22nd August 2011
“If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.”
“If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.”
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:18
very VERY big IF……………but not impossible
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:46
The true “book” should gave them enough evidence.
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:58
The creations, phenomenons, existing things could not have been designed, exist and controlled without a powerful deity. It just can’t . No amount of other explanation could ever account for its necessity. That is another evidence.
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:43
Sure. IF they were designed. I hate to point it out though that you were born.
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:48
solomon: what you typed is not a valid argument – it’s called the argument from incredulity.
August 22nd, 2011 at 15:02
I can affirm this quotation with my own experience. I was raised a secular presbyterian – the folks thought it would be a good idea to socialize us in the context of the christian faith. They didn’t want to send us out into the world ignorant of the the rich literary history of the bible. They also thought it might innoculate us against the appeal of cult-like groups. If religion isn’t mysterious, it isn’t an exciting revelation. Despite years of exposure to praise, bible stories and baptisms, I never bought it. I was never too convinced about Easter particularly. An communion seemed downright weird. Yes, I did the same with my kids, and they also thought the bible stories had little to do with reality and didn’t reveal much about higher truths.
August 22nd, 2011 at 18:37
electra…………….
i identify strongly with your words…..my background was similar….
and when i left home for school, that was the end of it. since then,
i have read, studied and thought a great deal to arrive at my current
viewpoints. i find participating in A.qotd very interesting, and somewhat
tempering !!
RE POST AT 7:40………….there is no ” one true book “
August 22nd, 2011 at 21:12
A few words put to pen. It is amazing how something so simple can cause so many to swallow it hook, line and sinker. I feel sorry for you Solomon. It is obvious that you are unable to see past the foolishness. On that note, I’ll just ride up into the air on my horse. Do you believe I can do that? How about if I put it in a finely written novel?
August 22nd, 2011 at 21:20
The only “one true book” is House at Pooh Corner.
August 22nd, 2011 at 22:33
electra………….
you are right, of course !!
August 22nd, 2011 at 22:38
‘I hate to point it out though that you were born.’
Yeah….?
What about the first human?
Are they born too???
August 22nd, 2011 at 22:40
All the atheists are !!LIARS!!
August 23rd, 2011 at 4:36
holysmokes,
If birds can fly, why can’t a horse, if fixed with a pair of wings.
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:17
Yes. It’s a strange “law” of biology: all animals are born. I myself have seen quite a number of animals being born.
But assembled by design? Don’t make me laugh.
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:04
But the fact still points to the need that the 1st. human was designed & built. There’s no doubt about it.
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:15
Dan,
Sorry to say you need to re-master your biology.
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:23
Really Sol? I’ve studied and worked as a biologist for 11 years (I’m 33). What is your education and work background in biology?
Some questions that I’m sure you’ll answer with your years of experience then:
1. And why exactly would you expect there to be a clear-cut “first human?”
2. Given that human children are never identical to their parents, how do you know that Homo habilis and/or Homo erectus never gave birth to children that were more Homo sapien-like?
3. You favor Dirt as an origin of the “first human,” right? As you’re so knowledgeable, then I’m sure you’ll be able to point me in the right direction of evidence of a dirt-to-human transition.
4. Again, as you’re so knowledgeable on the subject, I’m sure you can explain how soil particles made the transition to not only forming complex molecules such as hemoglobin, but also cells, tissues and organs. Right?
5. Related to question 4, I’m sure you’ll be able to explain why earlier hominids such as Homo habilis – which had all of these complex tissues already – could not have possibly transferred them through descending generations, despite the very striking anatomical similarities between H. habilis and modern humans. Right?
Like you said, you’re more educated than I am, so these questions should be easy for someone as brilliant as you. 🙂