1267 replies to this topic

[Timothy]

the end is here ... Lohan is out of rehab!

[TAP]

http://edition.cnn.c...is.a/index.html

[Mr. Roboto]

Why are ancient Gods considered mythology but the new ones considered legit? What makes something that isn't tangible and impossible to prove anymore legitimate than something thousands of years ago anyway?

[freedom78]

Why are ancient Gods considered mythology but the new ones considered legit? What makes something that isn't tangible and impossible to prove anymore legitimate than something thousands of years ago anyway?

It certainly doesn't jive with the "more is better" aspects of American culture. You'd think we'd want more gods.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[TAP]

Why are ancient Gods considered mythology but the new ones considered legit? What makes something that isn't tangible and impossible to prove anymore legitimate than something thousands of years ago anyway?

People believe what their families believe and political hierarchy and cultures dictate. You don't have to look further than Christmas so see that christianity has taken just about everything from earlier religions. Easter too - imagine a rebirth coinciding with the start of Spring, what a coincidence Very few people sit down, read through all the available religions and pick one that makes any sense.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in.
Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

[TAP]

I myself am not a spiritual man, but I laugh at athiest who delcare no possibility in some sort of higher power and then out of the same mouth, mock those who cling to a belief in one. Neither side is being objective in their declarations.

That's not really an accurate representation of what most atheists I've talked to or read think - even Dawkins for example doesn't discount the possibility of any higher power/supernatural being/deity/god or whatever. Believing something or not believing something are certainly not equal on the objectivity scale, not believing in fairies or alien abduction doesn't make me less objective than someone who does. What gets blurred in these kind of arguments is the logical leap from any possibility of a supernatural being to talking snakes/worldwide floods/pillars of salt/original sin/virgin birth/resurrection and 100s of other patently ridiculous things in the bible (or torah or koran) which are mockable

[PERM BANNED]

y

[TAP]

atheism by its very definition is a=without and theism=belief in god. While some atheists might also claim unequivocally that there is no higher power, that is not what the word means. Belief and knowledge are not the same. Most atheists don't however claim that, and if they do it's generally within the context of how someone has already defined higher power. You can always redefine god to skirt around nonsense but at some point in this process god becomes irrelevant to anything and the definition is meaningless. God doesn't help to explain any theory in science, including any origin theories - it make the theories more complicated and less understood.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[TAP]

Both my definition and yours are valid (they are sometimes called weak and strong atheism if we want to really get into semantics), my etymology is the correct one but the English language is fluid and changing. Also semantically, gnostic means knowledge so agnostic really means without knowledge and isn't necessarily mutually exclusive from atheism - in fact I would describe myself as both agnostic and atheist, I don't know but I don't believe either. Most people in reality are agnostic. Semantics aside, I get irritated when positions of atheists are misrepresented so they can be labelled as 'activist', 'dogmatic' or 'fundamentalist'. None of the high profile 'new atheists' take the position you describe as far as I am aware. Most take some variation of the position that 'is there a god/higher power?' is an unanswerable or even nonsensical question because they are generally coming from a scientific viewpoint and the scientific method doesn't address such questions. Yyou first have to define higher power and then give it some attributes, and the attributes are scientifically or logically examined. For example, omniscience and free will are logically incompatible so any definition of higher power which includes both (ex. the christian god) makes no sense. I don't quite understand your singularity/multiverse comment a few posts up but something like that would come closest to my 'higher power' also in Einstein's 'god doesn't play dice with the universe' kind of meaning. But I don't believe there is an consciousness (or design) involved in that, it's a metaphorical way to describe how the laws of nature/physics make our universe work.

[TAP]

[TAP]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12120430
UK and US scientists have found the remnants of a star that exploded more than 13 billion years ago



http://retrieverman....th-creationism/


A new Gallup poll, released Dec. 17, reveals that 40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. This number is slightly down from a previous high of 47 percent in 1993 and 1999.

Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process.

A mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of “secular evolution”: that humans have evolved with no divine guidance. However, this number has nearly doubled from nine percent of respondents in a poll from 1982.

The poll also revealed that beliefs in creationism and evolution are strongly related to levels of education attained. When results are narrowed to those with college degrees, only 37 percent of respondents maintain beliefs in creationism. Meanwhile, the belief in evolution without the aid of God rises to 21 percent.

With regards to political affiliation, a majority of Republicans (52 percent) subscribe to creationist beliefs. This is compared to only 34 percent among Democrats and Independents.

Views on human origins vary based on church attendance. Of those who attend church on a weekly basis, 60 percent believe in creationism while a mere 2 percent subscribe to “secular evolution”. These numbers are flipped among those who rarely or never attend religious services. In this group, only 24 percent believe in creationism while 39 percent believe in evolution without divine guidance. This represents the only subset of data reported where “secular evolution” beats out creationism.

[TAP]

The Pope comes out in support of Flagg
http://www.msnbc.msn...ce/from/toolbar

[TAP]

http://www.colbertna...-degrasse-tyson