Why do some atheists who have no background in science...

A "feral" child is a misnomer. Can there really be a such thing as a feral child? Could a child even survive on its own in the wild?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_deprivation

 

I really don't know. But, that wasn't my main point. My point was that a person who isn't exposed to religion would not be religious.

 

If never exposed to religion, a person would never ask - why am I here; what's my purpose in life; am I going anywhere else after I die?

 

How do you know that? Sounds like an opinion stated as fact.

 

Well, we know you're factually incorrect...because the very first people WERE NOT exposed to religion yet, we have religion so, how did that all come about?

 

It was a question. In fact, I believe a person would ask those questions even if never exposed to a religion. Someone had to think of a supernatural creator(s) first, by the way.

 

Atheist here. It is incorrect to suggest that an child wouldn't come to a religious mindset of his own. The brain is literally configured to provide explanations for what it processes, and absent education about science, it makes all sorts of spooky connections. Most of the scientists looking into religion think it is a survival mechanism - there is a reason why primitive religion tends to focus on natural environmental cycles, the sun, crops and fertility, etc. People didn't know how those things worked, so they invented an explanation. Then they invented rituals to assure success.

This is why teaching science is so important. It literally retrains the brain to assess the conclusions it wants to make. A child with no education or outside influence would be highly irrational and come to all sorts of superstitious conclusions.

 

It was taken literally before science made those claims look utterly ridiculous, too.

This push to reinterpret it in some non-literal way is simply an effort by religionists to try and keep the religion based on those claims alive and relevant in the age of science.

Face it -- you're a primate and you're very likely going to die, at which point you will cease to exist as a conscious entity. With your brain will go your mind and everything that you would call You.

 

Absolutely. This is very much in line with what the "militant atheists" and skeptics have to say. I recommend having Michael Shermer and Sam Harris on your bookshelf and in your playlist right along with Carl Sagan. These guys step up and explain very reasonably the need for scientific and skeptical thinking, and the need for people to learn and exercise these.

Do we want to end up like an Islamic state? Do we want to be an anti-science theocracy of some sort? I should hope not, but I fear that the religious crowd have come to take secularism and its immeasurable benefits for granted.

 

Actually that's a myth. Taking the Bible literally is a very recent idea that traces back to Bishop Ussher of the Anglican Church. Since I'm a Catholic, this one is easy for me. I put my blame on Sola Scriptura.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/10/archbishop-ussher-dates-the-creation-of-the-world/



You can go back to the times of St. Augustine for proof that the creation event was never meant to be taken literally.

 

More like misunderstanding and ignorance. The Greeks did not understand lightning, and so they made up a story about a guy who threw it. The

- - - Updated - - -

You do not have to have a biology degree to be informed about the science of biology.

 

Most of the more active christians here believe and debate as if the bible is 100% literal word of God.
Other christians don't post that often here, then get thought of as believing the same. It is hard to know who believes what and how much they think the bible is God's word vs man's word.

As I stated, that is the perception. YEC and bible literalists are the most active in this forum.

 

Well, I would assume that the dawn of religion is not the moment at which people started asking the really hard questions. I think questions like "Where do lightning bolts come from? Zeus!" predates questions of origins and purpose. Then when the hard questions arose, they already had a framework for dealing with those kinds of questions.

Edit, of course, I'm being a bit nit-picky here, I just think this is an interesting subject and I want to stay involved in the thread.

 

I seriously doubt it was one on their own. More like a tribe living together, discussing daily lives and stars and other things wondering how things got to where they were at that time. Having no real knowledge or clues, they began creating stories that evolved into bigger stories. Eventually a working story takes hold and then moves on to bigger and better from there.
It is why the world is loaded with myths from every culture and corner of the world.

 

That was my point. It was more of a rhetorical question.

 

So, this would be like saying that you can only practice religion if you are ordained or educated in religious studies, right? Many atheists depend on science because they are seeking evidence that points them towards the truth. There is evidence that evolution and gravity exists. There isn't evidence that God exists. Also, science shouldn't be restricted to academia. Anyone should have the right to use science as a tool to discover what may be true in the world. And don't underestimate internet documentaries -- that is a form of education. In fact, you may be able to learn more in a 1 hour documentary about astronomy than you can in an entire semester in Astronomy 101. It's condensed and is presented in a way that helps the viewer remember information. Unfortunately, you can't get a certificate for it. But it shouldn't stop you from pursuing knowledge and then discussing it on forums. The most important thing in the world is discussion and the growth of knowledge, and the internet has certainly facilitated that better than academia ever could.

 

Then by the op's "logic" that would mean these "Armchair christians" wouldnt be qualified to speak on "god" since they are not preachers, priests, rabbis, etc..

 

There's sterotypical views that scientists are supposed to have, that the public sees if you don't share them, you're unscientific or a religious quack. A scientist need not have a degree in science, but have a vested interest and aquisition in its knowledge. I know far more than a lot of scientists, but I don't have a degree. I'm more scientific than some with a degree. People want to sound smart by using big words in key places, and being seen as intellegent feeds their ego and need to be accepted. Atheists, whatever their reason, use science as their spear tip, saying it's illogical and it's disproves religion. Religion, organized religion, is flawed. That being said, science says Jesus existed, and logic tells us he was cruificed. Being the son of god is hard to determine. Logic, real logic, tells us Jesus was a real man.

 

Even if all of us granted that you have a point, it does not fundamentally change the truth of evolution nor diminish the advances of science. In essence, this post is pure snark intended as some form of intellectual critique which fails to alter either the science or the truth itself. As for religion, it is simply the culmination of thousands of years of superstition created by ancients and codified into a creed that established that particular religion supporting one particular region, culture or political goal. The three religions that sprang from judaism are founded upon the same monotheistic theme using various means, rules, legends, stories and artifacts of all the various religions that superceded them. I find no truth in any of them myself. The one exception is that all three succeeded beyond anyone's imagination in destroying previous religions for the most part. Remember that each of them started out as a result of someone or persons collecting disparate data without any of that data worthy of any modern court of law. Quite simply, they are all undocumented stories about very undocumented heros whose final chapter was written several centuries past the socalled events in those stories. There is no evidence for Moses, there is very little evidence of Jesus and absolutely nothing to prove that Mohammed existed. All three main characters might have been made up, we will never know. What we do know is that up until each of them was finally set into stone as the OT, the NT and the Koran, the world was filled with many different sects of each flavor each with their own stories competing for the one truth. It took men to make up each book, it took centuries to finalize them and it took power to spread them.

 

And after all of that, you offer not one piece of evidence or argument that could be construed as PROOF of what you are claiming. But such are opinions, and opinions if truly believed can be construed as "fact".for that particular person who is the believer; of course those "facts" can also be "mistaken facts."

 

And in some churches that is the case

 

As much as I dislike admitting this, I have to agree with you on that one.

 

Why do so many Christians take pride in their own ignorance? Why do so many Christians think that any opinion, no matter how stupid, should be treated with respect? Why can't they understand that faith is only necessary when you don't have any proof? Or that faith is just a way of getting people to shut off their minds?

 

I suggest you attempt to educate yourself on the subject material. I think you asked for factual evidence of evolution. Take a biology class. I think you asked for proof of the lack of first hand evidence for the OT, NT and Koran. Take a history class on comparative religions. If you think anyone is going to waste their time writing entire books filled with evidence for you, you are mistaken. Boards like this are about having educated conversations with educated audiences. No amount of rebuttal will substitute for the hard work of actually learning for oneself. Rather than post in this manner, why not actually become well read and contribute something to the discussion?

 

I have been on this forum for several years.. in that time I have learned to reciprocate. So drop all the humorous speech about what this "board" is supposed to be.... it is what it is and what it is does not require any particular level of education on any particular subject matter. So you object to the manner in which my previous post was written.... making objections is one of your many options.... have at it. What that post of yours says to me is that you don't like the idea of being challenged to provide PROOF of your claims. Not just evidence or argument, but rather evidence or argument that compels my mind to accept what you present as true. Who or what determines what is 'true' from the perspective of this body? Well of course.... that would be ME... All that you have submitted is opinion. nothing more.