itself. How many Christians think Moses and Noah were real? Where's the system to re-educate the flock on that? How many Christians know which NT books aren't verified? And why are they still saying that you need a God to have morality?

People spend hours and hours and hours in church. You'd think there'd be some advancement as time goes on. In Social Studies, we learn the names of the new government leaders and the new social policies. The kids learning SS learn a different set of facts than what was taught 20 years ago. But in Christianity, we still have people thinking Noah was real. WTH?

 

[dwaxe]

I like how all the NT stuff appears to be answered by the text around the quotes

The gospel of Matthew begins with a boring genealogy like that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim.1:4 ("Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies") and Tit.3:9 ("Avoid foolish questions and genealogies").

First book, first note of the New Testament. A petty literary oversight perhaps, but hardly one worthy of a divine author.

 

[civ_king]

First book, first note of the New Testament. A petty literary oversight perhaps, but hardly one worthy of a divine author.

1 Tim. 1 is directed at a different audience and Tit. 3 is misquoted

 

[Brighteye]

This is what I mean by picking your battles. There are certainly times when one must stand his ground, but to actively invest energy in "converting" others is not the way to go, in my opinion.
If an Evangelical Christian offers me a pamphlet, should i take the time to try and convince them that there is no God, or should I simply say "No, thanks" and move on?

Has Dawkins ever given someone a pamphlet? He's very willing to offer his opinion, and he makes a good case for suggesting that religion is an insidious influence that clouds people's thought even outside of things that are specifically decreed by doctrine, but he hasn't actually got round to approaching uninterested parties about it. If he seems pervasive to you that's because of the interest in him of people who write stories and invite speakers, not because he is chasing you.

most atheists I've met say beauty exists, but have no proof for it.

"their" own holy book disagrees with them

Most religious people say that the sky is above us, but can show me nothing holding it up.
Don't throw meaningless sentences around.