Atheism in the USVI

In spite of what certain extremists would have us believe, Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive points of view.

Hmmm. It is illogical to suggest that one could simultaneously hold a rational and irrational perspective on, for example, the existence of god, wherein the irrational would not conflict with the rational. You have to chose: either all meaningful ideas are accessible to thorough rational examination, or you suspend reason. The former presents a challenge to religious thinkers to explain how irrational ideas can hold meaningful cognitive content, which may be why the latter is common practice.

Rotor... everybody sells something. If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it. But don't run somebody down because they do something other people want done. Most clergy are people you'd want as neighbors. Are there some who are idiots? The scientific method suggests yes..

You could use this argument to justify child pornography as well. What does this have to do with the scientific method?

Neil, see the italic statement in your quote above? The scientific method suggests yes. That's what I was asking had to do with the scientific method. You make a statement about buying and selling and clergy and idiots then state that the scientific method suggests yes. That statement is what I was questioning. Do you understand???

The scientific method has to do with how scientists build their model of the natural world. I included a flowchart for you. The scientific method precludes the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be proven to exist through scientific means.

If you know of any great scientists who are religious please tell me who? I know that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists or agnostics and 97% of the members of the Royal Academy are atheists or agnostics. Who are the many great scientists who are religious?

It's pretty obvious you have a large chip on your shoulder not only about religion, but about religious people. I'm sorry you do, and I can only guess why. Whether you believe in God or not, everyone has a belief system. Would that everyone could at believe in openness, tolerance and respect.

I disagree with your point of view so I must have a chip on my shoulder. The reason that I am outspoken on this issue is that I grew up in a fundamentalist baptist home. I never understood how my parents could believe something that is so far fetched. I still don't, I think that it is delusional. My parents are in their 80's and still expect to be raptured before they die. Delusional!

From Albert Einstein's Obituary.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."

Those crazy religionists are at it again!

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/03/turkey.religion.gameshow/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/india.pig.religious.riot/index.html

well, rotorhead, there's yer problem! The scientific method has to do with how scientists build their model of the natural world. I included a flowchart for you. The scientific method precludes the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be proven to exist through scientific means. That is like saying, "Only those things that can be seen by the naked eye exist. Infrared light is not visible to the naked eye, therefore it cannot exist." Atheism is too shortsighted, methinks.

I feel sorry for your fundamentalist Southern Baptist upbringing because that can surely be stifling sometimes. But God is bigger than the Southern Baptists....or any other denomination made by man.

antiqueone, you obviously have no science training if you think that infrared light is anything like the supernatural. Infrared light can be verified easily in experiments. It can be created at will and easily detected. Many night vision cameras use infrared light. The other straw man used by many religionists is gravity. There are many aspects of gravity which are not fully understood but it can be detected easily and verified through experimentation.

How do we verify the supernatural through experimentation. You can't. That's why there are so many varying religions, if you resort to believing in the supernatural you can believe in anything even unicorns.

I agree with Antiqueone about the infrared light analogy. Even though we now can use scientific means to measure it (as well as gravity) there was a time when things like that would thought to be supernatural/magic/unexplainable. Our current theories of science gives us a more thorough understanding of its behavior and ability to measure it but we didn't always have this. Why wouldn't it be possible that there are currently supernatural/other unidentifiable happenings that may occur that are currently outside of our understanding of science or ability to measure.

Unicorns may exist, as may alien life, supernatural beings. Our understanding of the universe and its workings and happenings may be a billion times higher than it was thousands of years ago (arguably, there are still many things different cultures such as the Mayans and Egyptians seemed to have a better understanding of than us) but it is still a drop in the ocean.

"ISTANBUL (Reuters) - What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Turkish television station Kanal T hopes the answer is a ratings success as it prepares to launch a gameshow where spiritual guides from the four faiths will seek to convert a group of non-believers.

The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists..."

The full story can be found here: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5622D020090703?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

That show is a travesty. How ridiculous! rotorhead I can't believe you really did not see what I was trying to say with my analogy about infrared light. I agree with L

Here: you can have your thread back. I fear some folks are getting angry and that was not my intention at all.

Actually that show sounds hilarious. I'd watch it.

Rotorhead et al, have you read Tom Robbins's novel "Another Roadside Attraction"? In case you haven't I won't specify why I think you might be amused since it would spoil a story line. Anyway, if you have time, read it.

Jules, I'll check out "Another Roadside Attraction".

Well, I guess that I have been banned from the "why do you believe" thread. I didn't understand the rules. I wasn't aware that they were allowed to post in this thread but we were not allowed to post in their thread. I also didn't understand that they were so easy to upset.

I NEVER MEANT TO MAKE BETTY CRY!

I do like lively conversation and I do try to keep things intellectual instead of emotional. I did not realize that we were not allowed to discuss this topic because it is too emotional for some people to handle. I thought that so many people were participating in this thread because they enjoyed the discussion but now I understand that this is just boring and pointless and I am just discussing this to hurt people.

So if no one wants to continue this then I will let it die. I guess the christians think that we should only have this conversation underground. The religious have very thin skins, antiqueone excluded, he seems to like the discussion.

I have enjoyed the discussion, I'm sorry so many were offended by this open discussion of ideas.

Rotorhead; you didn't offend me, 'i may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it'. I have absolutely no problem with your beliefs or your expression of them. I even often find myself debating on a side that I would disagree with just to carry on a debate, as it can be quite enlightening.

Nor have I been offended .... a bit amused, but definitely not offended.

Why many people believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STDH14aJVk

I posted again after taking a couple of days to think. I reread the thread from the beginning and noticed how many people said that they were enjoying the discussion. I have been enjoying it also. I hope Betty and friends are not hurt too much by the discussion. If the discussion bothers you I have a suggestion, DON'T READ THE THREAD! It is after all about a lack of belief in god. And remember sticks and stones...etc.

Also, a couple of people seem to think that we have to respect the beliefs of others. I disagree. I think that we have to respect the right of others to believe in what they wish, but beliefs are open for discussion in a lively intellectual debate. If your beliefs are too fragile to defend without getting your feelings hurt then DON'T READ THE THREAD!

In a casual social environment I would act completely differently than in an intellectual discussion of beliefs and religion. In a casual social environment if someone told me they were a Scientologist and told me the story of Xenu and the hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes I would look at them and in my best southern drawl say "That's Sooo Niiice!" And beat a hasty retreat from the idiot. However in a lively intellectual debate I try to be candidly honest about my thoughts. I can't help it if it hurts their feelings. If you think your feelings might be hurt by simply discussing your beliefs then DON'T READ THE THREAD.

I say all of this but I know that the religious are drawn to this thread like moths to light bulbs, they want to save us from ourselves. I wonder if they get extra credit in heaven for saving atheist souls as opposed to the non-critical non-questioning souls they usually get.

Anyway, unlike the other thread, I welcome all who wish to discuss this topic. But I warn you, if you make unsubstantiated statements regarding your beliefs expect to get taken to task. The religious will not be given a free pass because your feelings might get hurt.

And one last thing. I am not trying to convert any believers to non-believers. I am only discussing the merits of believing in a supernatural being or not. And also trying to do what I mentioned on the first page, to identify any like minded freethinkers on the Forum. The religious should not take this as a threat. It's not like we are trying to put "No God for Us" on our money or "One Nation Without a God" in our pledge. That is something the religious do.

Peace&Love

In an interview with Esquire magazine, Radcliffe risked the US box office prospects of the new Harry Potter film by declaring himself to be an atheist.

In a pronouncement that will dismay America's religious Right, which has long voiced suspicions about Potter's "anti-Christian" message, the 19-year-old actor said he did not believe in God.

He also expressed his admiration for Professor Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and bete noir of Evangelical Christians.

Radcliffe has been reticent on the subject of religion in the past, but in an interview to promote the latest instalment in the film franchise, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 15, he said: "I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch."

He joked: "There we go, Dan, that's half of America that's not going to see the next Harry Potter film on the back of that comment."

JK Rowling's stories of the schoolboy wizard are taken very seriously by some Evangelical Christians in the United States. One of the largest Christian groups in the country, Focus on the Family, denounced the books as "witchcraft".

Conversely, the Church of England published a guide advising youth leaders to use Harry Potter to spread the Christian message, as the characters face "struggles and dilemmas that are familiar to us all".

Prof Dawkins, author of best-selling book The God Delusion, is no fan of Harry Potter, once remarking that tales of witchcraft are "anti-scientific".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Planck (1858-1947) He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delievered the lecture "Religion and Science." That stated he did not necessarily believe in a "personal God" and once said "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."

ain't that something... daniel radcliffe did not write harry potter, he is an actor.

that's ok, because anyone who would have stayed away is already staying away anyways... i don't think it will affect the box office. guess we'll all see!

Id like to make the comment that it has only been maybe in the past five years or so that we would even be having a conversation like this, not because atheism or secular humanism has become the belief du jour, but people like Dawkins and Sagan have spearheaded the acceptance of public discourse, allowing atheists and agnostics to voice their opinion without condemnation. Combine this with the availability of the Internet to facilitate communication, and you have threads like this, where people like Rotorhead have finally the opportunity to talk about their world view in the same fashion that the religious community has had the local pulpit. Growing up in a strict Catholic family, questioning the "reason" behind canon law was not allowed, you had to accept it. I was an alter server all during my childhood, learned the history of Catholicism, I learned and read scripture in Latin. What I found is that those that justify their belief do so by the selective interpretation of biblical teachings, period. Their is no agreement about the word of the Lord, it is all subject to the motives and predilection of the preacher, epitomized by the first Council of Nicea which set about to define what Christianity is by addition and deletion of the gospels. The proverbial straw that broke my camel's back was a discussion I had with my deacon about transubstantiation as the literal transformation of the communion host and wine into the body and blood of christ, the idea was just too ludicrous. From that moment it seemed as if the curtain had lifted and the small man behind the stage was revealed, I began research the origin of the religious traditions that seemed a bit out of place, why do we celebrate the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th? Why do we have Christmas trees? Why do the descriptions of the biblical flood match with other older religions? BUT, it was not acceptable in my family OR the community in general to talk about it. We have all heard the adage, you aren't supposed to talk about religion or politics in polite company. I soon learned, through my travels, that it is acceptable to talk about religion, except the conversation starts kinda like this: "Nice to meet you, what church do you belong to?" It's that lack of an outlet that has kept many people from challenging actively debating a belief system that the majority of the American population has been born into, and why it seems that atheists are now "preaching their beliefs", much like " a religion". The rejection, of at most, an unsubstantiated historic text in favor of systematic approach to understanding of the wonderfully complex reality that surrounds us is not a religion, it is the antithesis of one and though I accept those that wish to believe in their own world view, I realize that is in fact just that, a world view and available for critique just as are the tenets of fascism, socialism, and democracy.

AllMashUp we have a long way to go. We are just starting to speak out. If we don't speak out though the religious are going to keep intruding into what was supposed to be a secular government. Take for instance the recent US Virgin Islands proposed Constitution.

"We, the people of the Virgin Islands, grateful to Almighty God for our creation, preservation, freedom, and Divine Guidance, mindful of our Virgin Islands heritage and uniqueness, assuming the responsibilities of self-government as an unincorporated territory of the United States"

This is the first line of the Preamble, and I find it insulting to my intelligence. How can they put that in there when by the latest information 1 in 5 of us do not believe in this myth.

There is no mention of god in the U.S. constitution, not once!

We are still combating people like this.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

I pretty sure the apology was damage control. He said what he said without thinking so it is probably the way he really feels.

I forgot to include the url to the Daniel Radcliffe article above.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/5734000/Daniel-Radcliffe-a-cool-nerd.html

This group is so sure that they know what god wants that they are definitely in your face!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275491

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

I have never seen this kind of hate coming from atheists in the name of atheism.

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/

godhatesfags is always good for a laugh, i check the site out almost daily and i also tune into the 700 club to see the freak preach as well as swaggert,gotta see what the enemy is up to

Probably the primary reason for believing in the gospel of Christ is the fact of his resurrection from the dead. No other religious (or atheist) leader that I know of has done that. If, in fact, He did rise from the dead, then I think reasonable people should look carefully at the claims he made when he was here on earth before dismissing him out of hand. To me, atheism is simplistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it denies a reason or purpose for life. I don't have enough faith to believe we are the result of myriad minute random changes over eons. Looking at human eyes, octopus skin, frangipani, clouds, green grass, I just don't get it. I can't see how anyone can accept that it "just happened." Have you any idea how complicated even one, single living cell really is?

When I looked at true Christianity, I stumbled on Christ's resurrection. That seemed almost as absurd as the rest of creation. But the facts spoke for themselves. A good compilation of those facts is here: http://www.leaderu.org/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
What am I missing?

Antiqueone,

Atheism definitely does not "deny a reason or purpose for life." This is as big of a misconception as Atheist's don't believe in anything (that's nihilism). What makes Atheism hard is that each of us, as individuals, get to CHOOSE what our purpose in life is. This is a VERY hard thing to do though. Rather than being able to say "I will follow the Bible and make that my purpose" we have to actually come up with the purpose and then do things to achieve it IN THIS LIFETIME.

Here is an interesting article about this topic: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/MeaningLife.htm

Sean

Antiqueone,

I've also pondered the complexity of the universe, and how it could have happened by "pure chance".... it's just so complicated. But... then I realized... Hey, let me live for 400 million years and I'll bet even I could come up with this... and I'm just a simple person... look at what mankind has figured out in just the last 2000 years. So, if I could figure it out, it can't really be THAT complicated. I think we fail to comprehend what energy+matter+billions of years of time can create. If you want to postulate that God is energy/time/matter, then fine, I have no come-back other than to say that: then, evolution is God's work also.