Survey: Non-Religious Americans on the Rise in Every State

matucon312 »

Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:33 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

You really think part of the cause of people leaving Christianity is to fit in BETTER? The "Nones" are still FAR outnumbered by the various sects of Christianity when they're counted as a generic whole. In fact, Atheists regularly rank as the least trusted and most despised minority in the country, more so than any racial, ethnic or stigma's associated with non-straight sexual orientation. If anything, the need to fit in contributes to why people STAY, as it's far easier to stay within the liked majority you know than the disliked minority you don't.

Obama to Lift Restrictions on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

matucon312 »

Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:49 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

I think much of the debate centers around when a clump of cells becomes a "person". Now, I don't have an answer to that question, but I do not believe that it starts at conception. There's no evidence that any type of "immortal soul" appears at conception (or any other time, for that matter), and a 2 month old fetus has less self awareness or sense of pain or misery than a cow led to slaughter. Personally, if science can determine the stage at which an embryo/fetus becomes self-aware and capable of feeling pain, that's when I'd consider it a person. But that certainly doesn't happen at conception. Tricky topic, but this stem cell research will prove vital in the battle against countless diseases.

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:18 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

jbob, not sure if we're defining "life forms" as the same thing, but the first one's were single celled organisms that reproduces asexually. We've found clues to how they formed on their own through experiments simulating lightning hitting organic liquids, which produced amino acids - the basic building block of all life. We're still trying to figure out what chemical reactions led to increasing complexity, as it's something that our knowledge of is admittedly in it's infancy. But even with the mind bogglingly low chances of life forming on it's own, the universe is also mind bogglingly large; a conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe (and the number's growing all the time), given a 1:1,000,000,000 chance of life developing, would still leave you with life on 1,000,000,000 planets. On a related note, what (if any) implications would there be on a Christians perspective if we find some form of life on Europa or Enceladus, which is a very real possibility once we get some probes there? Or, with the abundance of extrasolar planets being discovered, and the technology to find them allowing for smaller and smaller planets, what if we find another "earth" with complex (let alone, intelligent) life? Before these ideas get dismissed as far-fetched, consider them next to some of the various religious beliefs and ask if they're really any less plausible. Just wondering really what the Christian reaction would be to such discoveries.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jhilgeman, I definitely agree with you regarding how these discussions usually start - and end. Unless someone is admittedly unsure, people are generally pretty well set in their conclusions and convictions on this topic, so trying to swing someone from one side to the polar opposite is an exercise in futility. I do also think that the people that get overly defensive and offended (on both sides) are simply reflecting their own insecurities about their own convictions.

I will say though that, especially in this country, "cradle Christians" far outweigh "cradle Atheist" from an upbringing perspective, though there's a school of thought that we're actually all born atheists and taught about various gods by our parents. But relating to both these concepts and the desire to at least present someone with a point that'll at least make them think "Hmm...never thought of that before", I had asked my mom (who teaches Sunday school) that given the acknowledged lack of "proof" and the dependence of faith, why is it that many nonbelievers (such as myself) can admit the possibility of a god despite our beliefs, yet few Christians will admit even the remote possibility of being wrong? Again, like you, I'm not trying or hoping to change anyone's mind completely, just maybe give people a bit of a different perspective; some food for thought if you will.

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob, hahaha.....yeah, I get what you mean about not having enough time; I already have two tabs permanently open for forums on this site..lol. Anyway, I think we already agree to disagree, as I feel the organic and natural development of life makes more sense and is better supported by the data than a creator "poof"-ing everything into existence. The idea of a creator also begs the question of who/what created him/it? Astronomy is another great interest of mine and the Big Bang as THE beginning doesn't add up for me either. I have my own adjusted theories on the Big Bang, cause of gravity and "dark energy", but need to get with the right people to explore them..lol.

As far as the single best argument for evolution, there isn't one, and that's it's greatest strength and weakness. It's numerous sciences coming together and contributing to the overall theory. Our knowledge is not yet complete on the topic, but what we do know supports it and it's been immune to be falsification thus far. And just to clarify my perspective on God, I won't rule out the possibility of A god, but find the Abrahamic god highly unlikely.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oh, and regarding "cradle Christians" vs. converts, I view the two being different as such: cradle Christians are brought up from birth to believe and it becomes as much a part of their culture and tradition rather than an actual personal revelation or belief, where as a convert came to it on their own, based on their own judgement, conclusions and needs. Neither stereotype is %100 accurate, but I think you get where I'm coming from. I have far more respect for people who looked at all their options and then come to a conclusion rather than have a conclusion programmed into them from birth and then try to argue why it's right.

As far as what I'm trying to accomplish here, generally I just enjoy the conversation; I find it fascinating and enjoy hearing other people's perspectives. But from my own perspective if there's one thing I'd like to see is less people "born" into their beliefs and more people find them for themselves, regardless of where it leads them. If someone looks at all the options on and equal and unbiased basis and then comes to a conclusion, those beliefs are truly their own and they can also offer some rationale as to what led them there. Too often people are asked "why do you believe" this or that, and can't come up with an answer. I've come to a naturalistic conclusion, but not until also reading the Bible and books supporting the Biblical perspective, and I then weighed both sides before coming to a conclusion. It's the difference between when I'm asked why don't I believe, versus when I ask someone why DO you? I don't expect it, but I'd love for some believer to return the favor and try to read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" or "The God Delusion" with the objective hat on; I don't think it'll change a believer's mind, but at least you'll be able to better explain to others why you do believe one thing and not another.

Bottom line is, none of us KNOW the answers to any of these questions; we think, we hope, we make a best-guess based on a combination of information and gut.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sorry guys, wasn't ignoring you; been busy house hunting! lol Anyhoo, first I love the term "cradle Christians"; I'll be borrowing that from ya! lol Anyway, a lot of posts since my last one, so in a nutshell, I think a believer has a different perspective based on their faith when reading the Bible than a non-believer, but neither has a better "understanding" of it. I gave an overview of my background and path to religious skepticism in an earlier post so won't repeat it, but when you faith and the Bible is sort of a chicken and egg situation. Did you read the Bible before becoming a believer? Then what was the perspective use? Did you already believe in God and then read the Bible? Then you had a preconceived bias to some extent of what you "wanted" to hear. A nonbeliever takes a more literal and critical approach to the Bible, where the believer is much more apologetic to some of the inconsistencies or flaws. I'll agree that some of us nonbelievers may be overly critical or even argumentative, but simultaneously I think some believers are so blinded by faith that they're completely incapable of considering any other possibilities. Personally, I can consider the possibility of a God, but stripped down to the most basic, I have more "faith" in modern humans than ancient ones when it comes to answering the questions of the universe. Also, if there is a god, I don't envision a personified entity. Think of a single-celled organism; it's autonomous unto itself, yet we're beings made of of millions of single cells. I think a god would be more of a universal consciousness along those lines than a ruling "spirit" that would punish someone for eternity for rather trivial transgressions, or put another way, God would value a nonbeliever who did good in his life more than a bad person who repented on his deathbed. Just my two cents (in a nutshell).

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob, without being able to watch time-elapsed footage of millions of years of biology, the kind of "proof" you request is impossible. But we can come to reasonable conclusions based on what's observable and testable, and there's far more evidence to support evolution than creation. I ask you, what "proof" do you have that there's a god at all, let alone a "creator" of everything? The evidence supports a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. Unanswered questions about evolution are not answers for creationism, or put another way, just because we don't fully understand something, doesn't mean it's acceptable to fill that gap in knowledge with God. New discoveries are being made all the time, answering questions that were previously mysteries. It's all a long and tough process, but there was a time when even the wheel hadn't yet been invented. We've come along way, and will continue to progress further by questioning how things work and using the scientific method to test out new hypothesis, not by attributing any mysteries to God and calling it a day. Looking forward to the discussion with you though! Have a good day! :)

Review: 'Day the Earth Stood Still' More Christian Than Green

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

DRJ:

Yeah, yeah, yeah....we've been hearing this for almost 2,000 years. You just let us all know when it happens; I'd hate to be caught enjoying life.

On a related note, this is precisely the kind of superstitious ignorance responsible for the bloodshed in the Middle East; people fighting and killing over who's imaginary friend is right based on the writings of barely literate, ancient and bigoted men. Perhaps if we focused more on getting along with and loving each other we could get closer to heaven on earth, rather than arguing and unwinnable argument. There is an insufficient amount of love in the world to allow a significant amount of it to be wasted on imaginary beings. I don't see how guilt and fear can be paths to anything good.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jhilgeman, my original post was in response to the article's claim at people (specifically, skeptics or nonbelievers) misrepresenting or holding misconceptions about the Bible when taking some of it's flaws or horrors literally in the same way others focus on the more warm and fuzzy aspects and take them literally. The contention was that if you're not a believer, you can't understand the Bible, to which I strongly disagree. The dialogue then branched out from there from post to post amongst us all into a more general discussion on religion as a whole.

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob, I've neither the character allotment in this forum, nor the time to explain in further detail the details of evolution you're obviously ignorant of. Read up on it, learn something about it from somewhere other than a religious site trying to undermine it, and then with an informed mind come back and comment. You're statements make your lack of knowledge on the topic glaringly obvious and I actually feel kind of embarrassed for some of the believers on here I've come to respect that you're lumped in with them.

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob said:

"That may well be the single stupidest thing I have ever read. LOL!!! "

Yeah, the collective research of numerous fields of science, plus the overwhelming majority of all of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world today is absolutely stupid, whereas believing in 8,000 year old flat earths, around which everything in the universe revolves and everything on it "poofed into existence, at which time the singular man on earth named millions of species, who were later put on a giant ark by a 900 hundred year old man 2 or 7 at a time during a flood that covered the entire earth (even though it was a localized event) - believing in these things makes you absolutely brilliant. We'd been having an intelligent and mutually respectful discussion, so keep your gloves on. You're not the only one that can mock and ridicule, only you mock and ridicule things with observable evidence. It's much easier to mock unicorns, tooth fairies, bigfoot and yes, your Bible and God. But we've all been keeping thing respectful and abstaining from this kind of vitriole. Please don't spoil it.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Also Daniel, the Lincoln quote was from Joseph Lewis, but I've found no further specifics "yet". This is but one of many other quotes from Lincoln though, most of which indicating he was, if anything, a Deist, but definitely not a Christian. Some of the popularized "evidence" alleging piety on Lincoln's part have been proven false, and he was always careful not to offend Christians; he simply abstained from the debate, usually with a smirk on his face. Here's a good link on the topic of Lincoln's spiritual beliefs; they're not cut-and dry, but it's hard to make the case he was a Christian, or follower of any organized religion: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel, you touch on an interesting point; how intolerance occurs on both sides. I don't share your spiritual and religious beliefs, but I respect your right to have them. What touches off non-believers are things like Proposition 8; they may be seen as being crass and intolerant of religious faith, but it's direct response to an overwhelming amount of religious opposition to gay rights. This country was founded by secularists, and the Constitution is a secular document. Separation of Church and State means exactly that (which is part of why religious groups don't pay taxes; goes back to "no taxation without representation), and so long as religious folks abide by that, there'll be fewer people on the opposing side. I don't agree with stealing baby Jesus' from holiday nativity scenes, but when a naturalist organization puts their own display up in the Olympia, WA courthouse and IT gets stolen, it seems, to most, to be far less ghastly a deed. Government buildings, institutions and laws need to stay free of religious influence, both to respect separation of church and state, as well as to truly afford "freedom of religion". When one religion gets prominence over others, those others become second-class, and that's not true and unbiased freedom of religion.

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I'll check it out zeno. I'm also a member of The Brights (google it if you're unfamiliar). Great organization!

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Regarding contradictions, I'll just post this link that's easier than sifting through and picking my personal favorites; I'll let you decide on your own. I recommend this site because it give links to the actual scripture, so you can come to your own conclusions based on personal interpretation, rather than some sites (on both sides of the argument) that don't afford the same luxury. Here's the link: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html . Let me know what you think, as some of them are pretty important things to be confused about. Take care! :)

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time. Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution. Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory. Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation. All of these things - genetics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology - contribute to the whole theory of evolution, and because each of these sciences supports each other regarding evolution is why the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on it's validity.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Thanks again for being such a pleasant participant in this discussion; so many people, both on my side of the debate and yours, get overly sensitive or insecure rather than just discuss it intelligently and respectfully. Thanks again!

Anyway, firstly, the Bible is inaccurate regarding science. While some things, such as the "seven day creation" is explained away by these not being "earth days" and such, still, light was created before the sun, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and these things are all backwards. Also, modern humans did not instantaneously appear, as the story of Adam being created from dust says. Also, Adam named every living creature? Millions of species? What about ones not native to the "garden", let alone species native to other continents not known? The Great Flood did not cover the entire earth (though it surely seemed that way to people experiencing it). Also, Noah was supposedly 900 years old when placing either 2 or 7 of every species on a 450 ft long ark? This too is impossible. Also, the Israelite population went from 70 (or 75) to several million in a few hundred years. The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain," high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world." Makes sense on a flat earth, but man learned later it's round. When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels. Mark says "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Jesus believed that sex and Adam and Eve were created "from the beginning." But the universe is about 13.6 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, sex a billion years or so, and humans (depending on how you define "human") for a couple million years. I've just started scratching the surface, but the scientific knowledge of the writers is clearly lacking compared to what we know today. God would have surely known these things, and had he been in the ears of those writing the gospels, we should have found knowledge not apparent at the time, rather than such a lack of knowledge. Even the Greeks and Chinese had a better grasp of science at the time than the Bible would indicate of humanity.

Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DNA actually further's the case for evolution, not a Creator. The creator is evolution, not God. No intelligence is required to encode DNA. Instead, the information in DNA is the result of natural selection acting upon random mutations, rather than the actions of a "being" like God. This is where we see primate species (including humans) being near identical, but the mutations in DNA are where the different species branch off from common ancestors. It's not a quick process, but it is a natural one.

The fact is that there are millions of scientists who have assembled entire libraries full of information showing that evolution is where all the species on earth came from. Thousands of clergy members have even signed a letter stating their belief in all of this scientific evidence. The church, while still maintaining a "guiding hand", has even acknowledged evolution as the accepted theory; they just believe God guided it along rather than it occurring naturally. I'm no expert on the subject, but when I was trying to figure out the "God question" for myself, I did a good amount of reading on evolution and intelligent design/creation, and it's not even close. No offense, but I really wonder how much (and if so, how evenly) people weigh both sides of this debate before coming to a conclusion.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I guess a way to further illustrate my point/ask my question is, since the Bible was written, edited and translated by very fallible men, doesn't it stand to reason that they simply made mistakes here and there (we know they were mistaken or unsure of much in the Bible and it's stories), or perhaps even slipped in a little personal opinions or values occasionally? To believe in an all powerful and benevolent god, regardless of proof or justification is one thing, but putting unwavering, unquestioning blind faith into the Bible is putting it into men, not God. So really, I'm debating less the existence of your God, but rather critiquing the source material from which most people are introduced to him. Make sense? Take care in the meantime! :)