Would proving evolution to be fact, really affect believers of Christianity? [Kill Em With Kindness]

ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Would proving evolution to be fact, really affect believers of Christianity? [Kill Em With Kindness]

I ask this question, after having read numerous debates from both sides of the camp.  Evolutionists bring up the evidence that supports the theory, and Christians typically point out the "lack" of the "missing links" (i.e., why there isn't a croc-o-duck), or other things that they don't quite understand about the theory, since it doesn't fit into the preconceived belief that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to prove evolution to be a real process, I started wondering, "Would proving evolution to be fact, actually have any affect at all on Christians?" (and especially, young-earth Christians).

If it would have no effect - what is the point of debating whether or not evolution is "true" to these folks?  Are their other arguments that could be more effective at reasoning about the existence of god?

 

 


Zorkentine Juxaus
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Due to the fact that we know

Due to the fact that we know evolution takes place, I don't think it has any affect on MOST christians.  I think that the more we fill in the blanks with science, the more people are going to realize how irrational the concept of christianity is.  Even then, we can't fill in all the blanks. There will always be christians, but we can take away their political superiority and stop their violence. 


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
ZarathusaI did provide you

Zarathusa

I did provide you with a relevant response - I stated at the outset that a critical / essential element of a theist's mindset is faith.

I  stated that "I can provide plenty of evidence for my beliefs, but I wouldn't waste my time - or yours - outlining my reasons because in the end, it eventually comes down to faith - the belief in something that can't be proven".

I've challenged two or three posters here to prove to me that love - something we all acknowledge exists - can be proven. So far, I've had one poster inform mne that love doesn't really exist between a mother and child (it's actually imprinting)- another says they can prove it, but not on this forum (but some "machine" can measure it) and another says it's perfectly possible to prove love, "even if I don't know how" .

And as I write this, I'm stuill waiting for somebody to "prove" to me - with hard facts / a link to a credible web site / scientific eveidence - that love exists.

You think the error lies with Chrisiinity - I don't.

Guess what - we've both expressed our opinion. That's what you and I have - opinions / beliefs. That's what we ALL have - opinions - not facts. There isn't a person on the planet who can say with absolute certainty that God exists or doesn't exist.

It comes down to the belief in something that can't be proven - faith. In other words, it's alot like love.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mysonbrandon

mysonbrandon wrote:

Zarathusa

I did provide you with a relevant response - I stated at the outset that a critical / essential element of a theist's mindset is faith.

I  stated that "I can provide plenty of evidence for my beliefs, but I wouldn't waste my time - or yours - outlining my reasons because in the end, it eventually comes down to faith - the belief in something that can't be proven".

I've challenged two or three posters here to prove to me that love - something we all acknowledge exists - can be proven. So far, I've had one poster inform mne that love doesn't really exist between a mother and child (it's actually imprinting)- another says they can prove it, but not on this forum (but some "machine" can measure it) and another says it's perfectly possible to prove love, "even if I don't know how" .

And as I write this, I'm stuill waiting for somebody to "prove" to me - with hard facts / a link to a credible web site / scientific eveidence - that love exists.

You think the error lies with Chrisiinity - I don't.

Guess what - we've both expressed our opinion. That's what you and I have - opinions / beliefs. That's what we ALL have - opinions - not facts. There isn't a person on the planet who can say with absolute certainty that God exists or doesn't exist.

It comes down to the belief in something that can't be proven - faith. In other words, it's alot like love.

Love and the brain.

CNN: FMRI and new love.

NYT: More on love and the brain.

Student paper on love and the brain.

Brief NJ article on love and the brain.

TED talk by Helen Fisher. (She's mentioned above)

Now, I predict that you will find all manner of fault with the above. You asked for proof "beyond a doubt" wich does nto exist - and asking for such is an old and tired way of always providing an "out" just in case your opponent can evidence thier claim.

Also, since research into the brain is still patchy and young, I predict a comment along the lines  "since we don't know for sure, it could be something else!"

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Is god just in you head?

What is you obsession with proving your love scientifically?

I also don’t understand how this relates to the question of whether religion and science can coincide.  Science and history deal with the question of whether are not things exist, or ever have existed.  Philosophy and psychology(science) deal with weather or not thing exist in peoples mind (such as personal experience, emotion, etc).   Are you saying that god only exists in your mind?  If god exists outside of your mind then he should be proven scientifically.  If god can’t be proven scientifically then he is no more likely then a child’s imaginary friend, and should be treated as such. 
 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
The Origin of Ignorance

mysonbrandon wrote:

I did provide you with a relevant response - I stated at the outset that a critical / essential element of a theist's mindset is faith.

The only relevance this 'response' holds is to reveal your involuntary admission that christianity and evolution are not logically compatible.  As you demonstrate, the only way for you to harmonize them is to put the inconsistencies out of mind by blinding yourself with faith.

mysonbrandon wrote:
I  stated that "I can provide plenty of evidence for my beliefs, but I wouldn't waste my time - or yours - outlining my reasons because in the end, it eventually comes down to faith - the belief in something that can't be proven".

You have already been wasting our time --and yours -- by straying from the actual topic and going on and on about 'proving love'. 

Evolutionary theory rests on evidence (lots of it).  It does not come down to faith.  It has been proven.   If your unproven christian beliefs can be brought into line with the evidence for evolution, please proceed to elaborate.  If you instead cannot elaborate (as you have already conceded), and can only bring them in line by a forced act of faith, then there's no need to continue -- you will simply be wasting our time --and yours.

mysonbrandon wrote:
You think the error lies with Chrisiinity - I don't.

I gathered that.  However, simply saying "I don't" does not resolve the problems of inconsistency.  If you think the error lies with evolution, please point it out.  If you think there is in fact no problem of inconsistency (although you already acknowledged there was), then please explain without the use of faith, as requested above.  If you can only say "I don't" without any reasoning in support, then you are wasting our time --and yours.

mysonbrandon wrote:
Guess what - we've both expressed our opinion. That's what you and I have - opinions / beliefs. That's what we ALL have - opinions - not facts.

Gues what -- with the available evidence, evolution is as close to a fact as we can expect.  With its lack of evidence to date, christianity is decidedly not a fact.  My opinion is that the factual data of evolution and the non-factual beliefs of christianity do not jibe.  I am open to having my opinion swayed -- but not by your repeated and un-enlightening clamorings of "faith". 

mysonbrandon wrote:
There isn't a person on the planet who can say with absolute certainty that God exists or doesn't exist.

Of course not, and never was that asserted in this discussion.  But we can strive for certainty in determining whether the specific beliefs of christianity fit with scientific evidence. 

mysonbrandon wrote:

It comes down to the belief in something that can't be proven - faith. In other words, it's alot like love.

Love can be explained in evolutionary terms.  There is no problem of inconsistency, as with christianity.  A rather poor dodge, I must say. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, but I don't have

I'm sorry, but I don't have a problem with science and religion existing side by side.

The Bible states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Science tells us that it all began with the Big Bang.

In my opinion, God flipped the switch.

There are alot of very intelligent people around who understand all of the wonderful benefits that science has given us. Those same intelligent people also acknowledge that their faith has also provided them with significant benefits as well.

If you don't believe that science-evolution / religion can co-exist, that's your perogative. You can believe whatever you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Jill:I'm sorry to say that

Jill:

I'm sorry to say that your prediction would be wrong (so much for female intuition..(<Smiling - I actually found the links you provided interesting.

I particularily liked a section that referred to "Yet falling in love is among the most irrational of human behaviors". Or how about this - "New love can look for all the world like mental illness, a blend of mania, dementia and obsession that cuts people off from friends and family and prompts out-of-character behavior - compulsive phone calling, serenades, yelling from rooftops - that could almost be mistaken for psychosis".

So we're all here believing in and striving to find this"irrational " thing called love for what - because it feels good when we find it and it provides us with a sense of well being / peace of mind and happiness.

Kind of sounds like what theists believe when they describe the 'feelings" / benefits their faith provides to them..

Thanks for the response - much appreciated.

 

Perhaps the founders of this site should create a spin-off web site based on the above - "Believe in love - we can fix that"..!!


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mysonbrandon wrote:Jill:I'm

mysonbrandon wrote:

Jill:

I'm sorry to say that your prediction would be wrong (so much for female intuition..(<Smiling - I actually found the links you provided interesting.

I particularily liked a section that referred to "Yet falling in love is among the most irrational of human behaviors". Or how about this - "New love can look for all the world like mental illness, a blend of mania, dementia and obsession that cuts people off from friends and family and prompts out-of-character behavior - compulsive phone calling, serenades, yelling from rooftops - that could almost be mistaken for psychosis".

So we're all here believing in and striving to find this"irrational " thing called love for what - because it feels good when we find it and it provides us with a sense of well being / peace of mind and happiness.

Kind of sounds like what theists believe when they describe the 'feelings" / benefits their faith provides to them..

Thanks for the response - much appreciated.

 

Perhaps the founders of this site should create a spin-off web site based on the above - "Believe in love - we can fix that"..!!

So you're trying to equate faith and love now, simply because they're both irrational?

Quite silly. Loving another person doesn't involve make-believe. That other person really exists, and their reciprocity (or lack thereof) is just as real. The emotions felt come from reality as well - with a solid basis for understanding them in evolutionary psychology. The benefits of love can only be had with those very real mechanisms of the brain.

Where believing in a super being who is invisible and all-powerful requires one to fabricate a world of make-believe that can never be evidenced, never be detected, requiring faith (belief in spite of no evidence or in direct contradiction to evidence). The "benefits" that faith brings can be had without the make-believe.

And that's why science and religion can't really co-exist. As science brings us an ever-increasing understanding of the entire cosmos - including our own minds - there will be less and less room to fit in "god". Sure, there are gaps in our understanding where one might insert "god" - such as your example of making god the being that threw the switch - but that just makes the idea of god something of an intellectual Spackle. It hides the cracks, but doesn't serve to improve the structure.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
mysonbrandon wrote:I'm

mysonbrandon wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't have a problem with science and religion existing side by side.

 

That is because you are closing your eyes to the problem.

 

mysonbrandon wrote:
The Bible states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Science tells us that it all began with the Big Bang.

 

In my opinion, God flipped the switch.

 

The big bang theory works well enough without a superfluous switch-flipping god.

 

You can always fabricate a god to fit the current scientific evidence. However, you will continually have to modify this god as new evidence comes in. With a god tied to specific dogmas (such as the christian one), this becomes harder to do, as eventually you may find yourself tampering with sine qua non tenets.

 

I had held off on giving a fuller explanation of why I find christianity and evolution incompatible, in the hope that the discussion could proceed incrementally. However, as you have nothing to offer in response except "faith", I will now expound.

 

Just as the big bang theory requires no god to explain the current universe, neither does evolutionary theory require a god to explain the origin of our species. Rather, we observe that life evolves precisely as if there were no conscious agent guiding the process. As seen in this thread, our imperfect brains can design a human being far more intelligently than your so-called god.

 

As for the specific problems of christianity and evolution (CAVEAT - Given that there are over 33,000 — how should I say, species — of christianity roaming the savannah of superstition, it is possible I might misrepresent your beliefs. If so, please alert me, and describe in detail your particular mutant strain of the original christogen):

 

Free will/fallen nature/souls - According to christianity, god gave us free will, in exercise of which we angered god, fell from grace, and are now with sinful nature. Likewise, god conferred souls upon us, which now are at risk of suffering eternal punishment for our sinful nature.

 

If this is so, it is fair to ask:

 

Exactly where on the evolutionary tree did god instill free will and souls? Should I choose for example H. sapiens, then we have to ask: What is so significant about the first H. sapiens that they should have a souls, but not their immediate hominid predecessors, having only slightly smaller brain size and slightly less upright posture? By what critieria is it an sinful (and punishable) abomination in god's eyes for sapiens to commit a particular act (e.g. killing another of its species, or engaging in promiscuity), but not in habilis or erectus — or for that matter with chimpanzees who, nearly genetically identical to us, evolved from the same (presumably non-sinful) ancestor?

 

jesus(assumed to be real for the sake of example) - Hominids split off several million years go, and sapiens split off approximately 200,000 years ago, somewhere along the way picking up free will and eternal punishment. A mere 2,000 years ago, god jumps into the scene to save us from the punishment he sentenced us to (as well as sidestepping the typical process of viviparity). By dying and rising from the dead, he purports to save all of humanity. It is again fair to ask: Exactly what is humanity, and how far through evolutionary tree does this salvation spread? This is even hairier a question than above, since jesus' sacrifice is supposed to cover all of "humanity" in the preceding 198,000 years, and all of "humanity" yet to live. Yet the blind process of evolution could redefine humanity. Hypothetically, the racial sub-groups of sapiens could evolve divergently into entirely new species. Hypothetically, humans could evolve into less intelligent beings, on par with the pre-sapiens specimens. Will our descendants then lose their free will and souls, and jesus' salvation will have reached its critical mass?

 

At this point, I imagine you find this discussion highly ridiculous, with which you will find my complete concurrence. However, it is ridiculous because it is an exercise in trying to calibrate ancient, mythical, non-evidenced beliefs, with a modern, well-evidenced, scientific theory. Any and all ridicule herein lies with christianity.

 

mysonbrandon wrote:

 

There are alot of very intelligent people around who understand all of the wonderful benefits that science has given us. Those same intelligent people also acknowledge that their faith has also provided them with significant benefits as well.

 

You've used this ad auctoritatem fallacy before, and I tire of it. There are also a lot of "very intelligent people" around who understand science and don't believe in god. As I already said, if two groups of "very intelligent people" differ on a particular topic, then at least one of the groups of "very intelligent people" must be wrong, despite the fact that they are "very intelligent people". Rather than seeking to amend the error, you seem content to let it persist. Do you consider that "very intelligent"?

 

mysonbrandon wrote:

 

If you don't believe that science-evolution / religion can co-exist, that's your perogative. You can believe whatever you want.

 

As can you. But I think it is better to believe in what is true rather than what one wants, as they do not always coincide. It appears you want to believe in christianity, and you can do so. But until you are willing to demonstrate otherwise, it is not apparent that believing in christianity and believing in the truth are the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Jill:Of course, religion and

Jill:

Of course, religion and science can coexist.

The other day, I had an appointment with my family doctor , a very intelligent individual who makes his living every day practicing the science of modern medicine. He's also a devout Christian.

To say that science and religion can't coexist is absolute nonsense. Just take a look at the world today - there are scientific advancements occuring all the time in every imaginable field.

And despite this, statistical evidence continues to highlight the fact that the majority of people continue to believe in a "higher power".

The fact is that most people are very comfortable and can function very well in a "scirentific" world and still maintain their faith and beliefs.

In my opinion, it's only those people at the extreme ends - theists and atheists alike - who spout nonsense that the two can't exist.

 

 

 


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Jill:Of course, religion and

Jill:

Of course, religion and science can coexist.

The other day, I had an appointment with my family doctor , a very intelligent individual who makes his living every day practicing the science of modern medicine. He's also a devout Christian.

To say that science and religion can't coexist is absolute nonsense. Just take a look at the world today - there are scientific advancements occuring all the time in every imaginable field.

And despite this, statistical evidence continues to highlight the fact that the majority of people continue to believe in a "higher power".

The fact is that most people are very comfortable and can function very well in a "scirentific" world and still maintain their faith and beliefs.

In my opinion, it's only those people at the extreme ends - theists and atheists alike - who spout nonsense that the two can't exist.

 

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mysonbrandon wrote:Of

mysonbrandon wrote:
Of course, religion and science can coexist.

The other day, I had an appointment with my family doctor , a very intelligent individual who makes his living every day practicing the science of modern medicine. He's also a devout Christian.

The ability of the human mind to encapsulate parts of their lives seems unlimited. Never the less, my point (that you failed to address) still stands. As science brings understanding, there are fewer and fewer places to put "god".

mysonbrandon wrote:
To say that science and religion can't coexist is absolute nonsense. Just take a look at the world today - there are scientific advancements occuring all the time in every imaginable field.

And despite this, statistical evidence continues to highlight the fact that the majority of people continue to believe in a "higher power".

Are you shifting the meaning of co-existing to mean that there will always be people who prefer the comforts of imagination over knowledge? If so, yeah, they can "co-exist".

mysonbrandon wrote:
The fact is that most people are very comfortable and can function very well in a "scirentific" world and still maintain their faith and beliefs.

In my opinion, it's only those people at the extreme ends - theists and atheists alike - who spout nonsense that the two can't exist.

So the people who want to insert their creation story in science class are extremists? Have you hopped on any of their web forums and let them know that they can let science be science and religion can be religion? If not, why not?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Jill:I've not bothered to go

Jill:

I've not bothered to go to the web forums inhabited by "extremeist theists" because in my opinion, they're just as looney, closed minded and intolerant as some of the atheists who proclaim, for example,  that theists suffer from some kind of a "mind disorder".

And yes - I would say that anybody who completely disregards the scientific evidence of evolution / archeological discoveries and actually believes that the world is only 6,000 years old or so, for example, holds "extremist" religious views. And why would I waste one nanosecond of time trying to talk to somebody like that..??

As for your comment "As science brings understanding, there are fewer and fewer places to put "god", there have been tremendous advancements in all areas of science in the last 100 years versus all of the time preceding the 20th century. Has there been a significant increase in atheism in North America / Europe of around the world..??

If what you say is true, then shouldn't we be witnessing a dramatic and significant shift already..??

You tell me.

You can take any hot topic i.e. religion / abortion and at one end, you're going to have 10% or so expressing their extremeist nonsensical views. And at the opposite end, you're going to have another relatively small percentage of people expressing their extremist nonsensical views.

And in the middle, you're going to have alot of people who don't have a problem living  each day in a "scientific" world and believing with their heart, mind and soul that God exists.

You just don't happen to be one of them - that's all.!

 

 

, in common with EVERYTHING you've written, the above is just my

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mysonbrandon wrote:I've not

mysonbrandon wrote:
I've not bothered to go to the web forums inhabited by "extremeist theists" because in my opinion, they're just as looney, closed minded and intolerant as some of the atheists who proclaim, for example,  that theists suffer from some kind of a "mind disorder".

And yes - I would say that anybody who completely disregards the scientific evidence of evolution / archeological discoveries and actually believes that the world is only 6,000 years old or so, for example, holds "extremist" religious views. And why would I waste one nanosecond of time trying to talk to somebody like that..??

How about social responsibility? They attack science as immoral, and from that we get anti-intellectualism and anti-science. That's dangerous stuff, and if you believe that science and religion really aren't at odds, you have a responsibility to inform them of their mistake.

mysonbrandon wrote:
As for your comment "As science brings understanding, there are fewer and fewer places to put "god", there have been tremendous advancements in all areas of science in the last 100 years versus all of the time preceding the 20th century. Has there been a significant increase in atheism in North America / Europe of around the world..??

If what you say is true, then shouldn't we be witnessing a dramatic and significant shift already..??

Why should we be seeing any shift? I've already said that the ability of the human mind to encapsulate and separate is effectively infinite. The problem arises when science prods about somewhere that people can't easily ignore:

  • Universal genesis (if the universe did, indeed, have one)
  • Stem cell research
  • evolution
  • abiogenisis
  • etc.

Interesting to note, however, is there has been a significant increase in irreligious people in the world. Have a peek at recent Pew poll results.

mysonbrandon wrote:
You can take any hot topic i.e. religion / abortion and at one end, you're going to have 10% or so expressing their extremeist nonsensical views. And at the opposite end, you're going to have another relatively small percentage of people expressing their extremist nonsensical views.

And in the middle, you're going to have alot of people who don't have a problem living  each day in a "scientific" world and believing with their heart, mind and soul that God exists.

Ignorance is bliss.

mysonbrandon wrote:
You just don't happen to be one of them - that's all.!
I'll become one of them when those religious folks who combat science settle down and let the research and teaching of science alone.

And that is my opinion, based on readily observable facts.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Zarathrusta:I have no idea

Zarathrusta:

I have no idea what the answer to your questions are i.e. "Exactly where on the evolutionary tree did god instill free will and souls?".

I have no idea who exactly invented the wheel or exactly when it was invented, but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the benefits of wheels when I go out in my car, for example.

But does you inability to answer my question with absolute precision / certainty somehow negate the wheel..??

I don't think so..!!


mysonbrandon
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Jill:I have no idea what Pew

Jill:

I have no idea what Pew Polls you're referring to.

I went to their site and looked at 3 polls at these three links - http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1690065&pid=51&ccid=51#top / http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1690065&pid=51&ccid=51#top / http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=321460&pid=51&ccid=51#top.

 

Each of these three polls essentially asks the question "do you believe in God / how certain are you about the existence of God." In each poll, approximately 90% + of the respondents stated that they believe in God / were absolutely or failry certain about the existence of God

Now I understand that just because the vast majority of people believe in something, it doesn't make it true. But what it does tell me is that the vast majority of people have no trouble living in a "scientific world" (and enjoy all of the benefits that science provides us in our day-to-day lives) while maintaining their faith and spiritual beliefs.

As for your comment about "social responsibility", I couldn't care less about a few "looney" voices who oppose science. Just as I couldn't care less about a few looney voices, who procliam that a belief in God is somehow symptomatic of some "mind disorder".

Both groups are cut from the EXACT same cloth - opposite sides of the EXACT same coin.

But please feel free to provide me with a Pew Poll link that highlights the fact that a belief in God / higher power is seriously on the decline.

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mysonbrandon wrote:Jill:I

mysonbrandon wrote:

Jill:

I have no idea what Pew Polls you're referring to.

I went to their site and looked at 3 polls at these three links - http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1690065&pid=51&ccid=51#top / http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1690065&pid=51&ccid=51#top / http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=321460&pid=51&ccid=51#top.

 

Each of these three polls essentially asks the question "do you believe in God / how certain are you about the existence of God." In each poll, approximately 90% + of the respondents stated that they believe in God / were absolutely or failry certain about the existence of God

Now I understand that just because the vast majority of people believe in something, it doesn't make it true. But what it does tell me is that the vast majority of people have no trouble living in a "scientific world" (and enjoy all of the benefits that science provides us in our day-to-day lives) while maintaining their faith and spiritual beliefs.

I can't put this any simpler for you: There is no reason to expect any significant change in the number of believers, as people remain willfully ignorant of science.

mysonbrandon wrote:
As for your comment about "social responsibility", I couldn't care less about a few "looney" voices who oppose science. Just as I couldn't care less about a few looney voices, who procliam that a belief in God is somehow symptomatic of some "mind disorder".

Both groups are cut from the EXACT same cloth - opposite sides of the EXACT same coin.

Yeah, sitting quietly on the sidelines, being blissful, is easier.

mysonbrandon wrote:
But please feel free to provide me with a Pew Poll link that highlights the fact that a belief in God / higher power is seriously on the decline.
Do feel free to let me know where I said anything was "seriously in decline". I said there has been a significant rise in the irreligious population. There is a difference.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mysonbrandon wrote:The Bible

mysonbrandon wrote:

The Bible states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Science tells us that it all began with the Big Bang.

It's really a little more than that on the science side. See, it's easier to read the Bible than it is to do the differential equations required to map the dynamics of a beginning universe. That's because scientists have to be more specific: they're looking for specific information. The Bible provides us with no help as to when the beginning was, for example. Science doesn't just tell us the universe began with a big bang. Science describes the dynamics of a universe just forming as a hypothesis, and tries to solidify that knowledge with data. The Bible stays the same, always saying the same, vague thing.

mysonbrandon wrote:
In my opinion, God flipped the switch.

That's ... great. How does that help anyone?

mysonbrandon wrote:
There are alot of very intelligent people around who understand all of the wonderful benefits that science has given us. Those same intelligent people also acknowledge that their faith has also provided them with significant benefits as well.

I'm sure you can find examples of such people. I have no doubt. We, here, are more concerned with whether or not they have faith in something that is, to reasonable standards, true. I'm not purporting to have Absolute Truth on anything, because it's not something that really exists. To be concerned with the truth of beliefs means caring less about subjective benefit, and more about the facts.

mysonbrandon wrote:
If you don't believe that science-evolution / religion can co-exist, that's your perogative. You can believe whatever you want.

Don't you want your beliefs to be true?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, this thread blew up

Wow, this thread blew up quick.

 

Anyway

 

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

 

and for religion and science read Miller's latest book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230699870&sr=1-1

 

 

 

To be honest, if it weren't for people like Ken Miller, I would have stopped beliving long ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Christ... if Francis

 Christ... if Francis Collins recommends the book, I can only imagine the level of doublethink it must contain.  I've read Collins' stuff, and wow.   Just wow.  It amazes me that a scientist of his caliber is so easily taken in by emotional claptrap.

I admit I've never read Miller.  Maybe if I get through the fifteen books on my list now, I'll give it a crack one day, but damn it's going to disappoint me if it's the same silly fallacies we've been dismantling here.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
mysonbrandon

mysonbrandon wrote:

Zarathrusta:

I have no idea what the answer to your questions are i.e. "Exactly where on the evolutionary tree did god instill free will and souls?".

I have no idea who exactly invented the wheel or exactly when it was invented, but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the benefits of wheels when I go out in my car, for example.

But does you inability to answer my question with absolute precision / certainty somehow negate the wheel..??

I don't think so..!!

Add 'categorical error' to your growing list of fallacies.

Of course you don't need to know who exactly invented the wheel or exactly when it was invented in order to enjoy the benefits of wheels.  However, the efficacy of the wheel is readily observable, and does not have to be taken on faith, as do the so-called benefits of christianity. 

The overarching problem with correlating evolution and christianity is this:  Evolutionary theory does not presume the need for an intentional agent guiding the process from above; the observable evidence for evolution suggests rather that there is no intentional agent, much less the one defined by christianity.  According to evolution, H. sapiens is just another species with no special claims; our intelligence, our free will, our sense of morality or lack thereof are all natural -- and decidedly non-divine -- in their origin.

Until you demonstrate otherwise, you can at best be said to be creating a superfluous role for your christian god -- just as you created the superfluous role of 'flipping the switch' in regard to the big bang.  The christian god has no part to play in evolution; the theory works perfectly well without the christian god.  So in order for you to hang onto your faith alongside the established scientific theory, you have to manufacture a non-essential role for your faith-based god to fill.

If you accept evolution and yet believe that 'man' (to use the christian term) is indeed special, you do need to explain where on the evolutionary tree 'man' begins; you do need to explain how 'man' is special in contrast to its immediate non-special ancestor  and  the other non-special species descending therefrom.  

You have already acknowledged that there are challenges such as these in accepting christianity and evolution.  If you can do nothing more than plead ignorance in the face of such challenges, you should admit that you had not thoroughly considered your position, and it was worthless for you to enter this conversation (worthless because in essence you've nothing more to say but "I don't know why I accept christianity and evolution; I just do" ).

EDIT:grammar

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:I ask this

ryandinan wrote:

I ask this question, after having read numerous debates from both sides of the camp.  Evolutionists bring up the evidence that supports the theory, and Christians typically point out the "lack" of the "missing links" (i.e., why there isn't a croc-o-duck), or other things that they don't quite understand about the theory, since it doesn't fit into the preconceived belief that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.

Evolutionists are not opposite of Christians.  The last church I frequently attended backed science 100%.  One of the Home-Church' leaders is a big science freak even.  Question answered!  Christians are Anti-Evolutionist, Evolutionists are atheists.  Is this like a strawman argument?  I'm asking because I think it is but I'm no expert.

ryandinan wrote:

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to prove evolution to be a real process, I started wondering, "Would proving evolution to be fact, actually have any affect at all on Christians?" (and especially, young-earth Christians).

You can't prove evolution to be a fact to young earth Creationists.

If you could prove evolution to be a fact to YEC's, they'd believe that evolution were true!  If this affects their religious faith, then it would change!  Would it mean atheism?  We can speculate, but there are PLENTY of Christians that believe in evolution.  I ask you just as much as I'd love to ask the founder of Answers in Genesis: Since when does evolutionism = atheism?  If it did then the whole catholic church would be atheist, including Christian Orthodox, to name just two denominations!!!

ryandinan wrote:

If it would have no effect - what is the point of debating whether or not evolution is "true" to these folks?  Are their other arguments that could be more effective at reasoning about the existence of god?

 

Keep on debating evolution, because it is a real science, a foundation for modern medicine, and has so much to offer the human race!!  But don't think for a second that it ends religion.  That's the same logic of YEC's thinking evolution causes apostasy which is untrue.  

 

I have a joke for you:

 

Q:What do Atheists and Young Earth Creationists have in common?

A: They both take a very literal approach to Biblical interpretation


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
I suppose I should have been

I suppose I should have been more specific with the type of Christian I was referring to Smiling  Yes, YEC's just cannot accept evolution, because it would mean they would have to take a non-literal, allegorical interpretation of the Bible.

However, one can argue the point that YEC's, by not taking a moderate approach to their Bible, have the 'courage' of their conviction, and are the only "true", dyed in the wool Christians.  After all, to be a moderate Christian, you have to cherry pick - and by what means does one determine what to keep and what to toss out?  The Christians that accept evolution must be guilty of this cherry picking, as the Bible clearly doesn't 'allow' for evolution - not unless you throw out Genesis and a whole bunch of other sections...

After many more debates on other forums about this topic, I do agree - that evolution doesn't sway religious belief due to the reasons above.  One such debate with a YEC went on for over a month, and no matter how solid my argument, he would come back with the most ridiculous responses.  He just couldn't escape it... It's sad, really.


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Christians that believe in

Christians that believe in evolution think they're the true christians, because they say that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, and claim that the idea of a literal Genesis didn't appear until at least the 10th century even.  This of course is hearsay from what I've been told.  Indeed they woudl claim that they're not moderate Christians as the YEC's claim.  I read somewhere on the net that there are 80,000 denominations of Christianity, and many think they're the "True Christians" - ultimately it's a lot harder than just reading the Bible to be a True Christian(tm) - you've got to be going to the right church and reading the Bible the right way, etc, etc, etc.  Actually the main reason why I left Christianity was because I couldn't figure out what a True Christian was because everyone told me that everyone else was wrong except them. I decided I'd take a scientific approach to the Bible so I could find out which version of Christianity was right.... Oooops!  I honestly didn't expect atheism to happen, but hey, I am what I am.


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:zarathustra

ryandinan wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

This is a good point, and I think what really made me start questioning Christianity and religion to begin with.

I asked questions such as, "Since the Bible is the only way of knowing about this Jesus, and you can't go to heaven if you don't accept him as your savior, what happens to people that have never heard of him?  People such as those who live in distant 3rd world countries... the Abariginies in the outback, small tribes in Africa? 

Fantastic Questions, I must say. 

The Bible is not the only source that has information about Jesus Christ.  There is about 40 or MORE Sources that are not Biblical Sources that talk about Jesus Christ and the miracles he did.  Sources are from the Higest Gvt Officials of Jesus's time

 

Second Question- An excellent one, I must say. 

What about all those people who didn't have the opportunity to know what Jesus said? 

Did you know there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of People all over the globe who are recieving Dreams of Jesus with his hands open calling them to him? 

Here in America, you can get the gospel message on the radio, at the library picking up a bible, ...........there is a church almost every couple of blocks.  Everyone in America, Canada, and most everywhere, the message can be obtained.  Although, in different countries, the bible is banned.  People have no access to the word. 

People receiving dreams are in situations where they do not have any access to the Bible, or they are desperatly searching. 

It is absolutly amazing that millions and millions are getting the same dream in many places around the world.

http://www.squidoo.com/THOUSANDSofEasternReligiousFollowersMiraculouslyTurningToYahshuaJesus

 

Today IS The Day!


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:
Christians that believe in evolution think they're the true christians, because they say that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, and claim that the idea of a literal Genesis didn't appear until at least the 10th century even.  This of course is hearsay from what I've been told.  Indeed they woudl claim that they're not moderate Christians as the YEC's claim.  I read somewhere on the net that there are 80,000 denominations of Christianity, and many think they're the "True Christians" - ultimately it's a lot harder than just reading the Bible to be a True Christian(tm) - you've got to be going to the right church and reading the Bible the right way, etc, etc, etc.  Actually the main reason why I left Christianity was because I couldn't figure out what a True Christian was because everyone told me that everyone else was wrong except them. I decided I'd take a scientific approach to the Bible so I could find out which version of Christianity was right.... Oooops!  I honestly didn't expect atheism to happen, but hey, I am what I am.
  Your right, the Christian church as taken some really horrible turns.  I do not beleive that the Catholic Church is Christian at all.  From its very beginnings it took the message and made it into a message that was compromised, and turned into just a religious practice.  People there do not even read the bible, they take what ever the church says to do- as supreme practices.   Your so right, take for example the current messages...  "Live your best life now" "Homosexuality is ok, and a God given right", " the rapture will take us out"  Such things are so far from the biblical truth.  Take Oprahs message, - Picking some of the biblical scriptures, some new age, and creating her own religion.  Todays churches have thrown the "hell message" out the door because it is not "sexy enough" anymore.  Though, the churches who do not compromise the message are SEEING Huge Miracles, HUGE Power in Jesus's name.   At one time, (around the 1930's not that long ago) people threw away the bible because they thought it was wrong and outdated, BUT now with more scientific advances, the truth points back to the word of God.  Now, more than ever - more Scientists are believing in the word, because the advances in science show holes in every other theory.   Take Archeology for example...  At one time, people would mock the bible, until archeology sites would surface and confirm the word of God... "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference."                     -Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist 

 

Today IS The Day!


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian

SmallChristian wrote:

ryandinan wrote:

 

Keep on debating evolution, because it is a real science, a foundation for modern medicine, and has so much to offer the human race!!  But don't think for a second that it ends religion.  That's the same logic of YEC's thinking evolution causes apostasy which is untrue.  

 

It is not real science.  Sorry, I say that with the utmost respect my freind.  They still have not found any REAL evidence that that theory is true. 

I can name Several good statements that have huge holes in this theory. 

People hold on to this theory soooooo tight, because it gives them reason not to believe in God.  Their hearts are so hardened towards God, they will hold to a theory that they are still proving.

Said in Love my Friend

Today IS The Day!


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Is it possible we can

Is it possible we can un-KEWK this thread so I can mount a proper response?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It is not real

Quote:
It is not real science.
 

It's already accepted by the entire international scientific community and is the unifying theory of biology.

Quote:
They still have not found any REAL evidence that that theory is true.

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Quote:
I can name Several good statements that have huge holes in this theory.

No you can't.

Quote:
People hold on to this theory soooooo tight, because it gives them reason not to believe in God.

Congratulations, you just ignored every theistic evolutionist in the world.

Quote:
Their hearts are so hardened towards God,

While science is inherently antithetical to religion, the theory of evolution clearly does not disprove the Christian God, only biblical inerrancy, especially a literal interpretation of the Bible. 

Quote:
they will hold to a theory that they are still proving.

Proven.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Bible is not the

Quote:

The Bible is not the only source that has information about Jesus Christ.  There is about 40 or MORE Sources that are not Biblical Sources that talk about Jesus Christ and the miracles he did.  Sources are from the Higest Gvt Officials of Jesus's time

This is the first time I've ever heard anything like this... If you cited some sources and evidence of this claim, I'd much appreciate it.  After all, "40 or more Sources" (that are non-biblical - which I assume to mean, they aren't mentioned in the Bible?) is quite a significant number.  Of course, I'd like to see if these were 40 individual, eyewitness accounts, or if they were just copied from older biblical documents.

Quote:

Second Question- An excellent one, I must say. 

What about all those people who didn't have the opportunity to know what Jesus said? 

Did you know there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of People all over the globe who are recieving Dreams of Jesus with his hands open calling them to him? 

Here in America, you can get the gospel message on the radio, at the library picking up a bible, ...........there is a church almost every couple of blocks.  Everyone in America, Canada, and most everywhere, the message can be obtained.  Although, in different countries, the bible is banned.  People have no access to the word. 

People receiving dreams are in situations where they do not have any access to the Bible, or they are desperatly searching. 

It is absolutly amazing that millions and millions are getting the same dream in many places around the world.

 

WHAT are you talking about?  Jesus is coming to people in dreams, and there are millions of people around the world having this same dream?  O...K...

 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Merandas wrote:Your right,

Merandas wrote:

Your right, the Christian church as taken some really horrible turns.  I do not beleive that the Catholic Church is Christian at all.  From its very beginnings it took the message and made it into a message that was compromised, and turned into just a religious practice.  People there do not even read the bible, they take what ever the church says to do- as supreme practices.

Some catholics would say that you aren't a Christian at all.  

 
Quote:
Your so right, take for example the current messages...  "Live your best life now" "Homosexuality is ok, and a God given right", " the rapture will take us out"  Such things are so far from the biblical truth. 
Can you define Biblical Truth?
Quote:
Take Oprahs message, - Picking some of the biblical scriptures, some new age, and creating her own religion. 
Oprah is not a Christian.  This has nothing to do with True Christianity Vs.  False Christianity  
Quote:
Todays churches have thrown the "hell message" out the door because it is not "sexy enough" anymore.  Though, the churches who do not compromise the message are SEEING Huge Miracles, HUGE Power in Jesus's name.   
 There are plenty of denominations of Christianity that think speaking in tongues = demonic posession yet they preach the Gospel (un watered, as you'd say) claiming they're true Christians while the pentecostals consider the Baptists Spiritually dead and under the "Spirit of Religion" and doomed for hell as well. Some HELLFIRE Churches claiming other HELLFIRE CHurches are going to hell. In fact there are plenty of Jesus loving people out there that would take a look at you and your version of faith and think you're going to burn forever and ever and ever. Since we're talkign about miracles, what miracles have you personally seen?
Quote:
At one time, (around the 1930's not that long ago) people threw away the bible because they thought it was wrong and outdated, BUT now with more scientific advances, the truth points back to the word of God.  Now, more than ever - more Scientists are believing in the word, because the advances in science show holes in every other theory. 
The theory of evolution does not claim there is no God, it simply takes ALL the evidence as we have and makes the most sense with it.  NOTHIGN can disprove God's existance because nothing can PROVE his existance.  I also dont' recall at all people throwing away bibles in the 1930's, where'd you find this out?  Also, what about evolution has been disproven? 
Quote:
 Take Archeology for example...  At one time, people would mock the bible, until archeology sites would surface and confirm the word of God...
 
EXODUS - no evidence
GLOBAL FLOOD - No evidence
7 Day Creation - Disproven
Virgin Birth - Claimed many times before Jesus
Died on a Tree - Claimed many times before Jesus
Rose again 3 days later - Claimed many times before Jesus
  
Quote:
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference."                     -Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist 

 

Care to back that up with evidence instead of a quote?  Where has archeology proven the Bible is true, especially that Jesus was real and that he rose from the dead?

 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:NOTHIGN

SmallChristian wrote:
NOTHIGN can disprove God's existance because nothing can PROVE his existance.
I take exception to that.  The Christian god, any version of it I've ever heard of, has been either contradictory or incoherent.  Which is to say that I've never come across a Christian version of god that can exist.  Indeed, I've never come across any version of any god.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy

Thomathy wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:
NOTHIGN can disprove God's existance because nothing can PROVE his existance.
I take exception to that.  The Christian god, any version of it I've ever heard of, has been either contradictory or incoherent.  Which is to say that I've never come across a Christian version of god that can exist.  Indeed, I've never come across any version of any god.

 

 

 

Nothing can disprove the pink unicorn's existance either, because nothing can prove the pink unicorn exists.  It might be out there somewheres.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian

SmallChristian wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
SmallChristian wrote:
NOTHIGN can disprove God's existance because nothing can PROVE his existance.
I take exception to that.  The Christian god, any version of it I've ever heard of, has been either contradictory or incoherent.  Which is to say that I've never come across a Christian version of god that can exist.  Indeed, I've never come across any version of any god.
Nothing can disprove the pink unicorn's existance either, because nothing can prove the pink unicorn exists.  It might be out there somewheres.
It's "Invisible Pink Unicorn", and I'll tell you why it's important.

Tomathy notes that most definitions of "god" are self-contradictory. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is demonstrates that contradictory problem.

It is impossible to be pink and invisible at the same time. To see pink, light must be relfected from or emitted by the surface of the unicorn, and that would make it visible. Also vice-versa.

The IPU, being impossible, does not exist. God, for most definitions of the word, is impossible and thus does not exist.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
What JillSwift

What JillSwift said.

 

JillSwift, you're awesome!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Morality,

Hambydammit wrote:

Morality, sexuality, culture -- all of these have evolutionary origins, and the more we learn about them, the more we learn about ourselves.  Knowledge is power.

Those statements above are just dangerous - you are suggesting that people can't say anything competent about morality, sexuality and culture without invoking some specific science.

Hambydammit wrote:

2) If lots more people knew about it, there would eventually be less stupid fundamentalists.

I am all for that. I'll work with a placid Christian over a zealous atheist any day.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Hambydammit

ZuS wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
Morality, sexuality, culture -- all of these have evolutionary origins, and the more we learn about them, the more we learn about ourselves.  Knowledge is power.
Those statements above are just dangerous - you are suggesting that people can't say anything competent about morality, sexuality and culture without invoking some specific science.
Dangerous? How pathetic.

Are you suggesting people can make competent statements about anything without understanding the subject to some degree? Science is an epistemology that has proven by way of results that it brings understanding. The more understanding we have of ourselves - what we are and what motivates us - the better our understanding of morality, sexuality, and culture. The better our understanding of those subjects the more competent our commentary on them

Thus is it proper to say that without understanding from the sciences that examine ourselves, it is not possible to make competent commentary on them.

Nothing "dangerous" about it, except perhaps to those who make their living on people's ignorance (like religious leaders and their ilk).

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I have no business answering

I have no business answering someone elses stuff, but I thought this would be fun Smiling

HisWillness wrote:

mysonbrandon wrote:

The Bible states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Science tells us that it all began with the Big Bang.

It's really a little more than that on the science side. See, it's easier to read the Bible than it is to do the differential equations required to map the dynamics of a beginning universe. That's because scientists have to be more specific: they're looking for specific information. The Bible provides us with no help as to when the beginning was, for example. Science doesn't just tell us the universe began with a big bang. Science describes the dynamics of a universe just forming as a hypothesis, and tries to solidify that knowledge with data. The Bible stays the same, always saying the same, vague thing.

AwEsOmE. We learn new things every day Smiling

HisWillness wrote:

mysonbrandon wrote:
In my opinion, God flipped the switch.

That's ... great. How does that help anyone?

Well, entire civilisations were built with religion playing a key cultural role, claiming same old silly stuff that could not be repudiated by a king or a prime minister to this day. Exactly the vague untouchable quality of the religious claim makes it invaluable to a cultural organization. But there is very specific substance to it - a set of moral laws acceptable to anyone alive.

You can basically follow the history of the power of Church and papacy through time, they build popular support through adhearing to their proclaimed values and they loose it by abandoning the same. This should tell something to the scientist of the day as well. Especially since we don't have to go more than a couple of generations back to end up in a time when the vast majority of the big names in science were pious people, save a few.

HisWillness wrote:

mysonbrandon wrote:
There are alot of very intelligent people around who understand all of the wonderful benefits that science has given us. Those same intelligent people also acknowledge that their faith has also provided them with significant benefits as well.

I'm sure you can find examples of such people. I have no doubt. We, here, are more concerned with whether or not they have faith in something that is, to reasonable standards, true. I'm not purporting to have Absolute Truth on anything, because it's not something that really exists. To be concerned with the truth of beliefs means caring less about subjective benefit, and more about the facts.

I, on the other hand, am interested in whether their faith gives them some quality that I might use. You will find many people like me. Some of them are in the White House and they somehow manage to get 80% of the world to hate them. I want to see if we can do something about people like that by allying up with pieous people we can relate to directly. 'Cause then I think we might be spending some of that awesome defense budget on missions to Mars that don't crash.

HisWillness wrote:

mysonbrandon wrote:
If you don't believe that science-evolution / religion can co-exist, that's your perogative. You can believe whatever you want.

Don't you want your beliefs to be true?

No. If my beliefs were true, there would be nothing more for me to do around here. Luckily, there is more for me to know, try and explore. Just like there was for Newton, who at his old age said that his greatest achievement was life-long celibacy. Apparently, his faith did not bother his science and vice versa.

I actually would love it if you could find some way to tell me that I am completely wrong about religion and that I should consider a different point of view. If you try, and please do, consider that I regard all 'religious' people who can justify breaking any of the divine rules in any circumstance as closet-atheists. So, yea, most of the people you call dangerous fundamentalists I call closet-atheists.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, entire

Quote:

Well, entire civilisations were built with religion playing a key cultural role, claiming same old silly stuff that could not be repudiated by a king or a prime minister to this day. Exactly the vague untouchable quality of the religious claim makes it invaluable to a cultural organization. But there is very specific substance to it - a set of moral laws acceptable to anyone alive.

The fact that old civilizations were founded around myths, doesn't mean those myths were true.  What set of moral laws does religion claim to provide?  In reality, we humans have provided these moral laws, which in turn, have been adopted by the religion.  Religion is (was) just a means to spread these views.  Look at biblical law (not just the ten commandments).  Tell me what is ethical and moral about those, compared to what we hold as morally and ethically true today.

 

Quote:

I actually would love it if you could find some way to tell me that I am completely wrong about religion and that I should consider a different point of view.

We have been telling you, in many different ways.  You just haven't considered a different point of view yet.  There isn't one particular set of arguments that works on 100% of the people.  The person has to be willing to re-evaluate his or her position on religion first.  Only then can they be accepting of alternative viewpoints that don't involve supernatural beliefs.  It took me over 10 years of listening to this type of debate.  No matter how good the argument against the belief in a god, I kept clinging to the idea that there had to be a "higher power".  Now I realize this was just the last, fighting attempt spurred from my childhood indoctrination of the idea of god.

Besides... Why do you say you "would love it" if someone could change your mind about god?  Do you want to not believe?  Are you looking for reasons to doubt the existence of god?  Or, have you found some, and are looking for ways to reconcile these with your belief structure?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:I actually would

ZuS wrote:

I actually would love it if you could find some way to tell me that I am completely wrong about religion and that I should consider a different point of view.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_endangers_humanity_and_its_future

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Once you get people to

Once you get people to accept that 'morals' are define3d by God, you have disconnected the 'rules' from our innate sesne of fairness and 'right' and 'wrong'. This allows , potentially, anything to be procalimed to be the 'moral' thing to do, so it is extemely dangerous.

Witch-burning, stoning for the most harmless 'sins', and so on...

Doesn't mean such atrocities will inevitably be justified, but we do see such violations of basic rights and fairness as prohibitions on gay marriage, blocking potentially enormously benefical things like embryonic stem-cell research, while allowing wars that destroy tens, hundreds, of thousands of people.

Religious is a very poor and dangerous basis for defining morals. Any authoritarian dogma is, which includes Nazism, dogmatic Communism, whatever Pol Pot used to base his 'year zero' idea on...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:Quote:Well,

ryandinan wrote:

Quote:

Well, entire civilisations were built with religion playing a key cultural role, claiming same old silly stuff that could not be repudiated by a king or a prime minister to this day. Exactly the vague untouchable quality of the religious claim makes it invaluable to a cultural organization. But there is very specific substance to it - a set of moral laws acceptable to anyone alive.

The fact that old civilizations were founded around myths, doesn't mean those myths were true.  What set of moral laws does religion claim to provide?  In reality, we humans have provided these moral laws, which in turn, have been adopted by the religion.  Religion is (was) just a means to spread these views.  Look at biblical law (not just the ten commandments).  Tell me what is ethical and moral about those, compared to what we hold as morally and ethically true today.

Ok, so that's my point exactly, except that I would add that there is a particular reason why the laws were turned into supernatural stuff you can't dispute. In our secular world everything is conditional, since the rules are conditional. Killing is ok in some cases. Indeed everything is ok in some cases. Never mind what case it was, you can always excuse yourself by saying that it was just that right case. We don't torture prisoners, those are 14 years old enemy combatants. We don't kill kids, they happened to be in a house full of terrorists. How do we know? Our troops carry spare weapons to plant on corpses - we know that there were terrorists, no matter what house thay go into.

You can't do that if you are a proper, say Christian. Thou shall not kill. Why? How? In all cases? Not even in self defense? Inconsequential debate. Thou shall not kill. Period. Ya. We need people like that. Form this definition you must realise instantly, that any 'Christian' who can excuse a killing is not Christian at all, but an atheist.

ryandinan wrote:

Quote:

I actually would love it if you could find some way to tell me that I am completely wrong about religion and that I should consider a different point of view.

We have been telling you, in many different ways.  You just haven't considered a different point of view yet.  There isn't one particular set of arguments that works on 100% of the people.  The person has to be willing to re-evaluate his or her position on religion first.  Only then can they be accepting of alternative viewpoints that don't involve supernatural beliefs.  It took me over 10 years of listening to this type of debate.  No matter how good the argument against the belief in a god, I kept clinging to the idea that there had to be a "higher power".  Now I realize this was just the last, fighting attempt spurred from my childhood indoctrination of the idea of god.

Besides... Why do you say you "would love it" if someone could change your mind about god?  Do you want to not believe?  Are you looking for reasons to doubt the existence of god?  Or, have you found some, and are looking for ways to reconcile these with your belief structure?

Dude, I am an atheist, so you don't have to convince me that God is imaginary. I don't think you read what I wrote.

What I am saying though, is that we would be fucked without the the good work of many religious people in hard core science, literature, philosophy, altruistic pursuits and the like, both historically and today. I am also saying that there are theists out there who deserve respect and our full support with what they are doing right now.

I know, your brain just says click every time I say 'theist', but remember we defined theists as Newton, Kierkegaard and Desmond Tutu, not Pat Robertson. Pat is an atheist. So is our whole family. I don't care what they call themselves, if they break divine rules and think they have a right to do so, they are atheists just like me.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
But tell them that, and see

But tell them that, and see where it gets you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Once you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Once you get people to accept that 'morals' are define3d by God, you have disconnected the 'rules' from our innate sesne of fairness and 'right' and 'wrong'. This allows , potentially, anything to be procalimed to be the 'moral' thing to do, so it is extemely dangerous.

Witch-burning, stoning for the most harmless 'sins', and so on...

Doesn't mean such atrocities will inevitably be justified, but we do see such violations of basic rights and fairness as prohibitions on gay marriage, blocking potentially enormously benefical things like embryonic stem-cell research, while allowing wars that destroy tens, hundreds, of thousands of people.

Religious is a very poor and dangerous basis for defining morals. Any authoritarian dogma is, which includes Nazism, dogmatic Communism, whatever Pol Pot used to base his 'year zero' idea on...

Glad you wrote.

I agree fully, religious ideas are used as excuses for whole-sale massacres. So are ideas of democracy, free trade, fight against terrorism, liberty, communism, etc. The argument for nuking two populated cities was - it was cheaper - end of discussion.

I like to see tings in their full spectrum, so that I can decide what the dominating commonalities are in all or most cases. So far the only striking commonality is that very pragmatic issues arise in the choice of battlefield, concrete goals of aggression, amount of business created by the aggression, things like that. No doubt, there are zealots cheering ideals and being very loud, but the more subtle voices scream acquisition of land, property, resources, strategic positions.

Even fairly trivial things that you mention exhibit these properties - stem-cell, gay marriage, abortion - all of them are used as a political cue cards by people I can only see as thorough secular pragmatists, even though they proclaim their religious observance at evey turn. Indeed, even because they do.

Collective picture becomes much clearer this way. I ask myself whether I would use ideology to further my goals? Answer is right here - I am an atheists advocating support of the kind of theists we want to validate and ecourage, for the purpose of divide-and-conquer of certain segments of population and allying with powerful spokesmen and community organisers, which religious professionals by their very calling are. We are in a war-by-proxy, some atheists use ideology to smash their way through to what they think they deserve, others try to stop them.

Even the goal of elimination of religiosity is probably best done by allying with the best of theists, simlpy because propagating their way of being religious is really closer allignment with our way of life and understanding. Some moral imperatives unbendable by discussion are added, that's ok with me. No danger there, if you remember we defined theists to fit us like a glove.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:But tell them

Vastet wrote:

But tell them that, and see where it gets you.

That's the point. Invalidate the religious position that defies the particular divine rule. Remember, we happen to almost totally agree with the 10 commandments. Don't test them with silly "would it be ok to kill, if you would save the rest of the planet", those things are going directly counter what you want to do. It's fucking awesome that someone would consider it wrong no matter what, it will never happen, no worries there. You can start to worry when someone considers it kool to kill a president of a sovereign nation, just because they defy free trade and WTO, and calls it the will of God on a major network on national television in the process.

Choose your fights and you will win more atheists over than you think and retain respect of theists who basically agree that Patty is not of their kind. Naturally, you will also expose your ass to some serious fire after that. Only acts that make substantial difference are dignified with real targeting.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ZuS wrote:I

Vastet wrote:

ZuS wrote:

I actually would love it if you could find some way to tell me that I am completely wrong about religion and that I should consider a different point of view.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_endangers_humanity_and_its_future

 

I will answer this, but it's gonna take a while.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I happen to disagree with

I happen to disagree with all the Ten Commandments to some degree, at least when treated as absolute decrees, and disagree fairly strongly with most of them.

Killing is the easiest one to accept, but even there it is not workable without allowance for exceptions, from self-defence to euthanasia.

Not bearing false witness, if restricted to the formal situations those words conjure, such as a courtroom, is OK. But to make telling untruth a sin is total BS. Just the case of lying about the whereabouts of someone seeking refuge from a murderous pursuer is one of the more obvious cases.

Stealing should generally be discouraged also, but I can envisage situations where it may avoid worse outcomes.

Honouring your father and mother is a fine sentiment, but hardly deserves a position in such a famous list, particularly when such things as rape and torture and enslavement of your neighbour are not considered worth including.

The remaining items I regard as very questionable or downright bad.

So no, the 'Ten Commandments' most certainly are not remotely deserving of their exalted reputation.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Dude, I am an

ZuS wrote:

Dude, I am an atheist, so you don't have to convince me that God is imaginary. I don't think you read what I wrote.

Wow... I totally did not get that impression from your posts above...  I've re-read them 3 times now, and still can't see it...

Quote:

What I am saying though, is that we would be fucked without the the good work of many religious people in hard core science, literature, philosophy, altruistic pursuits and the like, both historically and today. I am also saying that there are theists out there who deserve respect and our full support with what they are doing right now.

I think you're missing the point here though.  Indeed, there have been many people, of all different belief structures, that have contributed to the advancement of human society, in some way or another.  But, don't make the mistake of directly crediting their contributions to the world, due to the fact that they say they believe in a god.  Sure, there are many examples of people that do "good things", solely because of their faith  - such as missionaries, philanthropists, etc.  However, there are also plenty of atheistic people that do the same type of thing.  They're just motivated differently.  Of course theistic people deserve respect and support when they do good deeds - but we should recognize their acts, and not their faith.

Quote:

I know, your brain just says click every time I say 'theist', but remember we defined theists as Newton, Kierkegaard and Desmond Tutu, not Pat Robertson. Pat is an atheist. So is our whole family. I don't care what they call themselves, if they break divine rules and think they have a right to do so, they are atheists just like me.

So wait... Are you saying, that if a "religious person" willingly breaks one of the ten commandments, they're automatically an atheist?  If so, I'd have to disagree completely.  A theist could break a biblical law (and most do daily), and immediately feel the remorse, regret and guilt caused by their actions, as they believe they have just sinned against god.  Their reasons for commiting the "sin" could be any number of things - but it doesn't immediatly sever their belief.  After all, the great thing about Christianity, is that you can sin, and ask for forgiveness.  However, those that commit "sins" regularly, knowing this loophole, are likely just playing the game, and probably don't hold much stock in the idea of a god.  They play the game because they feel like they've covered all their bases.  These types of people may not automatically be atheists, but they may not subscribe to all the details of Christianity.  By most definitions, they would be theists or deists...


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:I think this

ryandinan wrote:

I think this is the real crux of the argument here, and what is really important to understand (as much as we currently are capable of).

Like you said, the distinction between a religion and science, is that religion rarely, if ever, changes it's teachings or "rules" 

Science, on the other hand, is constantly self-evaluating the data that we are able to uncover

Haven't really ever checked out the bible much have you? The same text that has his writers question where God is in all this suffering? If he has fallen a sleep on them? The Bible is perhaps one of the most reflective works on meaning and purpose that I know, particularly when it covers hundreds of years of thoughts of generations in flux and at the barrel. We don't get from Leviticus to Jesus Christ, from an eye for an eye to something as profound as turn the other cheek, from the love of ones neighbor extended to ones enemy with out some serous self-evaluation. 

A religion is always understand within the context that one lives in, to make sense of the life we live. And contrary to what some naive atheist believe, this sense of life is not a reflection on the scientific mechanics of it, but the poetic sense of it, they why are we here, not the how did we get here. And it's continually reflective on this, not stagnantly. 

Our surrounding, the lives we live, the existence in the now we have to make sense of, is continually encompassed and reflected on in a person's religion. When a religion fails to give a person a comprehensive view of the world he lives in, it dies, either he abandons one faith for another one, or abandons faith all together. 

The other myth that individuals here like to peddle, as Hamybe seems to be trying to do, is that science is not a comprehensive worldview, in fact it's not a worldview at all. We don't understand all of life by looking under the lens of a microscope. Science can only inform a worldview not replace it. 

A competitor towards religion in the secular marketplace, are worldviews such as humanism, which I find to be far more dimwitted, and embarrassingly less reflective than any of the worlds great religions. 

 

 

 


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:There is

Tilberian wrote:

There is also the meme theory that explains religion as a mental virus which propagates inside the thoughts of people who lack sufficient immunity (whatever that would consist of). This one is a little out there, but it does explain why religion can persist even in individuals and populations that it is killing.

You mean meme pseudoscience. I find it comical that people such as you like to present cockamamie theories as real science.