06 May 15
Originally posted by DasaEh, i have a BA Honours Degree in Theology and spent half my life exploring religion and philosophy. Does that make me a lazy atheist, someone who has done zero to understand true knowledge?
There is nothing rational about this position.
It is not the rational position but instead the lazy ignorant mans position.
Referring to the man who is ignorant because he is too insincere and lazy to to do what is necessary to enlighten himself about the true nature of God and Self.
He is "soooo" insincere and lazy he cannot be bothered to apply true ...[text shortened]... urd notion that everything has come about by a random accidental big-bluff ( sorry I mean bang.)
The truth is, your own position is the lazy one; the ignorant one. Far easier to dismiss atheists with such an argument then to contemplate that they have arrived at their position after considerable reasoning and soul searching. (I use the word 'soul' purely in the figurative sense).
To lump all atheists together in such a generalized understanding is laughable, as is your understanding of the 'randomness' of the big bang.
Turnip.
06 May 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeBut have you studies the Vedic writings and their interpretations? If so, then tell us some of what is wrong so that Dasa can defend it.
Eh, i have a BA Honours Degree in Theology and spent half my life exploring religion and philosophy. Does that make me a lazy atheist, someone who has done zero to understand true knowledge?
The truth is, your own position is the lazy one; the ignorant one. Far easier to dismiss atheists with such an argument then to contemplate that they have arr ...[text shortened]... rstanding is laughable, as is your understanding of the 'randomness' of the big bang.
Turnip.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsDeist
I believe that truth is found in the Holy Bible and you believe it is in the Vedic writings and the atheist and agnotic do not accept absolute truth, but believe it changes as man's knowledge increases.
Theist
Polytheist
...
These are positions of beliefs. You are a theist with regards to christ.
Atheist
This means you reject belief claims. You are an atheist with regards to Thor.
Agnostic
To say you're an agnostic is to say you don't think it's possible to know anything about the supernatural, but you may still believe something about its existence. Agnostic theism is quite possible.
Whether or not some absolute truth exists is a different topic entirely, and being agnostic about it doesn't necessarily mean you're in the undecided middle ground.
So these labels say next to nothing about a persons point of view without the context in which they're used. This is one of the points made in the OP video.
If I tell you I'm an agnostic atheist, you don't really know what I'm an agnostic atheist about, allthough (given our shared cultural context) it's not unreasonable to assume that I'm agnostic with regards to christianity. But you'd be wrong. When it comes to the god of the bible I'm not an agnostic atheist, just an atheist. I'm only an agnostic about the possibility of some undefined kind of supernatural reality.
06 May 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid you read my post? It doesn't look like it given your response.
Except African football players who cannot but help give glory to God by pointing at the sky every goal that they score and who cross themselves upon entering the field of play and leaving it 😀
Originally posted by RJHindsAll 'religious' writings, no matter how interesting or well written (and yes i have studied the Vedas) are still something written by man, nothing more. As an atheist, what else would you expect me to say?
But have you studies the Vedic writings and their interpretations? If so, then tell us some of what is wrong so that Dasa can defend it.
06 May 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI would like to hear your thoughts or anyone else for that matter than can explain what they think has been the catalyst for the quite serious demise in the influence of religious teaching in not only communities but individuals throughout northern Europe.
All 'religious' writings, no matter how interesting or well written (and yes i have studied the Vedas) are still something written by man, nothing more. As an atheist, what else would you expect me to say?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 May 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe enlightenment.
I would like to hear your thoughts or anyone else for that matter than can explain what they think has been the catalyst for the quite serious demise in the influence of religious teaching in not only communities but individuals throughout northern Europe.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI put it down to a combination of education and the particular brand of religion they had. I think education reduces religiosity significantly and has done so everywhere.
I would like to hear your thoughts or anyone else for that matter than can explain what they think has been the catalyst for the quite serious demise in the influence of religious teaching in not only communities but individuals throughout northern Europe.
I also think that religions that have become more cultural and political than religious are more susceptible to the losses due to education. A significant proportion of people that went to Church in the UK 50 years ago, did so for purely cultural reasons. That their children didn't follow in their footsteps is more a cultural change than a religious one.
Christianity was in Europe so long that it ceased to need evangelism (at least the more established denominations) and thus it relied heavily on people being brought up in the religion.
The US denominations have much stronger evangelistic tendencies and so have managed to survive a bit better. However, I predict that as education in the US improves, religiosity will decline.
Its quite interesting that in this forum the atheists are almost all educated in the sciences in stark contrast to most of the theists who are not. I am sure there are theists that are educated in the sciences, but one wonders why very few such participate in this forum. Does a science education change how evangelical you are?
06 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo i don't think that was enough after all there were many religious people willing to take up science for the sake of understanding their religion better, like Newton who sought in his science to get an insight into the workings of the creator. Historically also even after the so called enlightenment people were quite religious. It seems to have been a modern phenomena, I would say at the beginning of the 20th century.
The enlightenment.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is demonstrably false. There are literally hundreds perhaps even thousands of well educated theists. There are also not a few very well educated persons who were originally atheistic and who later upon reflection abandoned it and became religious. No i don't think levels of education has anything to do with it, or not significantly so. I am much more inclined to agree that its a cultural phenomena though.
I put it down to a combination of education and the particular brand of religion they had. I think education reduces religiosity significantly and has done so everywhere.
I also think that religions that have become more cultural and political than religious are more susceptible to the losses due to education. A significant proportion of people that went ...[text shortened]... ery few such participate in this forum. Does a science education change how evangelical you are?