Atheism, Religion, and Crime

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I concede on the definition of science issue.

I do think ID is a pseudoscience. The philosphy of Divine Providence has never been applied to the Theory of Evolution. I doubt we will do so untill a while after the problems have been worked out in the theory. Otherwise we can be accused of pulling a “God of the gaps”
 
Half the book was just an attack on Hitchens and Dawkins (two men I have never read books by, but I recognize an agenda when I read it).
Click to expand...
No the whole book was. It was a book to get atheists to reject “New Atheism”. That was the purpose of the book. Did you think it was trying to refute atheism? The “irrational atheist” is a reference to those three. Honestly it is my opinion that theists and atheists have a common enemy. “New Atheism” embarrasses atheism in my opinion.
 
When we’re talking about the origin of creation, really nothing can be proven as solid fact because they both happened so long ago. That’s why evolution and intelligent design are called theories…

Like I said before hand, public schools teach evolution and not intelligent design. I don’t think this is going to change.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Religion is excluded in the sense that “god did it” is not an answer, the question would be how did go do it?

Religion does not seek truth because you start with the conlusion “god did it”. When seeking truth one should start with the evidence, not a conclusion.
Click to expand...
With God, we can understand that their is intelligence for the universe, thus we can expand on knowledge from this precept, I do not personally agree with ‘God did it’ the god of the gaps, whilst the conclusion and formation is that God is responsible for such, this does not mean to understand how gravity functions that we must rule out all mechanisms within our world.

The question would be how does it work? This is what Science aims to seek, functions, workings of material constructions, a knowledge based practice which is capable of predicting outcomes.

This may seem somewhat sort of a contradiction to above, whilst God is a conclusion overall for everything, this does not mean God is the conclusion to the specific experiment, we just start with the premise that there is intelligence, let us figure how it works.

God Bless.

Chris.
 
Matthias123 said:
No the whole book was. It was a book to get atheists to reject “New Atheism”. That was the purpose of the book. Did you think it was trying to refute atheism? The “irrational atheist” is a reference to those three. Honestly it is my opinion that theists and atheists have a common enemy. “New Atheism” embarrasses atheism in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well… I’m not sure what you mean by “New atheism”… I do feel there is a general “anti-religion” stint going on, which I personally think is a bit repulsive. Just keep in mind that the loudest people in any group are typically in the vast minority and the most outrageous and demanding.
 
liquidpele said:
Just keep in mind that the loudest people in any group are typically in the vast minority and the most outrageous and demanding.
Click to expand...
They tend to be the ones at each others’ throats, too.

It’s too bad I get along so very well with loud people.
 
Science doesn’t really do anythign other then observe HOW something happens. Then using that for Human interests. ex. We Observed how Bouiancy makes things float. Thus we can design ships better.

Religion (Especially Judeo-Christianity, with Genesis and all) explain WHY everything came to being, WHY everything is the way it is.

The proof that God exists is all around us, he gave things order.

How did DNA, a programmed Code of Chemicals, come in being, Obviously there was a Programmer, to program DNA. Leaving it to chance is to absurd.

Why does the Universe even have an ORDER to it? Many scientist are baffled as to why the Universe has a law. Like laws of Physics. Why is there Gravity? Why do objects resist each other, such as a ball bouncing off a wall. Why doesn’t it go straight through it?

Law does not come into being by itself.

Explain the Human Eye and Brain.

Darwin (The scientist) said himself every time he looks at the EYE it makes him shudder, because the Eye is somethign to advanced to be created by chance.
As is the Brain.

Evolution is Trial and error by chance, yet G-d created everythign Perfectly on the first try.

A question for Athiests here, Why “WOULDN’T” you want to believe in G-d? Why wouldn’t you want G-d? what do you have to gain by refusing to acknowledge our heavenly father, whose image you are made in?
 
liquidpele said:
Well… I’m not sure what you mean by “New atheism”… I do feel there is a general “anti-religion” stint going on, which I personally think is a bit repulsive. Just keep in mind that the loudest people in any group are typically in the vast minority and the most outrageous and demanding.
Click to expand...
“New Atheism” is a modern fad which is the product of people like Dawkins and Hitchens, who rather then produce good arguments; they attack people personally, and mock their beliefs. They appeal to rebellious teenagers and immature adults. Numerous atheists have come out and said Dawkins was an embracement.

They are the enemy of theists because they are atheistic and intolerant.

They are the enemy of atheists because their arguments are weak, and they are intolerant and go around mocking people, which creates a negative stereotype.
 
Matthias123 said:
“New Atheism” is a modern fad which is the product of people like Dawkins and Hitchens, who rather then produce good arguments; they attack people personally, and mock their beliefs. They appeal to rebellious teenagers and immature adults. Numerous atheists have come out and said Dawkins was an embracement.

They are the enemy of theists because they are atheistic and intolerant.

They are the enemy of atheists because their arguments are weak, and they are intolerant and go around mocking people, which creates a negative stereotype.
Click to expand...
That’s true of Hitchens (lets face it, the guy can be a huge ******* at times), but not Dawkins from what I’m aware. Dawkins in my opinion is usually very open to discussion, and while he might attack religion itself, I don’t think I’ve seen him attack anyone personally that he was debating. The thing they both have in common is their condemnation of religion in general, which is why I said “anti-religion” in describing the general fad I’ve seen. I have nothing against religion, but I do have a lot against it’s extremes, it’s ability to sometimes attempt to refute reality itself, and a lot of the political agendas that are adopted under it’s flag… and lets face it, a lot of religious people feel the same way about other religion or even sections of their own.

Edit: hehe, it replaced my word with stars… I guess I should have expected that.
 
I have nothing against religion, but I do have a lot against it’s extremes, it’s ability to sometimes attempt to refute reality itself, and a lot of the political agendas that are adopted under it’s flag… and lets face it, a lot of religious people feel the same way about other religion or even sections of their own.
Click to expand...
You speak the truth my friend. This is the way it is outside of religion too. I am sure even the scientific community needs to deal with this phenomenon.
 
Matthias123 said:
You speak the truth my friend. This is the way it is outside of religion too. I am sure even the scientific community needs to deal with this phenomenon.
Click to expand...
A good point… however I think religion is specifically prone to it because of it’s nature.
 
Listen, If someone refuses to acknowledge something, then no evidence will convince them, because they already made the decision.

If someone denies the Holocaust, then no proof will bring them to acknowledge otherwise, unless they allow themselves to be moved.

For all Athiests out there, why not, with a sincere serious hear ask and pray “G-d, if your out there let me know the Truth. Show me, teach me.”

With all Seriousness, allow yourselves to moved. WANT, to believe.
Were only going in circles anyway, lets make progress.
 
Angel7 said:
Listen, If someone refuses to acknowledge something, then no evidence will convince them, because they already made the decision.

If someone denies the Holocaust, then no proof will bring them to acknowledge otherwise, unless they allow themselves to be moved.

For all Athiests out there, why not, with a sincere serious hear ask and pray “G-d, if your out there let me know the Truth. Show me, teach me.”

With all Seriousness, allow yourselves to moved. WANT, to believe.
Were only going in circles anyway, lets make progress.
Click to expand...
I posted this in another thread but it just works so well here.
Have you every wondered why people believe in the existence of God before reasoning through it philosophically? Have you ever encountered a convert that found God through philosophical reasoning?
Click to expand...
The atheist assumes that the theist is just being irrational. He does not even think to ponder whether some element of mysticism may be involved.
Click to expand...
The fact is that people cannot know God through philosophy. You can establish His existence, but you will never see him.
Click to expand...
A perfect example of this is Aristotle. Aristotle by means of philosophy reasoning climbed to the position of monotheist theism – but he never knew God. He didn’t know who He was, he didn’t know if He was active in history or not. He never knew Him, but he new he existed.
Click to expand...
The Christian knows God, not by philosophical argument, but by honestly seeking him with a pure heart.
Click to expand...
Hitchens once demanded that “the 87.5% of Americans that believe in God give proof for his existence” (Letter to a Christian nation). He assumed that they had no bases for a belief in God because to him any element of mysticism was equivalent to fairy dust and flying elephants.
Click to expand...
To the Christian philosophical reasoning is secondary – we already know him.
Click to expand...
The truth is that Christians know God exists because they can see Him. The Atheist and agnostic does not see him and that is why they need to explain his existence philosophically. Of course mysticism is madness to them, just as Christ crucified was madness to the Romans, and Christ risen from the dead was madness to the Greeks.
Click to expand...
In all honesty the root problem of every non-believer throughout history is the same: “They do not wish to seek God with a pure heart:”. They do not respond to His call. When they hear His subtle voice calling them to seek Him, and calling them to thirst for Truth and goodness they flee, and call it something else. For these people no amount of philosophical reasoning in the world will help them. Even if they are Anthony Flew and become a theist, unless they seek Him with a pure heart they will never know Him.
Click to expand...
If you want some evidence, how about the testimony of a convert. Ask them if they knew God through philosophical reasoning. I tell you that every convert has converted not through philosophical argument but from a call from God.
Click to expand...
 
Charlemagne_II said:
In these forums there have been endless discussions of historical atrocities committed by established religions (Crusades and Inquisitions) and atheist governments (Stalin, Hitler, Mao).

I’d hope to stay clear of these issues and focus in particular on whether a society’s moral values are better off with or without religion. More specifically, how does that issue get factored into the current prison populations?
Click to expand...
The best countrys in the world are muslim for expamle (taliban,Iran,Hamas)
The worst countrys in the world are atheist for explamle (north korea,china,the U.K.)
 
Matthias123 said:
“New Atheism” is a modern fad which is the product of people like Dawkins and Hitchens, who rather then produce good arguments; they attack people personally, and mock their beliefs. They appeal to rebellious teenagers and immature adults. Numerous atheists have come out and said Dawkins was an embracement.

They are the enemy of theists because they are atheistic and intolerant.

They are the enemy of atheists because their arguments are weak, and they are intolerant and go around mocking people, which creates a negative stereotype.
Click to expand...
What is (new atheism)???
 
Dameedna said:
Okay I answered the 1st part of your question, but forgot the 2nd. I’ll try and share my thoughts on that now.

The prison population is an interesting one. We can do statistics on it, and see a LOT of religious people in prison. What I dont’ see as often, is the statistics on how many convert to religious faith, while in prison. It can skew the data to make it appears as though religious people ARE criminals, when in fact that may not be the case. All in all, I’m not sure.

However, in case of the types of people who end up in prison, I would say a resounding Yes, that religion helps. I almost can’t believe I’m saying it, after so many years as a militant athiest, but I’ve really looked into this matter as hard as it was, and I think religion helps.

Why? I’ll answer that if you want, but I’ve been verbose enough so far(bad habit of mine sorry), so let me know if you are interested in my reasons.

Otherwise, just add me to the yes crowd 🙂
Click to expand...
you live austiala there are lots of innsont people in prison there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top