Atheist and the nativity

Torry_Quine

daska wrote: »

You stated that "Mankind has always been the ones to care for the earth throughout history." and "Nothing I have said is factually incorrect." The two statements together imply that you believe that it is factually correct that man has always been around to care for the earth which, to me, can only be explained if you believe that God created it in 6 days. Hence phrasing it as a question (the giveaway being the question mark) rather than a statement.

Unless you are making a literal distinction between 'history' and 'pre-history', but tbh I think if that were the case your rejoinder would have corrected me rather than accused me of attacking you.

I don't believe in six literal days and don't know anyone who does!!

When I said mankind has always looked after the earth that was in answer to someone else who asked who had been caring for it in an earlier period. Before mankind the earth was only cared for by God hence my answer.

daska

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I don't believe in six literal days and don't know anyone who does!!

When I said mankind has always looked after the earth that was in answer to someone else who asked who had been caring for it in an earlier period. Before mankind the earth was only cared for by God hence my answer.

Sorry, I was genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint not wind you up. Your "Mankind has always been the ones to care for the earth throughout history." answer was in direct response to GracieP asking "And who exactly was failing to look after the earth preceding the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event?"

The scientific evidence seems quite clear that man did not exist at that point so your original answer suggested that you believed in the simultaneous creation of man, the earth and god's little joke of dinosaur fossils placed here deliberately to confuse us.

Torry_Quine

daska wrote: »

Sorry, I was genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint not wind you up. Your "Mankind has always been the ones to care for the earth throughout history." answer was in direct response to GracieP asking "And who exactly was failing to look after the earth preceding the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event?"

The scientific evidence seems quite clear that man did not exist at that point so your original answer suggested that you believed in the simultaneous creation of man, the earth and god's little joke of dinosaur fossils placed here deliberately to confuse us.

I'll accept you weren't trying to wind me up but will you also accept that this is what I sincerely believe.

God created the world in six 'days' the length of which we do not know. Creation didn't happen all at once, the order is clearly set out.

dirtysexymonkey

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Nothing I have said is factually incorrect. As an atheist you just don't see it.

What's factually correct about this?

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Yes, mankind has been here since the beginning of time.

You can't get more factually incorrect than that statement.

milliebear00001

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

What's factually correct about this?



You can't get more factually incorrect than that statement.

But the problem here is with the definition of what a 'fact' is. Most people accept a 'fact' to be something that has indisputably happened. A scientist would say a fact is something that has 'almost definitely happened' or a relationship that 'amost certainly exists' (in layman's terms). But a person who cites faith, needs no such methodology. Faith is...faith. It requires no justification or explanation.

That is why it has the potential to be so dangerous.

Arguing that faith isn't reasonable, is (as I said before) a non-starter. People of faith do not cite reason as the basis for their belief.

partan

milliebear00001 wrote: »

But the problem here is with the definition of what a 'fact' is. Most people accept a 'fact' to be something that has indisputably happened. A scientist would say a fact is something that has 'almost definitely happened' or a relationship that 'amost certainly exists' (in layman's terms). But a person who cites faith, needs no such methodology. Faith is...faith. It requires no justification or explanation.

That is why it has the potential to be so dangerous.

Arguing that faith isn't reasonable, is (as I said before) a non-starter. People of faith do not cite reason as the basis for their belief.

For hundreds of years, the earth was flat. that was a fact. if you went near the edge you'd fall off. it wasnt that long ago that someone decided it was almost spherical. This also became a fact....

kafkathecat

I don't understand why people get so worked up about religion. We all have beliefs that are not based on rational thought although usually it is easier to 'prove' what you already believe by anecdote or selected 'facts', politics for instance or, if you like, homeopathy, ghosts or a fad diet. If people use their faith to be the best they can be I don't see a problem. But when they use it to tell others how to behave and to judge them that is a problem for me but is really a completely separate issue.

daska

I guess I'm still looking for a way to break out from the constraints of the 'rational'. There is an amount of jealousy of the comfort that I do believe comes from having faith. So sometimes it would be nice to just be able to believe without questioning, but I get stuck on the "how can you believe that when the evidence points to the contrary?" E.G. Torry appearing to claim that mankind and dinosaurs co-existed.

MandM90

kafkathecat wrote: »

I don't understand why people get so worked up about religion. We all have beliefs that are not based on rational thought although usually it is easier to 'prove' what you already believe by anecdote or selected 'facts', politics for instance or, if you like, homeopathy, ghosts or a fad diet. If people use their faith to be the best they can be I don't see a problem. But when they use it to tell others how to behave and to judge them that is a problem for me but is really a completely separate issue.

But time and time again in this thread we've been told atheists' kids have been taught Christianity in schools (even non faith ones) in one way or another. I was fully aware my daughter's school was very old fashioned (that comes part and parcel with picking the oldest all girls prep school in England!) and so quite religious, but if I'd chosen a 'non faith' school I'm not sure why the majority thinks I'd be any less entitled to feel uncomfortable with Christianity being taught alone - outside of objective RE classes alongside other main religions - than if a Christian family put their kids in a Christian school and found they were celebrating Eid and not Christmas and have being singing Islamic songs.

I agree with your sentiment to an extent; I wouldn't challenge a believer out of the blue, for no reason but when it comes to teaching creationism/religious principles in a non-faith school, rejecting evolution, people coming and intruding on my time at home with my family and trying to tell me that my (scientific) education is based on lies with no evidence whatsoever, that two people of the same sex loving each other is an abomination or claiming that the world is 6000 years old surely at some point you can no longer hold your tongue!? :eek:

I very much admire the French for having such a secular education system and I find it saddening that, for many, the only way to ensure a decent education for their children is to assent to them being taught what they believe to be a load of codswallop.

Mojisola

MandM90 wrote: »

I very much admire the French for having such a secular education system

Do they do nativity plays in French schools?

I wish all our schools were secular with factual classes on the various belief systems. All religious education should be done through the churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.