PDA

View Full Version : Church of Reality


Mark Vessels
01-22-2008, 01:47 PM
http://www.churchofreality.org/opinion/evolve.htm

I am kind of heart broken to hear this, but I still believe in God.

How about you guys?

Gimmick
01-22-2008, 02:30 PM
They're right that the Bible/Koran/Vita aren't science manuals. They're missing the fact that Darwin wasn't a preacher.

Mark Vessels
01-22-2008, 03:16 PM
They're right that the Bible/Koran/Vita aren't science manuals. They're missing the fact that Darwin wasn't a preacher.

well, Darwin himself was Christian

tbini87
01-22-2008, 05:16 PM
nothing there would sway me at all from being a Christian. i think science and religion coexist very well. science will never disprove whether or not there is a God.

mentalgameofmarat
01-22-2008, 05:20 PM
I glanced (quickly) at that site. As an atheist (raised Catholic), I tend to agree with some things stated, but I hate that a lot of atheists with sites tend to be condescending. This person seems to believe that he or she is somehow better than Christians. I know I think no different of people who love their religion and are deep into it.

Mark Vessels
01-23-2008, 04:54 AM
sorry to turn this into a religious conversation but... how can you say God soes not exist?


Look at the world around you, how math works perfectly,etc

caesar66
01-23-2008, 05:19 AM
sorry to turn this into a religious conversation but... how can you say God soes not exist?


Look at the world around you, how math works perfectly,etc

I am a practicing Christian, but to avoid this thread getting overblown lol, here are two that have discussed people's rationale's for or against religion:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=159633&highlight=science+religion[url]

[url]http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167642&highlight=science+religion

caesar66
01-23-2008, 05:21 AM
sorry about the first link, i guess you'll have to copy and paste

chess9
01-23-2008, 05:40 AM
well, Darwin himself was Christian

Darwin became an atheist and that has been used against him for about 160 years.

-Robert

origmarm
01-23-2008, 05:41 AM
My only advice to you is this, read the bible, cover to cover. Also read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, cover to cover. Neither are particularly well written but that's not the point.

Then make a rational and informed choice. Don't let anyone else make it for you.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of Christians that have never read the bible in its entirety. This in fact goes for all religions and their holy books.

As for evolution, evolution is scientific fact. The process by which is occurred is the central theme to any (rational) attempts to coincide the fact of evolution with presence of a divinity. Intelligent design would be an example of such a theory. There are many.

Concerning Darwin and other so called prominent christian scientists. Treat these claims with profound scepticism. There is "evidence" both ways. To be honest I don't think it matters whether he was or not. Kind of in the same way that Newton's faith matters little to gravity.

sureshs
01-23-2008, 07:49 AM
They're right that the Bible/Koran/Vita aren't science manuals. They're missing the fact that Darwin wasn't a preacher.

That is correct. Charles Darwin wanted to be a preacher when he was young, hence the confusion. It is not well known that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote about evolution. Evolution has a longer history in the West than Charles Darwin, and in fact, was being discussed when he started out on his historic journey aboard the Beagle.

origmarm
01-23-2008, 07:56 AM
That is correct. Charles Darwin wanted to be a preacher when he was young, hence the confusion. It is not well known that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote about evolution. Evolution has a longer history in the West than Charles Darwin, and in fact, was being discussed when he started out on his historic journey aboard the Beagle.

Indeed and in fact the history of evolutionary thought stretches back much further than that. Have a look here for example:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html

max
01-23-2008, 08:03 AM
Origmarm: ever read any Ian Barbour?

sureshs
01-23-2008, 08:05 AM
As for evolution, evolution is scientific fact. The process by which is occurred is the central theme to any (rational) attempts to coincide the fact of evolution with presence of a divinity. Intelligent design would be an example of such a theory. There are many.


As I have said before, it is possible that evolution was controlled by a higher entity. Problem is, there is no evidence of that. Intelligent design has not been proved, other than saying it sounds good. Till then, the only mechanism of evolution that can be accepted in science is mutations, horizontal gene transfers, and such. Thus, intelligent design is not a theory. A theory has to be grounded in solid reasoning of some kind, even if it cannot be proved. If that criterion is not applied, then any fantasy or personal preference also has to be called a theory.

Note also that many intelligent design proponents do not even accept evolution as fact. In fact, as a Republican judge ruled in a recent school case, the intelligent design people were actually creationists and their agenda was to somehow "squeeze it in" and cast doubts on evolution. Their literature had examples where older documents with creationism in it were edited and replaced by intelligent design. These guys are not scientists setting out to find the truth - they are people who have a prior belief and out to twist things and impose them on others.

I have read some of the stuff they put out - full of scholarly references, foot notes, selective quotes from scientists taken out of context - all a calculated sham to fool the lay reader. If they find a quote by a biologist that "my experiments need more validation,", they immediately quote it as is done in scientific journals, put a serious looking reference number on it, write it in a long-winded way, and imply that their theory is proved. Very very good writing skills, sophistry, and pseudo science, and a casual reader not familiar with the scientific method thinks it looks like a scientific treatise. Very deceptive. What a waste of talent.

tzinc
01-23-2008, 08:21 AM
Darwin was a Christian as someone said. Science co-exists with God very nicely. The Right Wing Fundamentalists have completely misrepresented the Bible and Science in order to maintain their hate campaigns.

origmarm
01-23-2008, 08:56 AM
Origmarm: ever read any Ian Barbour?

No but I want to. I am in the process of reading "The Dawkins Delusion" at the moment as I feel its only fair to read both sides of an argument always and maintain an open stance to new material. Is any of it worth reading? Anything recommended in particular?

As I have said before, it is possible that evolution was controlled by a higher entity. Problem is, there is no evidence of that. Intelligent design has not been proved, other than saying it sounds good. Till then, the only mechanism of evolution that can be accepted in science is mutations, horizontal gene transfers, and such. Thus, intelligent design is not a theory. A theory has to be grounded in solid reasoning of some kind, even if it cannot be proved. If that criterion is not applied, then any fantasy or personal preference also has to be called a theory.

Note also that many intelligent design proponents do not even accept evolution as fact. In fact, as a Republican judge ruled in a recent school case, the intelligent design people were actually creationists and their agenda was to somehow "squeeze it in" and cast doubts on evolution. Their literature had examples where older documents with creationism in it were edited and replaced by intelligent design. These guys are not scientists setting out to find the truth - they are people who have a prior belief and out to twist things and impose them on others.

I have read some of the stuff they put out - full of scholarly references, foot notes, selective quotes from scientists taken out of context - all a calculated sham to fool the lay reader. If they find a quote by a biologist that "my experiments need more validation,", they immediately quote it as is done in scientific journals, put a serious looking reference number on it, write it in a long-winded way, and imply that their theory is proved. Very very good writing skills, sophistry, and pseudo science, and a casual reader not familiar with the scientific method thinks it looks like a scientific treatise. Very deceptive. What a waste of talent.

To be frank, I am not a believer in intelligent design. Like yourself I find the evidence to be thin at best. I do however believe that the OP should read about it and make up his own mind.

Personally I do think that at least it's not a head in the sand approach of just ignoring the fact of evolution, they are trying to intelligently address the issue. A lot of the propaganda material on both sides is not well structured and as you say, an attempt to fit creationism into the fact of evolution. Some of it is not so and attempts a proper analysis and this for me is the material relevant to a proper discussion on the subject.

The short answer to the question of intelligent design is essentially that we don't know. For me that requires an agnostic stance to the concept. I find the probability argument against ID somewhat tenuous and probably comparable to the arguments for it. I don't think its unfair to brand it a theory however, I don't feel theory deserves threshold criteria by definition.

The schools debate tends to cloud the issue as frankly those that oppose the teaching of evolution in schools have very strong convictions and little capacity for rational thought. People like this don't tend to structure debates well and in fact are downright dangerous historically.

Look at the world around you, how math works perfectly,etc

Mathematics works perfectly because mathematics is a human construct to explain relationships that are by definition true. Its an interpretation rather than a creation.

Darwin was a Christian as someone said

This is correct for some of his life. To qualify this as wholly correct is however a misrepresentation

Science co-exists with God very nicely.

If you mean God as in a divinity you are correct there is no proven contradiction. With the bible often however there are many.

The Right Wing Fundamentalists have completely misrepresented the Bible and Science in order to maintain their hate campaigns.

Yes. Both sides frequently misrepresent the arguments here.

iradical18
01-23-2008, 09:43 AM
sorry to turn this into a religious conversation but... how can you say God soes not exist?


Look at the world around you, how math works perfectly,etc

That's your reasoning...math? Science and the Bible will always contradict each other, regardless of what side you believe or what side you choose to ignore. I think anyone who says that they KNOW there is a God or that they KNOW that there is no God is insane. But some people just have too large of an ego to admit that they don't know, because we really don't. I believe in Evolution, I don't believe the word of the Bible, but for all I know there may have been a divine hand in creating the Universe.

max
01-23-2008, 11:58 AM
You know, I suppose what worked for me was simply studying a lot of philosophy of science in graduate school. It kind of opened my eyes to the kinds of working assumptions and vagaries in the scientific approach. Pretty much the general writers in this area, not those radicals. There seems to me to be a good bit of the "faith element" in science as well as anything else.

fed_the_savior
01-23-2008, 12:20 PM
To declare that if another person claims to experience something above the natural five senses, than that person is insane, is denying reality, should be ostracized or even locked up, is to me, a form of bigotry and domination that should not be supported by lovers of freedom, and frankly, it concerns me greatly. It is also taking a position of absolute knowledge, "I know absolutely that physical reality is all that exists."

To deny someone the right to present logical or rational arguments against evolution by a priori declaring any arguments against it as irrational and illogical, is also a from of control and suppression that concerns me. Yet this is what it has come to when even the supposed greatest minds are using underhanded tactics to suppress any dissenting voice.

Teh_pwnerer
01-23-2008, 12:28 PM
i used to believe in god. i think i stopped around 6th grade, its just plain BS (sorry for that) but how can a dude lift his hand and say, i want this and that and that too NOW" and BAM!! there it is?

science says, how everything came and why..

Bodacious DVT
01-23-2008, 12:36 PM
The article said that creationists were pushing for creationism to be taught instead of Evolution. This is not true at all. Most people pushing for creationism to be taught in schools want it to be taught as a theory along side with evolution.

mentalgameofmarat
01-23-2008, 12:39 PM
I am a practicing Christian, but to avoid this thread getting overblown lol, here are two that have discussed people's rationale's for or against religion:


Thanks for the quick quelling of any issues. I think religion is an obviously personal choice. I think no different of those who are practicing or those who don't.

To answer your question Mark, its that (at least how I was taught the religion, more than likely by sub par teachers) too many things are left unexplained or just plain narrow-mindedness. I would have to ACTIVELY defend myself (as a student) to teachers who felt I was somehow evil since I was born out of an anulled marriage (its considered out of wedlock suddenly). I had to argue that a former German WWII fighter living in my area should be deported for what he did. I had to defend my pro-choice position, despite their no abortion, pro capital punishment stance. That is a major reason I do not believe. The other major part is (as said above) the scientific answers just make more sense to me. These "answers" are a lot more intuitive to me, and need less of a stretch for me to believe.

Yet, there may very well be a God, I don't know.

mentalgameofmarat
01-23-2008, 12:41 PM
The article said that creationists were pushing for creationism to be taught instead of Evolution. This is not true at all. Most people pushing for creationism to be taught in schools want it to be taught as a theory along side with evolution.

And thats just a sign of bad research by that person.

Steve1954
01-23-2008, 01:31 PM
I would also like to add that creationists are not pushing for creationism to be taught in schools. They want creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. I have dealt with Darwin, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc., in my history classes. That's allowed by law, even in the high schools (full disclosure, personally I teach at the college level). That isn't what the creationists want. And that's why they lose in court.

caesar66
01-23-2008, 01:47 PM
I took a school law course last semester in my masters' program and creationism is actually supposed to be taught alongside Darwinism/evolution, but like Steve says above, some folks want to only have their views taught rather than having all views addressed.

Can we direct this convo to the other threads though? religion threads are getting like "pics of you and your gear" threads, interesting but n real reason to have more than one.

Bodacious DVT
01-23-2008, 02:35 PM
I took a school law course last semester in my masters' program and creationism is actually supposed to be taught alongside Darwinism/evolution, but like Steve says above, some folks want to only have their views taught rather than having all views addressed.

Can we direct this convo to the other threads though? religion threads are getting like "pics of you and your gear" threads, interesting but n real reason to have more than one.

hmm are you suggesting one, universal "post all religious arguments here" pinned thread?

sureshs
01-23-2008, 02:43 PM
To deny someone the right to present logical or rational arguments against evolution by a priori declaring any arguments against it as irrational and illogical, is also a from of control and suppression that concerns me. Yet this is what it has come to when even the supposed greatest minds are using underhanded tactics to suppress any dissenting voice.

There is freedom of speech - no one is denying anyone any right. Have you heard about creation museums and theme parks?

Don't believe in the persecution arguments. There is no scientific proof of ID. The scientific community has to peer review what is published - otherwise we would be reading papers about the flat earth and kids would be debating "alternate views" about it in class. Is the scientific community perfect? No. Do scientists have agendas and flaws? Yes. Are there scientists working on ID? Yes, and with a variety of motivations. None of this makes ID correct. It is wrong according to all the knowledge we have today, and that is that. Just like theories that the Grand Canyon is a few thousand years old or that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Every topic does not have two sides.

sureshs
01-23-2008, 02:52 PM
I took a school law course last semester in my masters' program and creationism is actually supposed to be taught alongside Darwinism/evolution.


Not in science classes, no. And nothing is really "supposed" to be taught. Teaching creationism is an imposition of a religious belief system on others. Unless you took a really biased course.

As the other poster said, that is not what the ID guys want anyway. Teaching it in history or literature classes is not what they are after. In Texas, they want to create a Master of Science program in which creationism belief is a prerequisite. And they want it to be recognized as a science degree by the state. The aim is to legitimize it so they can infiltrate kids minds.

There is a political agenda behind this. Keep people dumb, don't allow them to develop scientific thinking or critical skills, make them sheep-like creatures - then bring on one religious war after another with flimsy excuses and mint money for the few who live off such things. It is pure demagoguery and orchestrated by very intelligent people, not backward ignorant fools as generally believed.

caesar66
01-23-2008, 03:35 PM
Not in science classes, no. And nothing is really "supposed" to be taught. Teaching creationism is an imposition of a religious belief system on others. Unless you took a really biased course.



I should have been more specific; the text for the course I took referenced caselaw in which the courts said that exposure to creationism as well as evolution should be taught in science courses. Not specific Christian ideas of creationism or other religion's views, but the idea that the earth and life are not a result of big bang, evolution of primordial soup. It isn't to be taught as fact or religion-specific belief, but simply taught as an alternative idea to evolution, etc. I believe in God and evolution; i'm not knocking either, and think its fine to bring creationism to the table, provided the teacher does not endorse it in a way that causes the students to feel that they have to.

tbini87
01-23-2008, 08:48 PM
i used to believe in god. i think i stopped around 6th grade, its just plain BS (sorry for that) but how can a dude lift his hand and say, i want this and that and that too NOW" and BAM!! there it is?

science says, how everything came and why..

you still have a long way to go my friend. science says how some things came to be (as far as earth... that is still debatable. the big bang is a theory that leaves tons of room for a God to exist...) but science does not say why...

tbini87
01-23-2008, 08:52 PM
Thanks for the quick quelling of any issues. I think religion is an obviously personal choice. I think no different of those who are practicing or those who don't.

To answer your question Mark, its that (at least how I was taught the religion, more than likely by sub par teachers) too many things are left unexplained or just plain narrow-mindedness. I would have to ACTIVELY defend myself (as a student) to teachers who felt I was somehow evil since I was born out of an anulled marriage (its considered out of wedlock suddenly). I had to argue that a former German WWII fighter living in my area should be deported for what he did. I had to defend my pro-choice position, despite their no abortion, pro capital punishment stance. That is a major reason I do not believe. The other major part is (as said above) the scientific answers just make more sense to me. These "answers" are a lot more intuitive to me, and need less of a stretch for me to believe.

Yet, there may very well be a God, I don't know.

sorry you had such bad experiences with teachers and people when being taught religion. i can see how stuff like that can easily turn someone off. many people seem to be turned off by the "hypocrites" that call themselves religious. but remember that other people's actions should not affect your own religious (or non religious) beliefs. people will always fail, so don't put your trust there. as far as your pro-choice stance, how did you end up with that position? it is interesting how many people are pro-choice anti capitol punishment, and vice versa...

kairosntx
01-23-2008, 10:41 PM
The best read for this is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. A lifelong athiest who was an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune. His wife became very involved with a church so he used his investigative journalism skills to disprove that Jesus is Mesiah/Christ/son of God/God. In the end he saw the evidence for the existence of Chirst, became Christian and is now a best selling Christian author.

origmarm
01-24-2008, 12:47 AM
You know, I suppose what worked for me was simply studying a lot of philosophy of science in graduate school. It kind of opened my eyes to the kinds of working assumptions and vagaries in the scientific approach. Pretty much the general writers in this area, not those radicals. There seems to me to be a good bit of the "faith element" in science as well as anything else.

I agree with this. There are assumptions and methods in science as in anything else. I would love to see religion subjected to the same vigour however. Typically science admits its uncertainty and its limitations readily, religion does not.

To declare that if another person claims to experience something above the natural five senses, than that person is insane, is denying reality, should be ostracized or even locked up, is to me, a form of bigotry and domination that should not be supported by lovers of freedom, and frankly, it concerns me greatly.

I'm curious as to this position. For me this is akin for example to the practice today of putting people with significant delusions in mental hospitals or clinics. Would you argue against that on principle? Or would it be considered helping these people? What is the difference between mental illness and religious belief in that context?

The differentiating factor commonly cited in psychiatric texts and used in court should be the extent that this belief impacts on others or the community. Is this a fair judgement? Fundamentally its fine to believe in whatever you want providing you don't go around killing people for example because of it. This is the commonly accepted standard in psychiatric care and law in most western countries today. Belief in divinity does not have a good record in this area.

It is also taking a position of absolute knowledge, "I know absolutely that physical reality is all that exists."

I would agree that aetheism or belief appear to be positions of absolute knowledge. Surely the correct position given this is agnosticism? Yet millions continue to believe and millions continue to fight this belief

To deny someone the right to present logical or rational arguments against evolution by a priori declaring any arguments against it as irrational and illogical, is also a from of control and suppression that concerns me.

I agree. I think very few would deny the right to present arguments. Whether you choose to believe them or not is another matter. I would be very interested to hear any of these. The only arguments that are not simply statements of belief (for example "because the bible says it's so", or "I believe in god hence I believe in creation") are never against evolution, more against the mechanism. Evolution is scientific fact, this rarely denied, even by those who oppose the mechanisms of its function. Whether or not there was a creator of evolution is another question.

Yet this is what it has come to when even the supposed greatest minds are using underhanded tactics to suppress any dissenting voice.

There is no great mind that suppresses dissenting voices, only fools. There is however a greater audience for some than others. If someone told you the world was flat, they would have a right to speak, but few would listen.

The persecution argument is an odd one. I would suggest that many more people are persecuted or their voices suppressed for denying divinity than for promoting it. Aethist is a dirty word in many parts of the world, including parts of the US.

The article said that creationists were pushing for creationism to be taught instead of Evolution. This is not true at all. Most people pushing for creationism to be taught in schools want it to be taught as a theory along side with evolution.

This is a very valid point and often overlooked. Many believe that god has no place in schools. I tend to agree. The inclusion of god in school just raises too many problems, whose god for example? For the middle ground, the real question is whether it should be taught in natural history class or biology class or not. The real dispute tends to center around this. Most creationists believe it should, the opposing camp believes that it should be taught in religious education classes. I favour the latter as again it raises too many questions not to. Whose god? Which version of creation do you adhere to? What denomination of the church should teach the class? If you have this in an RE environment then this can defined by the audience i.e. which RE class you attend.

I would also like to add that creationists are not pushing for creationism to be taught in schools. They want creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. I have dealt with Darwin, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc., in my history classes. That's allowed by law, even in the high schools (full disclosure, personally I teach at the college level). That isn't what the creationists want. And that's why they lose in court.

This is exactly it.

The best read for this is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

To be clear I'm not trying to be offensive here, but this is imo a very badly written book and does a disservice to the religious argument. There are many many better ones that put forward the case for divinity.
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith has written many excellent books and papers on the subject that come very recommended. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith for a very brief history of the man and most importantly a bibliography.

max
01-24-2008, 06:19 AM
It's interesting in these kinds of posts how they typically. . .

(a) devolve to the lowest level of "science" vs. "religion".

(b) end up painting all Christians with the low-brow, anti-intellectual fundamentalist camp. I think I may be right or wrong here, but I would assume "creationists" and "intelligent design" people are a minority among believers.

(c) conflate science with technology, and lean on the assumptions that science in morally neutral and that all technologies are good.

Lee James
01-24-2008, 06:55 AM
i used to believe in god. i think i stopped around 6th grade, its just plain BS (sorry for that) but how can a dude lift his hand and say, i want this and that and that too NOW" and BAM!! there it is?

science says, how everything came and why..

That's not entirely true, science can't explain everything. There is still much we do not understand completely. For instance the creation of various atoms, galaxies, and even the universe. Much of it is theory based.

fed_the_savior
01-24-2008, 07:43 AM
I agree with this. There are assumptions and methods in science as in anything else. I would love to see religion subjected to the same vigour however. Typically science admits its uncertainty and its limitations readily, religion does not.
Science, of course, is just an emanation of people's minds and consciousness of the physical realities we all share. If there were higher realities that perhaps we don't all share, it's unreasonable to assume that they could be demonstrated physically, isn't it? Just putting that out there for thought, because you admit yourself here that there are things about science we can't prove or directly observe, even.

I'm curious as to this position. For me this is akin for example to the practice today of putting people with significant delusions in mental hospitals or clinics. Would you argue against that on principle? Or would it be considered helping these people?

That's a good question, and I appreciate your civil tone. Generally, if a mental patient has a loving family or someone to take care of them, and they are no serious threat (such as violence or self-inflicted harm), I see no reason why locking them up will be a benefit to them or anyone else, and it might be a serious harm. Many people would have their relative committed when they cannot possibly have the time to take care of them. But I have heard many cases of people that were accused of being mentally ill when in reality they were not, and this is a sad thing. Sometimes they can get out. So, yes, I would argue against some cases where people are put in mental hospitals. And if according to you, because I claim to have experienced something more than physical, I should be put in a mental hospital, than I hope you would understand that I disagree very strongly! :shock: ;)


But from society's perspective, and you must understand that is not a spiritual or individual perspective, from a secular society's perspective most people would, I think, just want to eliminate harm. This is not a case of suppressing people just for being weird, and I'm surprised you would suggest that or even entertain that idea. I believe that is a very dangerous idea, because it is too subjective in a sense, for one person to declare what is delusional for another person. Philosophically, sanity is actually a little difficult to define, because who has the right to say what is the norm.

The differentiating factor commonly cited in psychiatric texts and used in court should be the extent that this belief impacts on others or the community. Is this a fair judgement?
Yes, I think it is. If my "delusion," for example, causes me to give up my life to help the poor, that's a bit different than if my delusion causes me to be a mass murderer. Right?

Fundamentally its fine to believe in whatever you want providing you don't go around killing people for example because of it. This is the commonly accepted standard in psychiatric care and law in most western countries today. Belief in divinity does not have a good record in this area.
Ah, so belief in a God makes people kill. Got it. I guess I better get busy then.

I would agree that aetheism or belief appear to be positions of absolute knowledge. Surely the correct position given this is agnosticism? Yet millions continue to believe and millions continue to fight this belief
You miss one little step of logic, here. Agnosticism is the correct position for someone that doesn't know yet. But to claim that no one can known, or no one has known, is not agnostic, it is again claiming the absolute knowledge that no one can know. Perhaps you could know something that I don't, or vice versa, about the metaphysical.

I'll get a coffee and come back for your thoughts on evolution. Truthfully, I want to just thank you for being civil. It seems sad that I feel compelled to thank you for being civil, but believe it or not, a lot of anti-religious people are not very civil.

fed_the_savior
01-24-2008, 08:10 AM
Alright, origmarm, I will finish up here, coffee in hand. :)


I agree. I think very few would deny the right to present arguments. Whether you choose to believe them or not is another matter. I would be very interested to hear any of these.
Sadly, it seems that this is not so much the case to me.

The only arguments that are not simply statements of belief (for example "because the bible says it's so", or "I believe in god hence I believe in creation") are never against evolution, more against the mechanism. Evolution is scientific fact, this rarely denied, even by those who oppose the mechanisms of its function. Whether or not there was a creator of evolution is another question.
You are really playing with words here. It is not fair to give a word two definitions and then switch back and forth according to when you want it to mean this or that, but at the same time claim it always means both things. In general, I am pretty sure, that when you hear a creationist (and let's be clear: this term at it's most basic meaning, believing something created us), when you hear a creationist use the term "evolution," you positively know that he means the theory that all life descended from one simple organism. You can change evolution to mean the mere fact that all living organisms change in different ways, for example they can adapt or they can mutate. But to deliberately lose the difference between a little change and lot of change, to me, is disingenuous, and I have written of it elsewhere. I agree there are bad arguments, or just plain arrogant assertions, but those aside, there are real logical arguments.


There is no great mind that suppresses dissenting voices, only fools.
A lot of this goes on out of the eye of the public, let me tell you, but if you are going to say that evolutionists have never been bullying or dishonest, I can give you no credibility, personally.

There is however a greater audience for some than others. If someone told you the world was flat, they would have a right to speak, but few would listen.
If someone had a predisposition to believe something, and I believe both Christians and evolutionists can give in to this (often, one wants to prove the supernatural, the other wants to prove there is no supernatural), then the logic is not the only determining factor. If we were all unbiased, I suppose we'd all get along. I realize your point that we can't give credibility to every wacky theory out there, but there really is two sides to that logic. When an idea is entrenched, even solid rational arguments are called wacky, and history has proved that again and again and again. You would be fighting all of history to deny it.

The persecution argument is an odd one. I would suggest that many more people are persecuted or their voices suppressed for denying divinity than for promoting it. Aethist is a dirty word in many parts of the world, including parts of the US.
"The persecution argument." Nice pat on the head, I guess. You can suggest that, but, I would take it, it is a sort of position supporting the home team for you, right? Atheist being a dirty word... let me tell you that in the world of science, that is not so. And right know, we are talking about scientists, or so I thought.

To be clear I'm not trying to be offensive here, but this is imo a very badly written book and does a disservice to the religious argument. There are many many better ones that put forward the case for divinity.
In my humble opinion, God simply cannot be proven with words. However, it can be shown in a solid, scientific manner, that as of right now, science would strongly indicate that it cannot explain everything about our existence. That is as far as I would go, and it is a humble claim, I think.

Thanks for the discussion, and for your time.

mentalgameofmarat
01-24-2008, 05:46 PM
sorry you had such bad experiences with teachers and people when being taught religion. i can see how stuff like that can easily turn someone off. many people seem to be turned off by the "hypocrites" that call themselves religious. but remember that other people's actions should not affect your own religious (or non religious) beliefs. people will always fail, so don't put your trust there. as far as your pro-choice stance, how did you end up with that position? it is interesting how many people are pro-choice anti capitol punishment, and vice versa...


I think in my little rant, you misunderstood me, I'm pro-choice and pro-capital punishment. The teachers I had were pro-life, pro-capital punishment, so I could agree with them in one way. And like I said, the scientific answers just make more sense to me, hence my position.

tbini87
01-24-2008, 07:21 PM
I think in my little rant, you misunderstood me, I'm pro-choice and pro-capital punishment. The teachers I had were pro-life, pro-capital punishment, so I could agree with them in one way. And like I said, the scientific answers just make more sense to me, hence my position.

sorry for the misunderstanding. i was actually wondering how you came to the pro-choice stance, but that may be totally personal. i totally understand people who go by science, but i don't understand why that means that they think they have to reject religion. especially scientific people who refuse to accept that there is a chance that "God" does exist. i am all for science, and also all for religion (Christianity if it matters...).

bluestreak711
01-29-2008, 11:31 PM
i know and understand both sides quite well but i have a question

in the big bang theory what blew up?

mentalgameofmarat
01-30-2008, 12:05 PM
i know and understand both sides quite well but i have a question

in the big bang theory what blew up?

Okay, I'll answer the easier question first. I believe (anyone feel free to correct me, since I don't know fully what I'm talking about) that what "blew up" was merely a conglomerate of all the elements found naturally in the Earth (1-92 for the most part of the periodic table).

sorry for the misunderstanding. i was actually wondering how you came to the pro-choice stance, but that may be totally personal. i totally understand people who go by science, but i don't understand why that means that they think they have to reject religion. especially scientific people who refuse to accept that there is a chance that "God" does exist. i am all for science, and also all for religion (Christianity if it matters...).

I think that the typical rejection of religion by scientists (and vice-versa) is that both offer different explanations to the same question, so both can't be right (at least to most people).

bluestreak711
01-31-2008, 08:56 AM
ok these elements from in the earth that is found on the perocically table

ok it said in the void of nothingness these elements blew up but where did they come from if it was a void of nothingness?

keep up with the posts i am getting there