16 things atheists need Christians to know

[JLives]

Ok, your Prophet is Darwin and your current leader is Bill Maher. Atheists still get as zealous as religious folk when it comes to what they do believe in, which is science.

Um, science is the method us humans developed to decide what is real and what is not. So ok, I'm zealous about facts. Science is constantly changing as we discover new things, there are no stoic conclusions as with faith.

[averagejoe]

Sweet, 'cause unicorns are cool.

Also part of the bible (King James version)

Unicorns are also in:

Canadian Coat of Arms
http://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/image ... 4b8F7pLpB7

Scotland Coat of Arms:
http://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/image ... 4b8F7pLpB7


British Coat of Arms:
http://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/image ... 4b8F7pLpB7




The unicorn was the symbol of ancient Israel.
It was the secondary emblem of the tribe of Ephraim

[Glacier]

It's funny that animal species go extinct daily, but people cannot believe unicorns ever existed simply because they don't exist today.

Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. ~ Wikipedia

[fluffy]

Science is constantly changing as we discover new things, there are no stoic conclusions as with faith.

And science is by its very nature is inherently open minded, as new discoveries alter previous beliefs the old ones are left by the way without bias. This is what may prove the church's ultimate demise, their reluctance to make any attempt to bring their religion into the present by giving it a form that is less in conflict with the scientific knowledge that has become more and more widespread. It would also serve this discussion to be aware of some of the conflict within the scientific community when dealing concepts that do not lend themselves easily to the traditional scientific method of hyothesis/experimentaion/conclusion, such as the classic "where did all this come from?". Some of the most exciting discoveries may well be ahead of us still, in those areas where science and mysticism overlap, and traditional thought from both the scientific and spiritual communities falls short.

[averagejoe]

It's funny that animal species go extinct daily, but people cannot believe unicorns ever existed simply because they don't exist today.

Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. ~ Wikipedia

Unicorns are also in a few Netherlands Cities Coats of Arms too.

The Unicorn was featured on the bow of Dutch "Jaght Schips" (yachts) in the 17th century.

[averagejoe]

Canadian Provincial Coats of Arms.....with unicorns.

Nova Scotia Coat of Arms

ttp://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/coaNS.htm

Manitoba Coat of Arms

http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/coaMan.htm

[Tacklewasher]

It's funny that animal species go extinct daily, but people cannot believe unicorns ever existed simply because they don't exist today.

No. It's because there is no good evidence of them having existed.

Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. ~ Wikipedia

Not sure how that is different than a myth. They heard stories of them in a far off land but never actually saw them.

[chrisanchloe]

For that matter there's no proof anyone here exists other than me...

[5VP]

For that matter, and as far as can be proven adequately here on this forum, and to my own satisfaction, I'm the only one who actually exists...

[OREZ]

Science is constantly changing as we discover new things, there are no stoic conclusions as with faith.

And science is by its very nature is inherently open minded, as new discoveries alter previous beliefs the old ones are left by the way without bias. This is what may prove the church's ultimate demise, their reluctance to make any attempt to bring their religion into the present by giving it a form that is less in conflict with the scientific knowledge that has become more and more widespread. It would also serve this discussion to be aware of some of the conflict within the scientific community when dealing concepts that do not lend themselves easily to the traditional scientific method of hyothesis/experimentaion/conclusion, such as the classic "where did all this come from?". Some of the most exciting discoveries may well be ahead of us still, in those areas where science and mysticism overlap, and traditional thought from both the scientific and spiritual communities falls short.

I've always been intrigued by this. Since most people are well aware of this (especially if a person is old enough to have actually observed how "new discoveries alter previous beliefs") and it doesn't take much to peruse relatively recent (recent in the grand scheme of things) textbooks and encyclopedias and see how this is not exactly unheard of, would it not be logical to conclude that much of what is emphatically stated by some as "scientific fact" today may likely be replaced by the "scientific fact" of tomorrow, the same way if has in the past? If so, what do you think it is it that allows many people to so easily feel comfortable with accepting speculative science on grand subjects such as the origin of the universe?

[fluffy]

I'm no psyche major, but I believe it is human nature to hunger for understanding, a need to know, even if it sometimes leads us to prematurely accept as fact what is merely the best theory to date.

[grammafreddy]

I don't subscribe or believe in any religion OR the big bang theory. I simply don't care enough to bother with either. I do understand that some people have this need to know the world's origins but I'm not one of them.

I denounce all religions because they are creations of men, intended to enslave people and to extort riches and servitude from them and take control of lands and build empires, all the while calling their own "religion" the only true religion and their own "god" the only true god. They commit horrendous atrocities against their enemies who believe differently. It's all a power trip, folks.

The jug of Koolaid is in the fridge. The brainwashing poison has been added already. Drink heartily because there's more where that came from.

[Captain Awesome]

For that matter there's no proof anyone here exists other than me...

I don't know, sometimes I question even my own existence. What if it is just an elaborate dream? And I'm an amoeba that is dreaming?

[Nebula]

I've always been intrigued by this. Since most people are well aware of this (especially if a person is old enough to have actually observed how "new discoveries alter previous beliefs") and it doesn't take much to peruse relatively recent (recent in the grand scheme of things) textbooks and encyclopedias and see how this is not exactly unheard of, would it not be logical to conclude that much of what is emphatically stated by some as "scientific fact" today may likely be replaced by the "scientific fact" of tomorrow, the same way if has in the past? If so, what do you think it is it that allows many people to so easily feel comfortable with accepting speculative science on grand subjects such as the origin of the universe?

One problem with your statements above that I see is that you state that the origin of the universe is speculative science. A few scientists didn't get together one day and say, "Hey, let's just invent a way the universe could have come about."

My position is that the most ignorant thing a person can believe in, in this day and age, outside of Noah's Ark as anything but a fable, is a young Earth, in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

[OREZ]

I've always been intrigued by this. Since most people are well aware of this (especially if a person is old enough to have actually observed how "new discoveries alter previous beliefs") and it doesn't take much to peruse relatively recent (recent in the grand scheme of things) textbooks and encyclopedias and see how this is not exactly unheard of, would it not be logical to conclude that much of what is emphatically stated by some as "scientific fact" today may likely be replaced by the "scientific fact" of tomorrow, the same way if has in the past? If so, what do you think it is it that allows many people to so easily feel comfortable with accepting speculative science on grand subjects such as the origin of the universe?

One problem with your statements above that I see is that you state that the origin of the universe is speculative science. A few scientists didn't get together one day and say, "Hey, let's just invent a way the universe could have come about."

My position is that the most ignorant thing a person can believe in, in this day and age, outside of Noah's Ark as anything but a fable, is a young Earth, in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

...Which brings to mind another thing that has puzzled me for years. Why is it that people assume that in order to believe in God, one must believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? I mean, I know that's another wonderful chestnut like hell and eternal torment that many feel they need to cling to but why, I wonder. Are these people actually studying the Bible or just conforming to religious doctrine?

So anyways, Nebula, maybe you could explain to me how theories about the origin of the universe could be anything but speculative? Did I miss something? Do all scientist now buy into the same theory?
Again, just asking.