Hello

[chickenranch]

Hi
I'm an atheist and I don't see that changing.

Followers (of any religion) who readily accept myths and magic as facts, when actual facts are well known, perplex me. Religions and their followers that insist on positive ideals (love, hope, peace, charity ... etc) yet don't walk their talk also don't make sense to me, and I think they do more damage than good.

It's getting harder for me to accept some my religious friends completely because of these two things. I like to think that I can accept many world views but clearly I can't. That makes me a little bit sad. I just can't ignore how much hypocrisy and science denial damage society.

I like to read other people's debates but may not join in many because I don't have a lot of time to gather enough facts to be armed well enough for the fight. Some of you are very tough debaters.

Its interesting to do read, think, and talk about this stuff in an anonymous forum.

I don't have chickens, I don't have a ranch, and I think some of those things in my picture are duck eggs.

 

[Mister Silver]

Welcome to the forum.

 

[YmirGF]

This fellow atheist offers a heartfelt, "Moo!"

 

[Kemosloby]

As an Atheist which do you believe came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[Laika]

Welcome to RF Chickenranch.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Welcome to Religious Forums

 

[chickenranch]

As an Atheist which do you believe came first, the chicken or the egg?

I don't have enough facts to enter this debate at this time. I think I recall, though, that a non-chicken laid an egg with mutated DNA, it was fertilized, and that was the beginning of chickens. That's pretty much the extent of what I might know about this.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't have enough facts to enter this debate at this time. I think I recall, though, that a non-chicken laid an egg with mutated DNA, it was fertilized, and that was the beginning of chickens. That's pretty much the extent of what I might know about this.

Nobody really knows, you just say it took millions and millions of years, that should cover all the tracks. If not, say billions and billions of years.

 

[chickenranch]

Nobody really knows, you just say it took millions and millions of years, that should cover all the tracks. If not, say billions and billions of years.

Or "How should I know? I wasn't there!"

 

[Rival]

I just can't ignore how much hypocrisy and science denial damage society.

I think you've possibly had a limited experience with religious people.

 

[chickenranch]

I think you've possibly had a limited experience with religious people.

Why?

ETA:
I know religion and science can coexist, if someone interprets writings as metaphors and myths, not facts.
I know that non-hypocritical religious people exist.

There's a huge, and in my experience, growing number of people who do are religious hypocritical science deniers - many more so than when I was younger. I don't understand how, with so much information and knowledge literally at our fingertips, this number is growing.

 

[Rival]

Why?

Because there are plenty of us who don't doubt scientific theory and aren't hypocritical. For instance, in the U.K. most Christians are not creationists and evolution is a non-issue. You'll find that in most of Europe, most religious folks are secular and we only have the odd crazies. The Pope declared evolution a thing years ago and no-one really cared. There are plenty of Jewish folks here who are only recognisable by their kippot and eating habits. Our churches are not mega-churches vying for who can make the most money a la Benny Hinn. In my experience most religious folks here are not hypocritical in the least; most because one couldn't tell that such a person is religious unless one asked.

 

[chickenranch]

I think you missed my edit. It may clarify my position.
Also, nowhere in my original post did I say that all religious people met my criteria.
I said that religious people WHO DO these things and the religions that encourage that perplex me and do harm.
That is an important distinction to make before you take umbrage to my opinions and tell me I'm inexperienced, I think

A question: How can a person be both religious and secular?
Also, not knowing whether or not someone is religious does not mean they can't be a hypocrite.

I met very few religious people, period, in Europe. It's not just that I didn't know if my friends were, I knew they weren't. But then I wasn't hanging out in churches for my social life, either, so it's not surprising.

 

[Rival]

A question: How can a person be both religious and secular?
Also, not knowing whether or not someone is religious does not mean they can't be a hypocrite.

Easy. Just keep your religion to you and not expect everyone else to live by your moral/religious/social laws.

Exactly. Everyone can be a hypocrite. It is definitely not limited to religious people.

 

[chickenranch]

Easy. Just keep your religion to you and not expect everyone else to live by your moral/religious/social laws.

Exactly. Everyone can be a hypocrite. It is definitely not limited to religious people.

So you mean they act secular, not are secular. Different.

You said that most religious people in Europe aren't hypocrites because you can't tell they are religious. They can be hypocrites even if they don't tell you they are religious, is my point, counter to your point.

I wouldn't be so pedantic except the arguments you offered out of the gate were arguing with me about something I didn't say or imply (all vs some) so it seems necessary to me to not be misunderstood in this... my first real conversation here. I think maybe I need a snack.

 

[Rival]

So you mean they act secular, not are secular. Different.

You said that most religious people in Europe aren't hypocrites because you can't tell they are religious. They can be hypocrites even if they don't tell you they are religious, is my point, counter to your point.

I wouldn't be so pedantic except the arguments you offered out of the gate were arguing with me about something I didn't say or imply (all vs some) so it seems necessary to me to not be misunderstood in this... my first real conversation here. I think maybe I need a snack.

I think perhaps we refer to different types of secular. I am referring to secular government as opposed to a theocracy. Secular also means worldy/temporal and not connected to religion; so education in a state school is secular unless otherwise stated, for instance. So are the police and courts. Eating, drinking, bathing, non-religious music, films, non-religious books etc. are all secular unless connected to some religious dogma.

Secular clergy - Wikipedia

Yes, so what I'm saying is that if you know not whether a person is religious and that person is a hypocrite you can't jump to blame the (or lack of) religion. It would be unfair to assume that a religious person's hypocrisy is related to his religion and an atheist's is not related to his atheism, if this is the line of thought, as most atheists hold such ideals of love, peace, etc. too.

 

[ChristineM]

Hi
I'm an atheist and I don't see that changing.

Followers (of any religion) who readily accept myths and magic as facts, when actual facts are well known, perplex me. Religions and their followers that insist on positive ideals (love, hope, peace, charity ... etc) yet don't walk their talk also don't make sense to me, and I think they do more damage than good.

It's getting harder for me to accept some my religious friends completely because of these two things. I like to think that I can accept many world views but clearly I can't. That makes me a little bit sad. I just can't ignore how much hypocrisy and science denial damage society.

I like to read other people's debates but may not join in many because I don't have a lot of time to gather enough facts to be armed well enough for the fight. Some of you are very tough debaters.

Its interesting to do read, think, and talk about this stuff in an anonymous forum.

I don't have chickens, I don't have a ranch, and I think some of those things in my picture are duck eggs.

Hi.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

.

I like to read other people's debates but may not join in many because I don't have a lot of time to gather enough facts to be armed well enough for the fight. Some of you are very tough debaters.

Mate, you'll be fine, this thing doesn't require a degree. Most of it is stating the obvious...
Welcome to RF!!

 

[sun rise]

Welcome to RF from a "spiritual but not religious" person who believes that science is the lens through which we see and come to understand the divine world.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you. Welcome.