i won't ignore the fact that there's no evidence for it to be true. over the past 4-500 years, science has been dismantling a lot of previously held beliefs about life and the universe around us, beliefs that previously required the presence of god. it is what it is. that doesn't make me not hope any less... but it doesn't make it real.
It doesn't make it unreal either. I don't think science has to contradict belief, or vice versa. It all lies on where you want to place the credit. I choose to place the credit with god, and my belief in god is subjective, personal. I've said this over and over.
Furthermore, I think science (of any kind) can be culturally biased, or tainted. Definitions, explanations, etc, mostly appeal to those who would probably agree with them to begin with. Not so much the case today, but in other times this meant people of European heritage, males predominantly. It's written in their language (not literal language, I mean in a way they understand it best). The rules and parameters are fitting to their point of view. Yes, here I go playing the racism/sexism card. Go ahead and throw it at me. I expect it.
there's nothing wrong with god as a starting point, if god is the starting point. if god is not the starting point, then by definition, that would be wrong.
now if you were to say that there's nothing inherently morally wrong with god as the starting point, i'd agree. as you pointed out, science can be used for good or for evil. so can god. there's been some good and some bad. it all boils down to the individual wielding the power.
unless I've not communicated this properly, that is what I have been saying. You say god is not the starting point. I say god is the starting point. You say prove it. I also say prove it. Neither one of us can. Then you go on to point out all this "cool" stuff you've been studying and that if I did the same it might change my mind (or open up a "world). I say, it further informs my belief, and I choose to credit god for it. Choose. Am I clearer now?
i do not believe human sacrifices were apart of western civilization. at least not modern (christian) western civilization. it might not be the fl reason, but it cannot see how anyone can argue that religion did not play an overwhelming part in starting the crusades, or the witch trials, etc.
Religion played a big part in these things, I did say that. I also said it wasn't the only villain. Furthermore, like I stated earlier too, religion isn't god. It points at god, but it isn't god, it's an egoic structure. God didn't order people to be burned or tortured--but of course people said he did to justify it.
I don't have the sources available now, but there are great alternate explanations available for human sacrifices and the crusades as well. Some of the theories involve more material or economic-based explanations. I also read a while ago that the burning of "witches" was more about squelching the very first recorded incidences of women's liberation in Europe. Because "witches" would typically determine their own destinies-meaning actually owning land or property, being financially independent, controlling their sexuality and reproduction, this was a big no-no in a society that still viewed women as chattel, even as late as the 19th century. These are alternate theories, with some compelling data to back it up, but also some opinion thrown in there. Worth looking into though.
that's just one example of why i say opinions and observations are bs without hard data to back it up. clearly i could be wrong, you could be right, we won't know without a comprehensive study. given the spreading of knowledge, especially with the internet, i suspect a majority of atheists came to their conclusions peacefully without too much turmoil. that's just my guess, wouldn't put my stamp of approval on that without data and you shouldn't either. there are limits to how much information people want to take in. Some have a huge appetite for information, some don't. Like I said, I study, nothing I've studied has changed my mind much, just informed what I believe. Atheists arrive at their conclusions either through years of study, questioning and challenging, or through personal disappointments or negative experiences with religion. Any explanation, or variation thereof, can be true. What I have discovered is that it's a lot of the latter. This is where I get my opinion from. Sure, get data, get facts, get a very large and diverse sample of people. You'll probably have as many answers as you'll have people answering. Peel away more layers and there will be a theme emerging, either one way or another. In the end, does it matter? It can all based on personal experience, subjective views, culturally biased or tainted ideas that may not have taken into account the kind of individual who is using or interpreting the information. Or not. |
