Pyrrho

It is very funny that you wish to argue with standard dictionary definitions. It is a standard English meaning for the term "atheist" whether you will admit to it or not. The meanings of words can change over time, deviating from their original meanings, whether or not you like this fact.

Soul Invictus

I'm not sure how you define fundy, or what its significance would be, because I've found that through my experience that many of the Christians in general that I've met or known disbelieve 6, so my experience would be that those that believe 6 would be a minority.

I've found few that try to reconcile the two. If anything they would discredit science/not give credence to its findings. Ignorance at its best.

Laci

I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm a Catholic. I believe in God and his son. I also believe in science. So what does that make me in your opinion? I think more people are like me than you think.

Raydo97

In my opinion, that makes you very ignorant of both science and religion... and, therefore, a very normal person. The only way you can believe in both science and religion is if you have only a casual knowledge of one or, possibly, both areas. Any in-depth study on your part will bring you to the realization that science and religion are completely at odds with each other.

You believe in the teachings of a book that, in almost every instance, is incompatible with science. Here's a very BRIEF example of teachings in the bible that are at odds with science: A flat earth, a virgin birth, talking animals, a moving sun, a worldwide flood, sticks turning into snakes, angels breaking people out of jails, walking on water, and dead humans returning to life.

My intent is not to insult you, I'm just pointing out how very common your way of thinking is in the Christian community. I know plenty of Christians who are well versed in science and don't see a problem between science and religion. The reason they can't see the discrepancies is because they hardly know anything about the bible!

When it comes to religion, "faith is a virtue" and "believing in things unseen" is considered valuable. A perfectly acceptable explanation can be as simple as "the Lord works in mysterious ways." Science, on the other hand, is objective. It makes no difference what a scientist BELIEVES, he/she must be able to PROVE it with repeated experiments that are then VERIFIED by other scientists to assure no error has been made.

Science and religion could not be further apart.

Atheist Crusader

Excuse me for a second... but a literalist interpretation of the Bible... is NOT a requirement for religion (obviously). If you think it is, you have serious mental issues which I am not really equiped to deal with (IE ignoring all the other religions, and ways of looking at the Bible). This kind of blind assertion is what gets atheists made fun of, please don't do it again. If people would recognize science and religion for what they each are (science being a literal interpretation of the universe based on facts/evidence, while religion is a metaphorical interpretation of the universe getting to the heart of human problems) then people on both sides of the fene would probably get along alot better. Of course, most religious people that YOU are talking about (I'm assuming Christians, as the poster you were replying to is Catholic) will not agree with the statement I have made, although I have met some who do. Science and religion are not at odds (and I think someone at least implied this earlier) but fundamental Christianity and science are, have always been, and always will be at odds with each other, because fundamental christians are fundamentally... well... I don't think we are supposed to insult people on these boards... but... anyway, hope this wasn't too angry of a post... perhaps when you said religion you meant Catholicism, as that is the religion of the person you were replying to, but try not to make such general comments.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew--previously): 2) That atheism says that there is no god

(Jayjay): Someone else already questioned this, and I don't really buy it either. Some atheists do say that there's no God, and the distinction between saying that there's no god and not saying that there is a god reeks of pedantic wordplay.
(Fr Andrew): But that's not the distinction. The distinction is between a belief in God and not a belief in God. A perfectly good word has been hijacked by theists looking for a bogeyman.

(Jayjay): Besides, even if this point were correct, why is it ranked number two on the list?
(Fr Andrew): There's no particular rank. I just put them down as they occurred to me.
I intended this to counter Bede's thread here. As it's no longer in the same forum, it's lost it's context and become somewhat irrelevant. (I'm unsure why this thread was moved, while Bede's stayed in Biblical History and Criticism--they both belong here, if you ask me.)


(Fr Andrew--previously): 3) That the universe was designed

(Jayjay): True, but the term "designed" seems to be more of a buzzword inspired by the Intelligent Design movement. I think most theists would prefer "created" or, if the focus is on purposefulness, "predestined".
(Fr Andrew): The Argument from Design is as old as the hills..i.e., the universe was obviously designed for man because if it were different man couldn't live in it.

(Jayjay): Isn't Humanism officially registered as a religion someplace?
(Fr Andrew): I'm unsure if it is or not, although I think the "Humanist Manifesto" speaks of it (humanism) as a religion--and certainly some religions preach aspects of humanism--but the notion of anything "secular" being a religion is a contradiction in terms.
"Secular" means non-religious. Secular Humanism is humanism without a theistic base. You just can't have a non-religious religion...yet many theists will argue that Secular Humanism is a religion.
(The fellow who wrote this article is misinformed on many points, and tends to bounce back and forth between "Humanism" and "Secular Humanism" as it suits his argument, but it gives you an idea of the sort of rationale behind the myth.)

(Fr Andrew--previously): 9) That Adolf Hitler was not a religious man

(Jayjay): Ah, the obligatory Nazi reference.
(Fr Andrew): No...this was a parody of Bede's post in which he invoked Der Fuhrer. Many apologists have a great deal invested in Hitler's religious beliefs.


(Fr Andrew--previously): 10) That the religious persecution involved in the Crusades and the Inquisition was "not that bad".

(Jayjay): This is really just part of #7 [That religion has been a plus for mankind], isn't it?
(Fr Andrew): I don't think so. The difference between describing something as a "plus" and as "not that bad" is considerable, I think.
The Crusades and the Inquisition are peculiar to a certain period of time in the history of a particular religion. I've encountered a firm belief among the devout, generally, that religion on balance has been a benefit to man.
Which is a myth, imo...it's been a liability.
Still is.

Marduk

1) That God exists
An unverifiable claim more than a myth
2) That atheism says that there is no god
Some atheists claim this, others simply don’t believe there is a God
2) That the universe was designed
Another unverifiable claim
4) That there is life after death
Again an unverifiable claim
5) That religious devotion makes people good and moral
This depends on the person
6) That science and religion are compatible
They have nothing to do with each other unless you are a fundie who believes the 6000 year old earth, no evolution, the Bible is real History type stuff
7) That religion has been a plus for mankind
This is debatable, society, civilization and religion are so intertwined you can make a case for both sides.
8) That Secular Humanism is a religion
This is a myth
9) That Adolph Hitler was not a religious man
This is debatable as well, depends what you mean by ‘a religious man’ he was a politician, he said whatever his target audience wanted to hear.
10) That the religious persecution involved in the Crusades and the Inquisition was "not that bad".
I agree with Bede, depends on what you mean by ‘not that bad’ throughout history religion and politics have gone hand in hand, hard to draw the line between religious and political goals.

Fr.Andrew

Hi, Marduck...I'll return to this in the morning and see if there's something I can add. I'm off to see Seabiscuit.
Firstly, is there a reason why something can't be a myth and an unverifiable claim at the same time?


(Fr Andrew): I don't know what there is to debate except the arrogance of those who would say that because Hitler interpreted scripture differently than they do, he was not religious.
Hitler professed religious faith and frequently invoked the name of the Deity in public and in his writings. Just like Jerry Falwell. And Fred Phelps. And the Pope. If the Pope is a religious man, so was Hitler.


(Fr Andrew): A little off subject, but the same can be said of most religious innovators. St Paul, for instance, admitted a willingness to misrepresent himself if the opportunity arose to better sell his message by doing so.

(Fr Andrew): The notion that any amount of religious persecution is "not that bad" is a myth.
Imo.

Marduk

“The notion that any amount of religious persecution is "not that bad" is a myth.

Perhaps, but people find ways to persecute each other without religion, race, politics, nationality etc.
During WWII the Japanese toured Germany and were told of the means the Nazis used to obtain power and commented on how regrettable it was that Japan had no Jews.


“Hitler professed religious faith and frequently invoked the name of the Deity in public and in his writings.”

And other times he spoke of how stupid it was, in private. No politician would say that in public.

“Firstly, is there a reason why something can't be a myth and an unverifiable claim at the same time?

I guess not, the origin of a particular myth concerning a particular God can often be found or at least traced back to a certain point in time, but this really wouldn’t have anything to do with the creator of the universe, if there was one.

so how was Seabiscuit?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Excellent! I think I like everything that Jeff Bridges has done. If they ever remake To Kill a Mockingbird...he is Atticus Finch.