Not true, there are many religions which don't believe in God or a god.The only requirement of a religion is a set of beliefs, it is not necessary to believe in a supreme deity.
No they are the same thing man has created god in his mind to help keep him from going crazy asking Why they exist, how they got there in the first place and what happens when they die.Saying oh some super being thing made us and when we die we get to go hang with him was a simple solution especially in times when magic was believed and not much about the world/universe was known.And as it turned out also a great opportunity to get people do things you want them to.Brilliant scheme really.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
To say that Core beliefs have remained the same while their method's have changed is abit .....hypocritical, at BEST. If I said "Religions have changed to reflect more relevant times", what exactly does that sound like to you?Buddhism in Japan is a good example. Given the choice between being slaughtered or acknowledging the native Shinto religion as paramount, the monks were quick to agree to certain concessions(various Bodhsativas and the like). Out of this sprang Zen Buddhism which is somewhat closer to Orthodox Buddhism, but on a much more personal and individual basis.What was the point of all this discussion? To remain ALIVE the Church will sacrifice anything for its continued survival, INCLUDING that of what you would call its 'Core Beliefs'. If half the world decided(and probably will one day) to reject the Trinity of the Godhead, does that mean its no-longer a 'core belief'? What about all the ideas and ideals that surround this doctrine? Baptising your children is to stop them from going to hell, but quite alot of Churches do not practise batptising. Does that mean Baptising is not a core belief? Wasnt Jesus an advocate of baptisment(Yeah yeah, baptise in fire and spirit blah blah)There are no more European religious wars because Atheists ultimately won. Apathy kills religion faster than Chuck Norris and one hundred ninjas.
If thats true, why am I still as strong a believer in God as I was at the start?And don't say its because I'm an IHC candidate.
The reason i am attacking christianity in this thread is that christianity has the worst track record when it comes to science - Galileo anyone - Stem cell research......
There are none so blind as those who will not see (is that a bible quote?)
not usually to block them, but to be heard, to get fair time, to share some of the spotlight WITH science, not instead of science.
To have christian views taught along side science ...
... is fair in America, since the majority of the population subscribe to the Christian viewpoint.The only reason science wouldn't want to make room for the teaching you're against is because they are scared of being proven wrong. And aside from that, we're talking about adopting Intelligent Design, not Creationism - I believe (and have always believed) that Intelligent Design leaves enough room to accomodate much of the scientific knowledge mankind has uncovered (ie evolution, in one form or another, and dinosaurs, etc etc).
I dont care if people are taught it - i do care if they are taught it in science classesYou cant say "The only reason science wouldn't want to make room for the teaching you're against is because they are scared of being proven wrong"one. scientists wouldn't want people taught that electricity is gremlins running along wires - that isn't because it might shake up science - it is because it would be a waste of timetwo. You are projecting the christian view point on to science - Scientists are not scared of being proved wrong - All science is about trying to prove the old view point wrong - but i think the key is scientists need proof - not a gut feeling Intelligent Design does not leave room for evolutionCreationism is accepting more reality into its view point - i am finding people that ignore the bibles description and say that god made the big bang then left us alone - all they need to do is remove god and they are onto a winner
someones such a good christian they even censor their rep "you are so full of s**t killer"
I dont care if people are taught it - i do care if they are taught it in science classes
Wasn't me. I thought your comic was funny
Out of curiosity, where would you teach it then? Its a scientific theory, rivalling the mainstream theory of earths creation. Science seems like the logical, if not blatantly punch-you-on-the-nose obvious, place to teach it.What bothers you so much about students being taught, in a scientific way, that its also a commonly accepted theory that God may have created the earth?
It saddens me that you are so intolerant of others' beliefs. If you took a step back, you would see that the opinion you are promoting, and particularly the way you are promoting it, is as extreme as the "fundies" who want everyone to sign up to their churches and adopt their exact viewpoints. Also, saying that teaching I.D. in science classes makes you ill is a little over-dramatic, don't you think?It is one thing for you to not believe in God, thats your choice and best of luck to you. But the fact of the matter is that you are among the minority, since (as stated) 5/6ths of the population of earth believe in a "God" or "higher power" in one form or another.
IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Would you accept that if creationism should be taught in science classes then evolution should be taught at churches?
Science is not anti religion - but it is pro rational thought, evidence and free thinking - and religion is anti these things
how does being in a minority matter? that does not strengthen your augment, as the minority is not always wrong
But the odds are stacked heavily against you being right that there is no God.
One at a time! One at a time!If Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, then neither can the Big Bang or Evolution be considered scientific theories. The proof for those things is as scarce as the proof of God, if not scarcer.
this shows great ignoranceThere is evidence for both evolution and the big bangand how do you get scarcer then none?
There is evidence for all three. But it is all debatable. Otherwise we would be posting in other forums.
If Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, then neither can the Big Bang or Evolution be considered scientific theories. The proof for those things is as scarce as the proof of God, if not scarcer.
