What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
@Bob - Here is another Petition for you not to sign :)
Keep Church and State Separate -
There goes the head hitting the knees again - Klonk.
@Suzanne, don't you live in a Commonwealth nation? If I recall correctly, that means you live in a nation that at least nominally has a State Church. In fact the Queen on your money is required to be Anglican, or at least used to be until very recently.
Seems like you should fix that before you worry about us Yanks. ;-)
Are you struggling to differentiate between tradition and reality, Robert?
At the Pope's coronation it is said to him, "Receive the Tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World, and Vicar on Earth of Jesus Christ."
Ruler of the World, eh? Cool Beans!
Danielle provided a link to an explanation of the Monarchical tradition in the UK, in another thread. If you scroll down to near the end, you'll see it spelled out. I thought it quite amusing that the religious element in the Monarchy appears to be in counterbalance to the Papal 'authority', but I admit I have an odd sense of humour. It's tradition, Robert. The only restrictive element to religion in the monarchy is that they can't be Roman Catholics!
Of course the words used at the pope's installation are also just tradition, and the last pope to be crowned with the Tiara was 4 popes back.
Do you think it would be OK if we had a law that said the U.S. President, our Head of State, had to be Roman Catholic?
I don't really care what your Head of State does behind closed doors if it doesn't harm anyone. He or she can burn pungent herbs and praise Cthulhu for all I care, or dance naked to the pagan goddess of fertility. What is important, is that he or she operates in their office in accordance with his or her appointment brief.
"guilty of faith"?!? What is wrong with a faithful Atheist?
One example I sometimes give people when they talk about faith goes like this:
How do you know the sky is blue when you know it is? Weren't you told that, by your parents, grandparents, other kids? And you figured those people who told you were reliable, right? So, sure, the sky is blue today because I've always been told by... lots of people... that that's the color blue. I have faith in those people. I haven't looked into any of their credentials, but I know. It's the best knowledge I have.
Of course, this is an extreme example where a word has been agreed upon by virtually everybody. But why? Because some people we don't know invented the word "blue" and tacked it to that particular range of colors, right?
Do you have faith in the idea that blue is blue? I sure do.
On the other hand, I'd say blind faith is most of the time a bad idea.
It sounds like you may be blurring the lines between the two.
Oh, and I'm sure you're right about a lot of Atheists being afraid of the word, "believe." Maybe it's because they're afraid to sound "Christian." Is that also what drove you to be afraid of the word, "faith?"
I say all this with respect and gratitude for what you posted. I'd like for this not to cause animosity.
Ah, but how do you know that the color you call blue, is the same color others call blue?
You still can't now what other people see through their eyes when they identify something as blue. The best standard is still agreement. If 99% of the people say the sky is blue and 1% insist it's green, it's clear which one is speaking in a nonstandard way.
This may be similar to what you are saying, but we know that the visible spectrum is arranged in a particular order along the electromagnetic spectrum. One person's defective vision might shift the colors toward the ultraviolet or infrared, but if a color shifts off entirely, where does it then show up? at the other end of the visible spectrum. Or is it gone entirely. Do you get what I'm saying?
I never get what you're saying.