Why do so many none-christian families get their kids Baptized - OT

You got nothing it would seem. Who mentioned evolution? Regardless, I am well aware that the theory of evolution only covers the development of life on this planet and does not address its origins, it does blow a mighty big hole in the Genesis teachings though.
My arguement was it is ridiculous to say that religion has somehow given these people clarity of vision.

And dont try and describe refusal to accept vague ramblings from a book millenia old versus tested scientific theory as closemindedness. By that perverse logic we should accept everything that is ever told to us lest we be labelled closeminded. No we have an inbuilt information dissemination and analytical feature in our heads called ....... common sense. There is nothing wrong with using it to separate the probable from the ludicrous.

 

Pampa

Your inferences were crystal clear.

It's elementary stuff bringing up the book of Genesis by the way to support your rant.

I'm atheist, I'm not trying to make you accept "vague ramblings" versus "tested" scientific theory. The emphasis of that sentence was on the fact that a hell of a lot of religious people are open-minded to the theory that evolution explains our existence, yet you claimed they are inherently oblivious/ignorant to all science.

I've proven that religious people are not dogmatic where science is concerned, so by default you're prejudice. You continually use words like "scribblings", "ludicrous" and "ramblings" which suggests you are instantly flat out ridiculing their belief, as it doesn't conform to what you believe, that's going to make you a bigot. You brought up the book of Genesis as a get out of jail free card, not acknowledging that it is only a small percentile of (take one faith) Christians (some Conservative Christians) who actually accept the inerrancy of this text, which I think means you're close-minded to reality.

I'm not asking you to believe in what you think is rubbish, I'm advising you that those who do believe, have the right to believe.

 

Let's see what the real truth is.

Christianity does not preach evolution.

Then, Christians realise they really can't deny scientific progress. Suddenly, the bible is interpreted to allow evolution. It was always god's plan since yesterday when it sounded like a good idea, right?

Atheists start by basing their view on facts, reason and logic. The story of creation is by default exempt from this.

 

"Let's see what the real truth is"... then you followed that with a couple of sentences that you could probably fit into a "Tweet".

I can answer everything you have just dribbled onto this screen with one very simple sentence...

The ideas and theories of evolution pre-date the "story of creation". To elaborate, the idea that man evolved from other living organisms was already in motion before the "story of creation" was written.

At least know something about evolution and not just it's meaning, I'm not even going to reply to the next one if you don't start doing your homework.

I'll say it one last time, I have no problem with what any of you believe, you can tell me a billion times that science is right - in fact I'm right with you, I'm atheist and share a lot of your views, but never ever will you convince me that it's ok to deny anyone of their belief, no matter how ridiculous you or even I think it might be.

 

Nothing of what you just said is relevant.

Believe me, I'm very aware of evolution and how Christians fit it into their theories.

No-one has said anything about denying anyone their own beliefs.

I make statements with brevity because this is a football forum. Pay me and I'll write you a bloody thesis.

If you want to carry on making juvenile insults and even more juvenile assumptions, it's certainly yourself that's not worth replying to. Please don't ruin a good thread.

 

"Nothing of what you just said is relevant"

"Let's see what the real truth is"

When you're done with that pedestal, let me know and we'll have a proper chat.

I quite liked your little quotes from earlier about not fulfilling life if you're devoted purely to religion... they'll be fun to pick off.

 

Pedestal? Please. I wouldn't swap it for your high horse.

It's my opinion. I don't think fulfilment in life is truly possible. It's hard to disprove opinion, it being opinion, after all.

Why so argumentative? Does no-one talk to you in 'the real world' so you massage your ego online by acting like the cleverest man alive?

And, by the way, the line you seem to like ('Let's see what the real truth is') was in reference to people interpreting and reinterpreting the Bible to fit in with new discoveries which can no longer be argued against (like evolution). If you like it that much you're free to use it, it's not the best line I've ever written but you seem to enjoy it

 

Terry you're talking horseshit.

 

While I'm awaiting my most recent Football management creation finding a top division job whilst on holiday, I shall simply explain my view of religion.

I am not religious to an extent where I'd believe that a "caring" god exists and that we must worship it in order to proceed to our next destination, that seems like carefully manipulated bullshit permeating down the various social strata to maintain power or gain it. When anything dies in the vast cosmos, it facilitates the beginning or continuance of something else, not the ascendance of the dead object, so it seems illogical in this sense.

However, I can't reject the possibility that "god" exists. That is because objectively god can be used as an effective label for anything (and will be for all time to keep the religious people in the moral superiority to which they have become accustom). Logically, the thought of a higher power is one of the most rational leaps you can ever conceptualize. A dog looks at his master, who feeds him, walks him, beats him, loves him, and could justifiably think of this master as "god" to their view of the universe. How perfectly natural it is, then, for man to look around and notice that he alone is superior in the domain, yet has been provided for in the land. Who put it there and why? It's at once an animalistic and yet highly intelligent series of questions which baffles man as a species because we are the ultimate Earth has thus far produced. Well Prehistoric Europeans and South American tribes saw the sun rise every day and provide warmth and light, and so that provided a pretty decent logical component and thus worthy deity, while later cults began to focus on the known (the human body and animals) and vessels of the gods, which again seems a logical step given our superiority over the land. Going into this in further depth would be boring, so I'll just close this section by pointing out that rationally "god" or "gods" is not redundant, nor will it ever be, even when Science gathers pace.

Can god exist? As I've said, it's not likely that god would be caring, or even reward those that worship him, based on the many atrocities committed every day all over the planet. Otherwise, yes, as a muted spectator it is thoroughly and undeniably plausible, that a god could exist. The definition of god, however, will provoke discussion forever, though. A super-star collapsing and exploding particles colliding billions of times, which create other particles which form planets which hold life, could be considered god, for example, yet for the scientific community it will not. Would worshiping it help your daily grind on planet Earth? **** no. There are so many "possible gods" with this same answer that for me, religion is futile.

Why be religious? Because some guy who was written about by the greatest fiction writers of the day 2000 years ago says it will help with the immortal soul? Sounds suspiciously like playing on the superstitious nature of human cognition, to me. Let's not forget that all major religions who stretch back far enough have seriously lacking chronology at best, and completely unattestable dating series at worst... The literature, furthermore, is stylized, repeats and forms basic rhetoric. Explanatory philosophical, theoretical and practical considerations of God cannot be formed from them as a result. This where "faith" comes in. This itself is easily observable as a true psychological manipulation, which as I said permeates from the upper social strata of human society. The arbitrary operant response of animals and humans alike is to promote oneself for various means, sex, power etc. Hence we will always have people using some means or other to promote themselves, and others tactically aligning themselves, and people who have little hope of social betterment falling into line behind them in hope. Thus religion exists. Belief in God is not religion, because religion is a social and political mechanism.

Looking through history is crops up again and again.

Do I believe that a caring god exists? No. Do I believe something more powerful than us exists in the universe, which created life and could thus be called god if you so wish? Yes. Am I religious? No.

Do I begrudge people who believe in god? No, it's logically plausible. Do I begrudge people who use religion to influence the social hierarchy? Yes, but it's an inevitable fact of life.

Do I think religious life has anything to offer humanity? Yes, in contradiction to my other points. This is because it has shaped our society so much (ie, been successful for the elite) that we dictate cultural norms relating to goodness and evil from it, as well as mental illness etc. I think the "ideal person" the preachers of the world tell us about is not bad for society at all. It's use as a social mechanism for control has evidently been well conceived, especially later religions like Christianity and Islamic traditions which found common precedence in the masses first (this was the key to their overall success). Unfortuantely there are nutjobs use it for justification of armageddon.

 

Holy ****

I will copy and save this for further use

 

The answer to this thread's question is very simply that faith schools in the UK get more funding than non faith schools. This allows them to improve their facilities and employ better staff. So obviously a large number of parents will get their children baptised so that they can be fast tracked through the faith education system. This trend is expected to die out in the coming years as, if I recall correctly, the difference in actual educational quality has been shown to be evening off.
Another reason would be simple tradition - families often see it as a traditional family get together that is expected when a child is still young and care very little about the religious process.