The Passion...

[J-Proof]

I realize I'm being facetious, but bear with me. A lot of people believe that the Bible is infallible - do you agree? An astonishing number of people believe 100% of the Bible to be literal, as well. Even if you see parts of the book as being an anthology of metaphors, why can't the whole be taken that way? It seems to me that too many religious apologists want to have it both ways - they have their metaphorical tales of how everything was created, but then they have the literal parts where man cannot lay down with man as he would with a woman, and therefore homosexuality is a sin. Granted, not EVERYONE believes in this line of thinking, but I'm sure it's safe to say "most" of the religious (in the US especially) do.

To me the biggest challenge is the very idea that the Bible could be wrong. During the time it was written, science was nonexistent, and so the world-view perceived by its authors was extremely limited. They wrote about what they knew, of course; but as our understanding of the world has increased since that time, and we have found that much of what is in the bible doesn't jive (it is impossible to fit EVERY species of animal on one boat, for example), suddenly it seems many are changing the story to be "metaphor" in order to make it fit into both situations.

Aye -- there's the rub. Why not take the whole thing metaphorically? The explanation is: It's the ideas in the Bible that are concrete, not always the explanations for /how/ something happened (Old testament-wise mostly). Though, the reasoning behind consequence is still very firm.

Of course new things come up in translation. For example, we can determine from the Ark story that God said "Two of each clean animal in this country" of which there were very few (animals worthy of sacrifice that is). And to fit them on a sail barge would not be hard.

This is why many have a problem with people quoting scripture in arguments. You REALLY have to have studied your scripture to be speaking accurately, and people who haven't started "chewing solid meat" but are still "drinking milk" (as Paul would have said it) probably aren't qualified to defend or discuss scripture in great length.

Another example: In seven days the earth was created, right? Well -- what is the measure of a day? Twenty-four hours? Where did we get that from? From the rotations of the earth. On Jupiter a day is a totally different length of time. And on Pluto it's totally different as well. So the seven-day creation story really is just a differentiation of time that God saw fit to use (scripturally speaking that is).

Anyway, any honest Christian is familiar with doubt of scripture, so Torgo, you tain't alone. That's why they call it "faith" of course

[Quicksilver]

You're essentially negating the one potential benefit of being an atheist: not having to worry or think about the whole "God" thing.

couldnt say that any better. I'm agnostic, atheism is just as silly as fundamentalism. To be atheist, you must believe nothing bigger exists, so essentially you think you're the center of the universe. I believe there's something, it just doesn't have to be a god. I guess I don't have that escape, like an atheist, but truly being an atheist would be similar to being in a cage and you hold the key, but you don't open the door. How can you not at least think about it? bah

Whether or not you believe in god, evolution has nothing to do with anything really. You cannot choose to evolve, saying giving Africans condoms would make us advance is silly, based on the principles of evolution. It is not in our favor to save everyone. This is all going to sound harsh and fascist, but I'm approaching this from a species point of view, only basing this on the principles of evolution. Biologically speaking saving dying people really only hurts evolution(assuming it hurts evolution , that's how it works. Medicine in itself, is probably the one thing that can hold evolution back, think about how many diseases would be eradicated if you merely did nothing to help and lived your life. Again based on biological principles and not moral principles.

In fact this doesn't even matter, because if our genetics dictate to help any member of our species, than we will. If it dictates we people will need religion for help, then we will. If our genetics dictate we all jump like lemmings off a cliff, we will. What I'm getting at is evolution takes place no matter what we do to speed it up or slow it down, because does anyone really no what were supposed to become, if you do, tell people not to listen to you from now on.


yes the circle talk is on purpose

[J-Proof]

You're essentially negating the one potential benefit of being an atheist: not having to worry or think about the whole "God" thing.

^ For the record, that quote was not by me

[Tarantulas]

Of course, assuming that this life IS all there is, what the fuck do you care?  If you want to talk about the cold, harsh reality of the universe, I have one for you: RELIGION IS NOT GOING AWAY.  You can interpret that as being for better or for worse, but the fact is that the human mind is wired to want to think the world makes sense.  You can waste your life moaning about it if you want - go ahead.  You're essentially negating the one potential benefit of being an atheist: not having to worry or think about the whole "God" thing.

Remember the bit I said about leaving it better than your found it?  I believe that.  To see millions of people dying because some jerkoff in a funny hat sits in luxury a couple of thousand miles away and wants to cast judgment and scare people with ghost stories is despicable.

Religion IS going away.  Atheism is on the rise world wide.  Soon, christian mythology will be viewed the same way we look at Greek mythology (or the way that most christians view the Islam)

Also, you are right about not "worrying" about god.  I put down that bag of bricks YEARS ago.  And you could too if you didn't hate yourself so much.

I'm sorry if this seems like ranting to you, but the only people who piss me off more than sanctimonious, condescending religious types are the sanctimonious, condescending atheist types.  And you ARE being sanctimonious and condescending.  Bullshit or not, it's their decision how they want to lead their lives, regardless of how stupid it may seem to you.

In the same way that christians want to save people from hell, many Atheists want people to overcome the programing they received as children and begin to think critically on their own.

Assuming such beliefs DID die out, the fact of the matter is that people would just find something else to fight about.  The world still faces poverty, war, and famine, and it probably always will (at least until God / nuclear war / robots / the Republican National Committee show up to destroy the world).

And to refer to non-literalism as "revisionist backpedaling" is to completely ignore religious history.  Christian cosmogony has NEVER been set in stone - non-literalists go back as far as Herodotus and St. Augustine (that's the 5th Century AD, in case you're wondering).

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

Although I don't entirely agree with Augustine's form of cosmogony (which you are free to look up if you're curious), I think he makes a good point about the unimportance of the "how."

You proved my point there... make your predictions and "beliefs" generic enough, people will find a way to validate them.

god is never wrong because things are kept generic enough where there is enough doubt to dissuade any arguments.

"Why did little Jimmy die?"

"Because god called him home.. it's HIS plan"

"Why did little Jimmy live?"

"Because god thought that Jimmy still had things to do on Earth"

HE WINS EVERY TIME!

Revisionist backpeddling also gets you garbage like this (which many christians teach to their children as science fact) (: Source - Jesus Camp)

[gbeenie]

The magisterium  is also against giving the people of Africa access to condoms to help block the spread of AIDS.

Most of the "morals" the church wants to protect are the ones in it's financial interest to uphold. 

"Of course we don't want birth control, we need more catholics to make more catholics."

The "7 days" argument doesn't hold water either.  It's yet another example of revisionist backpedaling.  Bananas anyone?  How many people watched that, and took it as fact?  A metric asston.

Faith is for the weak minded who can't accept this existence for what it is.  This life is all there is, make the most of it, and leave things better than you found them when you check out.

Emperor Popeatine needs to give up the funny hat and stop filling peoples heads with garbage.

You are free to believe as you wish of course

Indeed, but the healing can't begin until we all agree to leave our superstitions behind and truly evolve as a species.

Of course, assuming that this life IS all there is, what the fuck do you care?  If you want to talk about the cold, harsh reality of the universe, I have one for you: RELIGION IS NOT GOING AWAY.

I'm sorry, but the last four hundred years of human history put the lie to that assertion. Mind you, I don't claim that anyone here is going to live to see the "end" of religion, but its ever-diminishing influence in the lives of average people is evident all around.

You can interpret that as being for better or for worse, but the fact is that the human mind is wired to want to think the world makes sense.

Too true; luckily, for centuries, science and reason have been gradually providing the answers that religion pretends (and FAILS MISERABLY) to provide. Children's fairy tales are not in any way equal to genuine knowledge about the workings of the world.

[Moon Blast]

Also note that to this day there is no evidence whatsoever of a transition in our fossil records from ape to man. I would like to see some evidence otherwise.

Actually if you are willing to be open-minded, and do some research, you'll find that we do have transitional records - but keep in mind that "transitional" does not always mean direct relationship between descendant and ancestor.

http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm#Transitionals

Click that link above, it's quite lengthy, but I think you'll find it interesting just how many transitionals have actually been found.


I beg to differ and yes i looked at this before. Again there are no accuracy in the fossil records that exist. Anyone who has done there homework would find out there are no transitions. That page and the supposed evidence is inherently flawed. I am most open-minded then most people out there, it's not like this is about me. There are millions of others that feel the same as i do. I have been doing research for many, many years now.


EDIT: That link with the "Evolution Fraud" you posted was hilarious. Nothing on that page seems relevant in today's discoveries about evolution and paleontology. On top of that, the book you linked to - which posits the notion that people who believe in evolution has some relationship to racism, sexism and abortion is simply ludicrous. That should completely rule out any idea of a level-headed, thoughtful debate.

There is nothing hilarious about it and i find that quite offensive. Evolution does have a direct link to racism, sexism and abortion. I would suggest that you take a look at the book if you know someone that may have a copy and just but a used copy yourself and make a conclusion to see who has the facts here. Look at history for example. Adolf Hitler was a big proponent for evolution and he had used that to exterminate many millions of people and if you do not believe me i suggest you take a look at history itself or choose to remain ignorant. Also Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood believes in evolution and supports eugenics of which Hitler also supported. Just look at her quotes and you tell me that there are no links to evolution and racism, abortion and sexism.

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Another thing that you should look at is a Video called "The Privileged Planet" and see what the science community has to say.

If fact there is plenty of evidence now that there are many scientists that are willing to believe that the universe was created and did not just happened by accident. I can tell you a great paradigm shift is beginning to occur within the scientific community. Something does not come from nothing as that is completely without logic and makes no sense whatsoever.

If fact what boggles my mind is look at the Flagellum for example, a single cell organism, seems simple in terms of functionality right, well look at the inside and you can find that there is a very complex working of a motor system that causes the organism to move about. This alone to me suggests that there is intelligent design at work. If we are to believe that single cell organisms were the first the arrive at the beginning of time then how does one explain the complex motor that belongs to a supposedly simple organism that slowly evolved over many eons, makes no sense.

Take a look at this as well and think deeply about it...

http://faculty.evansville.edu/de3/evolutionweb2/creationism.html

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_iconstouch111501.htm

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm

http://perfecttruth.com/PartEight_EVOLUTION.html

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archives/scotticons.htm

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/denton.html

I leave the conclusion you come up with to you.

[RobtheBarbarian]

Please don't use Hitler as the linchpin of your arguement. You're smarter than that.

[Moon Blast]

Religion IS going away.  Atheism is on the rise world wide.  Soon, christian mythology will be viewed the same way we look at Greek mythology (or the way that most christians view the Islam)

Also, you are right about not "worrying" about god.  I put down that bag of bricks YEARS ago.  And you could too if you didn't hate yourself so much.

Where is the evidence to back that up. Sure, church attendance is down but there are still more Christians in the world then anyone else.

Living a life without God is meaningless and we might as well eat, drink and be marry for tomorrow we die and the world and the rest of the universe is an utter waist. If i knew i was going to no longer exist after death, i would be crapping my pants right now if i knew that was a fact. Why anyone would believe we are simply here by accident is beyond me. Why should anything exist at all then if that were the case. So there is no point to anything whatsoever? That is a scary thought.

[Moon Blast]

Please don't use Hitler as the linchpin of your arguement. You're smarter than that.

It's not about being smart, just look at the facts. I used a historical fact to prove my point and of that offends you then remain ignorant if you will.

[RobtheBarbarian]

You're the one who used the Hitler arguement. If evolution is inherently evil because Hitler believed in it (he was raised Catholic, actually, and spoke favorably of Protestants), then why isn't wearing khaki or driving a Volkswagen evil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_hitlerum

[Moon Blast]

You're the one who used the Hitler arguement. If evolution is inherently evil because Hitler believed in it (he was raised Catholic, actually, and spoke favorably of Protestants), then why isn't wearing khaki or driving a Volkswagen evil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_hitlerum

Evolution is not evil just because a evil man believed in it. Again he was not the only person who used evolution to bring mass genocide upon people, wise up. The founder of Planned Parenthood is another example. Did you even read my post fully?

I do not care of he spoke favorably to the protestants, that does not negate the fact that he was a evil person.

This debate has nothing to do with wearing a Khaki or driving a Volkswagen, come on man.       

[eegah]

Quicksilver I'm agnostic, atheism is just as silly as fundamentalism. To be atheist, you must believe nothing bigger exists, so essentially you think you're the center of the universe.

Oh, please. How is lacking a personal belief in a god or gods as "silly" as wanting to force unproven beliefs on others? And your assertion that atheists believe that they are the center of the universe is just stupid. Saying "I don't believe that a god exists" does not lead to that and you know it.

[torgosPizza]

Moon Blast, I have to humbly suggest that you work up a better argument. So what if the guy who started Planned Parenthood believed in evolution? Millions of people believe in it - that doesn't make them evil. Sorry if I offended you in my earlier comment - I was being a bit more sarcastic than I intended.

It takes a lot more to link evolution and "evils" such as racism than just "these guys all believed it." Stalin and Pol Pot both had mustaches, but we don't say they did evil things because both of them had the same type of facial hair.

There is no dispute among scientists that the "theory" of evolution is factually true. You might say, "but it's a THEORY, and THEORY is not a FACT!" but that's blatant misuse of the word "theory." Look it up and understand the definition.

I looked through your links, and I regret to inform you that none of them showed even the slightest idea of what evolution or the fossil record actually is. The main thread among all of them were "gaps" in the fossil record, which is, again, a common claim among the most fundamentalist Christians in their argument against evolution.

This page in particular  - http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm - once again used "The Java Man" and "The Piltdown Man", hoaxes from the 19th and 20th centuries as supposed "proofs" against evolution. Unfortunately they are not. They have been debunked since those eras, many times over.

It also claims (as you have) that Transitional Forms have not been found and that it's only "speculation" - when in fact they HAVE been found. There is photographic proof, which has been carbon-dated and can be shown in a timeline as to where the species most probably existed. And yet, Creationists (at least the links you have shown me) choose to ignore their existence.

Regarding Punctuated Equilibrium, and other things that your sites love to list as "debunked" and "fraudulent" please, I implore you, read this page: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html  - "Evolution as Theory and Fact." It's quicker than the Transitional Fossils link, and I think you will learn a lot.

Unfortunately, I feel like no matter how much physical evidence I can provide - you know you can go to a museum and SEE these fossils for yourself, right? - it won't do anything to shake your belief that evolution isn't real. It doesn't matter that we can observe it, and can study effects of it, and there are plenty of documents further backing it up.

Here are some quotes from the reading I provided, just in case.

"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.

The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw.

The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals).

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

You see, the way you've been told evolution is WRONG, is not the way evolution works. We would not to see perfectly smooth, gradual transitions in the fossil record - and there are many reasons for this. I humbly suggest you read a bit more on evolution and punctuated equilibrium, and not from a site that sets out to debunk the theory - the FACT - of evolution.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Sarcasm, your argument against relativism has been heard multiple times. And I will admit I don't know a lot about moral relativism. But why does that issue always come up as a proof for god's existence? When you say that there is a moral absolute, that does not prove that God exists. Unless I am missing a big chunk of conversation that I failed to read, in which case I apologize.

well can you find a rational argument for object morality without some sort of deity?  Its been done many times before (although ironically never on this forum despite my request multiple times).  The closest we have gotten it your twice stated example of morality as a result of evolution.  Which quite frankly i still dont understand.  Most morality flys in the face of the most efficient form of existance just in my opinion.  I personally never use that particular argument for gods existance.  Its hard enough to make people really beleive that they ought to do good, and that good doesnt nessicarily mean things they WANT to do.  Personally im a bigger proponent of the Kalaam or cosmological argument. 

[ScottotD]

Living a life without God is meaningless and we might as well eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and the world and the rest of the universe is an utter waist. If i knew i was going to no longer exist after death, i would be crapping my pants right now if i knew that was a fact. Why anyone would believe we are simply here by accident is beyond me. Why should anything exist at all then if that were the case. So there is no point to anything whatsoever? That is a scary thought.

This is exactly why most people follow a religion in my opinion, essentially fear and a need for their lives to mean something.