Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’
msnbc.msn.com — Benedict XVI says humans must listen to ‘the voice of the Earth’ or risk destroying its very existence.
jcasper- 2325 diggs
- digg it
- rdean1970, on 10/10/2007, -29/+431I have a new respect for the Pope after reading this. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive and I think it is awesome that someone like the Pope would acknowledge this.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -22/+10he's not as adamant about wvolution has John Paul II was though
- frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -6/+63To be fair, I'm not particularly adamant about wvolution either.
- timbellomo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18JPII also stated that the two are not mutually exclusive, which is good, cause I'm a Catholic that believes in evolution.
Besides, theres the whole Fr. Georges Lemaitre thing...- UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Good to know you classify your beliefs in a manner that in no way reflects your actual beliefs. Well done sir, well done.
- burkay, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12"I'm a Catholic that believes in evolution"
You know that is penalized with an alignment shift. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Good for you. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Faith is unscientific and beyond the scope of science, but people can believe whatever they want.
- CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5I believe dragons come out of smoke. Is that ok?
Belief without evidence is irrational. The end. - Szandor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1A Methodist friend forwarded this to me when he began college.
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1025 - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Crack
Yup. It can't be proven and it's unscientific, but you can still believe it.
@Szandor
It's interesting. Obviously, it begins with the assumption of belief and works on it from there. At least it doesn't promote a fundamentalist view. I think it's certainly possible to have a scientific worldview, and include faith outside of that. Religion can play a part in your life, but it cannot be viewed scientifically, because it's not.
- CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5I believe dragons come out of smoke. Is that ok?
- frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -6/+63To be fair, I'm not particularly adamant about wvolution either.
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -33/+11Well said! In before the religion bashers, and intolerant idiots who offend everyone just because they express any sign of belief, arrive. I used to go to a Christian church some years ago. I left for personal reasons, but among the few things I liked was that there was an open mind towards topics like evolution, sex and other taboos (sp?).
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28An interesting statement..
You went to chuch for an open minded attitude on various things that religion/fundamentalist views are largely responsible for creating the negative viewpoint to start with.- PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -11/+14His/her statement makes far more sense than yours.
What various things?
There is a difference in kind between fundamentalism and religion.
Fundamentalism can apply to the secular as well.- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"but among the few things I liked was that there was an open mind towards topics like evolution, sex and other taboos"
Well considering it was a response to that comment I think it's pretty obvious what 'things' i'm referring to. And yes I know well that fundamentalists can be secular and made no reference to indicate I think otherwise. However the origination of the concept was strongly linked to theistic concerns and retains a heavy bias toward the same. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist)
I simply stated that the open viewpoints sought at said location were often the negative creation of the same group which organized the very institution to which he/she was participating to obtain an open view.
Clear enough now?
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"but among the few things I liked was that there was an open mind towards topics like evolution, sex and other taboos"
- PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -11/+14His/her statement makes far more sense than yours.
- aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -8/+30When they tell me it's not a sin to use a condom, I'll start listening.
Oh, that's right. The creator of heaven and earth has his divine plan stopped by a few millimeters of latex.- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Haven't come to grips with the idea of free will yet?
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because its a poorly framed concept, and its limiting your thinking. Consider that what you think of as free will might be an illusion. Like God.
- chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1For some reason, I don't think you will.
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Haven't come to grips with the idea of free will yet?
- humperdeath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If God creates all life, then why are condoms and other birth controls not allowed? Seems a bit hipocritical to admit that biological science is responsible for life with one rule, and stating that God controls how and when life is formed with another rule. Just a thought.
- chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's the belief that sex is meant for reproduction, and reproduction alone. Sex for pleasure is thus immoral. That's an explanation, not my personal belief.
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Its not even an explanation, its idiotic is what it is. What does God have against pleasure? As if he really cares about individual sperm.
- chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's the belief that sex is meant for reproduction, and reproduction alone. Sex for pleasure is thus immoral. That's an explanation, not my personal belief.
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28An interesting statement..
- ghm101, on 10/10/2007, -5/+101Pretty sure that this message is not some new policy on evolution by the pope, just a restatement of the pro evolution, pro science position held by the catholic church for years.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Right, I recall an earlier pope talking about adam and eve and somehow explaining how their existence could coexist with the theory that humans evolved instead. I still don't get it though, probably because it was in latin.
- mrigns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The last pope made it official: The catholic church acknowledges evolution as a fact.
the pope seems to be concerned about the whole church thing in Germany as only 10% of the- 4040, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Yeah, I see what you
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1i'm gonna agree with you Rdean...
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2when exactly? :-p
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -5/+55I'm not Catholic but I've always liked Benedict XVI. I don't think he has the public charisma of John Paul II, but really is an intellectual with a very serious background in theology. Contemporary theology is not 'how many angels on the head of the pin', it involves pretty serious crtical analysis of scripture, and I'm sure that any athesists here who approached some one like Benedict XVI with their beliefs wouldn't be shot down with a 'you infidel!' but would probably be able to engage in a pretty thoughtful discussion. It's too bad that foaming mouth fundamentalists have really co-opted the face of world religions, all of which have very rich intellectual histories that are easily silenced by 'Science is the devil!'.
- UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -32/+11"really is an intellectual with a very serious background in theology"
here are some alternatives:
"really is a chemist with a very strong background in alchemy"
"really is an psychologist with a very serious background in phrenology"- AlienShe, on 10/10/2007, -10/+28You, sir, are an intellectual midget.
- rabidg00se, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22Yeah man, don't be a douche.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13You and your black and white world. Tsk tsk
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Actually that was pretty funny. But to appreciate it requires you not to have a horse in the race.
Of course, as an atheist, why would I ever want to talk to the Pope. He's spent his whole life devoted to books written about something that doesn't exist. I'd sooner talk to a Tolkien fan. I'm sure the arguments are wonderfully subtle, but pragmatically pointless.
- krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Benedict XVI aka Ratzinger is much more conservative than John Paul II. I'm quite surprised to see that he believes in evolution.
- Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Benedict XVI aka "Gods Rottweiler" ?
Of course he "believes" in evolution, it has been official "policy" of the holy sea for more than 40 years ..
just as the church doesn't believe Earth is the centre of the Universe and that everything else revolves around it .
The catholic church doesn't even claim that the universe was created 5767 years ago as the evangelical zionists do .
But don't get to exited about the Rottweiler, he is harbouring criminal child-molesters, accessory after the fact , at best ...- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1"holy sea" "exited" You are an illiterate asswipe. And what the ***** is are "evangelical zionists"?
- Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Benedict XVI aka "Gods Rottweiler" ?
- UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -32/+11"really is an intellectual with a very serious background in theology"
- emanggid, on 10/10/2007, -6/+51yes. ghm101 is right - this is not new.
when i got married i remember going through the long talk about faith with our monsignor, and he specifically said that "catholics believe in a different evolution theory, not the creationist one. we believe in science and religion. We believe, just like science, you form your beliefs based on a collection of facts and observations."
he explained to me how you build belief system based on history, facts, all this stuff, just like science, but then you make a jump to faith at the top, because you don't understand it, but you base it all on what you can understand.
he was a great, smart guy.- omikun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16"but then you make a jump to faith at the top, because you don't understand it"
I've always wondered, why do you need to believe in anything if you don't understand how or what happened in the very beginning? Is there a need to think you "know" what caused life when you really don't? Atheists: no. Theists: yes. I think that's the fundamental difference.- KoolcatsKarma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Belief in religion or science serves as a comfort zone. It's fear and and a feeling of subordinance that influences a need for that kind of clarity. Personally, I feel that same way you do. I'll admit that's what scares me.
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good point. It's like two approaches to a mathematical proof. Theists need to have the "why" variable filled when computing life. I'd like to think Atheists are a bit more comfortable with algebra.
- chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Many people don't believe or understand economics, but that doesn't mean it's not important. (I cite the minimum wage debate here.) Human beings are curious and want to know "why." Atheists believe that life has no fundamental purpose, and to me, that seems rather pessimistic and empty. And because atheists can't prove that belief, I might as well believe otherwise.
- EdwardsNH, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Absolutely omikun. I was talking to someone who said he had proof a ghost was in his house. "OK, I've gotta hear this"
"My son and I were working in the house, and a door slammed shut. There was nobody else in the house, and NO, there was no breeze. Explain how that could be anything but a ghost!"
"Well," I replied, "I can't tell you what closed the door. But to go from 'I can't explain it' to 'it must be a ghost' is kind of a crazy ***** argument you dumbass"
- omikun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16"but then you make a jump to faith at the top, because you don't understand it"
- UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -29/+16"Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive"
That argument must be the most dishonest, contradictory, spineless, ignorant excuse possible for religious apologists.
Please try to find ANY definition of religion that doesn't claim to directly answer scientific questions. And then find a religion that doesn't directly violate contemporary scientific knowledge. And no, claiming that statements about the natural world are just "fanciful metaphors" is not acceptable. Especially when people were once murdered for not professing to accept those statements as absolute truth.- jjed824, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15"Please try to find ANY definition of religion that doesn't claim to directly answer scientific questions. "
Umm...Lets try Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
"And then find a religion that doesn't directly violate contemporary scientific knowledge. "
Umm...Catholicism (see TFA for proof) - chlsmith, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12The problem with your comment, besides the flammatory nature of your wording, is that you state there is such a thing as a "scientific question". That's total *****. There are questions. Period. There are scientific answers to questions and there are theological answers to questions.
Folks tend to get arrogant by way of choosing the "right" answers. Science nerds tend to give responses like yours, crazy fundamentalists give answers like the Arkansas guy running for President. Do I know the right answer? No. But I can tell you that religion doesn't claim to answer scientific questions, as there are no such things in the first place.- JoshReflek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'd take "Scientific question" to mean, a question which can be answered fully by means of deduction and analysis of facts, observation and execution of actual testing.
I'll hazard a guess that a "Religious Question", pertains to a stalwart faith in an amorphous concept which has a shifting set of contradictory and illlogical parameters, suited to soothe an aching mind from making connections that are already apparent or are assumed to be known, that would force a person to deal with simple truths.
As far as a "right" answer, yes, some answers are wrong, such as the earth being flat or the center of our universe. Many people have the right answer, clearly laid in front of them by paying attention to sense uncommon. Theistic answers, a.k.a., those based on blind faith, are nearly always wrong by very concept of how they aren't even tested or deduced, but assumed. - Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Not that anyone will find this in comment hell, but if your interest in the topic I strongly recommend reading 'Evolution as Religion' by Mary Midgley http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-as-Religion-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278333/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0815410-6035946?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185477576&sr=8-1
probably the most rational, clear-head, and balanced discussion of the issue. Essentially says that both science and religion have separate domains that they discuss and it's a problem when either one tries to enter the domain of the other. Also points out that while people are quick to point out when religion crosses the line, they usually ignore when people abuse science in the same way.
- JoshReflek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'd take "Scientific question" to mean, a question which can be answered fully by means of deduction and analysis of facts, observation and execution of actual testing.
- AlienShe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You can't dismiss every idea just because a few psychotic jackasses have twisted it to violent ends. People have made erroneous claims or taken abhorrent actions in the name of many things besides religion.
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But you can dismiss it if its intellectually dishonest, poorly composed and basically meaningless.
- chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah you can. So prove for me that God does not exist.
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't have to, any more than I have to prove unicorns and fairies don't exist.
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But you can dismiss it if its intellectually dishonest, poorly composed and basically meaningless.
- ManyAsOne, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"Love is a deeply meaningful experience" vs "love is a bunch of neurotransmitters and electrical impulses sloshing around in your brain". Both statements are equally valid and they're only in conflict if you force them to be. Pushy theists and pushy athiests aside, religion can be taken much the same way.
...And as AlienShe points out, religion doesn't have a monopoly on violence. People have died in the name of politics, economics, bigotry, and so on. Even athiesm and science aren't innocent of being used to justify persecution and murder. Does that mean that currency and nations are evil, too? - bluejet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm a total atheist but in my observations, Catholic doctrine tends to push the message of the bible rather than getting caught up in every word.
- chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Replace the word "religion" with "philosophy" and you'll realize that your own logic is flawed. Not mentioning the fact that you place all religious people in the same pot, "metaphors" ARE perfectly acceptable to Catholics. The Bible was written by men, men who Catholics believe were inspired by God, but men nonetheless. Those men in the first millennium could not be expected to understand 21st century science, and thus they spoke in metaphors. Call it coincidence, but in the Bible man was created on the sixth day, the last stage of Creation. In fact the Catholic Church preserved the very science of the ancient Greeks and Romans during the Middle Ages. It's folly to believe that science and religion are incompatible if you have a serious discussion with any Catholic theologian. It's like saying science and philosophy are incompatible.
- jjed824, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15"Please try to find ANY definition of religion that doesn't claim to directly answer scientific questions. "
- texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31I'm glad someone's saying this. I've been saying it for ages. Hell, I can take a Bible, open it to Genesis and point out specific passages where scripture shows that, unless you're a Bible Literalist, God could have easily used the Big Bang and evolution as His tools for creation.
- Thorkdin, on 10/10/2007, -25/+2Can't Evolution Be God's Creation Tool? -
If all things are possible through god and there are things about god we could never understand, why can't evolution be a tool of gods creation scheme? the progression of animals presented is genesis is the same progression presented in evolution. I just think one is a matter of science and one is a matter of faith. neither should be used to prove or disprove the other. I believe in jesus as my savior. but I also believe science is an offshot of the curiosity that god put into us and we should pursue as much knowledge as we can be it biblical or earthly. the is no sin in trying to understand what happened here before us. I'm sick and tired of this adversarial relationship between faith and science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENDER MINISTRIES RESPONSE:
Hi! Thanks for contacting us at Contender Ministries. I don't see an adversarial relationship between faith and science, except for the disdain and persecution some scientists show towards faith. There are many Christian scientists out there, who find that their field of science tends to strengthen their faith. If you're referring to evolution, then the adversarial feelings Christians have are not towards science in general, but to the junk science that is evolution. Yes, I said "junk science." There are many problems with Darwin's theory that no evolutionist can address. The creation of the world was a supernatural act, and cannot be "proven" by science. Yet that does not make it unscientific. The creation can be scientifically studied, and the whole of science yields more evidence that supports spontaneous creation, than there is that supports evolution. You seem to subscribe to what is called, "theistic evolution." That is, that God used evolution as His tool of creation, and the Genesis account of creation is allegorical or mythological. Let me share a few of the problems with evolution, some problems with theistic evolution, and also try to explain the perceived adversarial relationship between faith and science when it comes to origins.
Evolution would have you believe that all of the living organisms you see around you, including the one you see in the mirror, evolved over a period of billions of years from some sort of puddle of organic goo. Evolutionists do not know what caused life to spark from that puddle, they just know it did. Ever since, from a single living cell, multiplications, mutations, and natural selection have resulted in every plant and animal on planet Earth. It’s hard to conceive, isn’t? Look at the complexities in just the human body. Consider your eye, and your brain, and how all your systems and your chemical makeup have to function cooperatively and flawlessly. Look microscopically. There are 3000 proteins in one sequence in a single cell. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. The odds of randomly plucking a particular electron out of the universe are 500 times greater! It has been said that if Darwin knew then what we know now about the complexities of molecular chemistry and the human genome, he would likely have never put forth his flawed theory.
Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”
If evolution were true, there would have been literally billions of intermediary stages in the fossil record, where we could have seen lungs develop from gills, etc. Yet no transitional form (missing link) has ever been found. Evolutionists thought they had a find with archaeopteryx, which seemed to show a transitional form between a lizard and a feathered bird, yet archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud that was actually developed from two separate fossilized remains. Java man, Piltdown man, Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking man were also missing links that were proven to be frauds.
Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago states that the “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Robert A. Millikan, in a speech before the American Chemical Society, said, “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”
As you can see, there are serious problems with Darwin's theory. It would be a mistake to adopt bad science in the context of theistic evolution. God would not use a process that is so patently flawed. Aside from that, the Bible records God saying He would make man in His image. If that's true, then we either look now as we did when He created us, or He resembles a puddle of organic goo from whence evolutionists believe life began. If that's not true, then can we trust the Bible at all? If you want to strictly disregard Genesis, but believe the rest of the Bible, then you have to account for the fact that Adam is referred to 30 times in 9 books of the Bible. He is also mentioned in the lineage that leads to Jesus Christ. Paul calls Christ “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45). If Adam were an early, undeveloped hominid, then why would Paul demean Christ in this way? Why would so many authors of the Bible refer to a man that never existed? You cannot separate faith from the creation of man, as it was a supernatural act (transcending natural laws). Yet creation can be studied scientifically. This is something evolutionists wish to suppress.
Scientist L.T. More said, “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion…the only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.”
That is the crux of the problem, and that is why evolution is still being taught as if it were fact. If you are familiar with the “scientific method,” you know that in order for an idea to pass from the stage of hypothesis to theory and finally to fact, it must be subject to observation. No person has ever observed one species changing into an entirely new species. So at BEST, evolution can only be called a theory. Yet it is presented in schools as an absolute fact, and the powers that be will not even allow the science behind the opposing theory (that of creation) to be presented alongside evolution. This is highly hypocritical! In our history, it was once the other way around – evolution was not allowed to be taught in public schools in some states. When substitute biology teacher John Scopes went to trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution, the ACLU represented him. The ACLU lead attorney on the case, Clarence Darrow, said, “It is the height of bigotry to teach only one view of origins.” Where is the ACLU now that creationism has been banned from the classroom? They fight any attempt to balance the teachings on origins, and have filed suit against even placing labels on textbooks that concede that there are other theories concerning the origins of man, and evolution must be looked at as simply one theory.
The American Atheist magazine once stated, “Destroy Adam and Even and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God, and take away the meaning of his death.” Evolutionists cling to their scientifically inept theory because they are trying to disprove the existence of God. That is where your adversarial relationship comes in.
You sound like you have an interest in science. That’s great. Jennifer and I do as well. You don’t have to crush that or bury it to believe in the Genesis account of creation. If you take the initiative to study the evidence from more sources than your textbook, I’m sure you’ll find that science proves neither creationism nor evolution, but it definitely supports the Genesis account of divine creation more. If you want to study more about the science of creation, check out the websites and books listed at the end of our email. I think you’ll find these studies will enhance your faith in the Word of God – including the book of Genesis. May God bless you.
In Christ,
Ben and Jennifer Rast
Contender Ministries
Our page on the flaws of carbon 14 dating:
http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
The Center for Scientific Creation:
http://www.creationscience.com/
The Institute for Creation Research:
http://www.icr.org/
Creation Worldview Ministries:
http://www.creationworldview.org/_docs/Articles.htm
Also, check out these Books:
Darwin’s God, by Cornelius G. Hunter
Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson
Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Bollocks, all of it.
The "war" was not started by the Atheists or the Evolutionists, it was started by the Catholic church, unless the revisionists are attempting to go back into history to show how bands of Atheists held mock trials and burned the religious at the stake for their mistaken beliefs about the Earth being the center of the Solar System or the Earth being flat. People DIED because the Catholic church wasn't willing to accept science's findings, not the other way around. The reason Evolution was banned at one point was not because the theory held little scientific value, but because of intense opposition by religious groups to exclude it ... just a continuation of the anti-science bias that's been around since the Middle Ages.
Secondly ... we can watch evolution happening right now. We know the mechanism (DNA, RNA), have the human genome mapped and will learn about the individual genes over the next 50 years. The riddle of "how" is almost completely solved at this point, so it doesn't matter how ridiculously small these folks think the odds are of it happening ... because it happened. I say "think" because the universe is infinitely large and even something so amazingly rare as to have 1^-40 chance of happening is guaranteed to happen in some spot in the 'verse. It's a virtual certainty.- Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Exactly !! and I was baptised a catholic..
"You don’t have to crush that or bury it to believe in the Genesis account of creation" .. say what ? have you read it ?
and these religious nuts are the same who call 9-11 truthers "tinfoil-hats" ? - nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"the universe is infinitely large"
How did you come to that conclusion?
- Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Exactly !! and I was baptised a catholic..
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I am NOT reading that.
- JoshReflek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"Can't Evolution Be God's Creation Tool? -
If all things are possible through god"
]]]] Certainly anything unknown is possible to be something other than what isnt not unkown to be true.....This is also assumptively asserts it's own truth to be self evident. Which nothing is.
" and there are things about god we could never understand, "
]]]] Same assumptive attitude.
"why can't evolution be a tool of gods creation scheme? "
]]]] Ok here is where most religious discussion falls apart, when the non-religious proponant, play's 'devil's advocate' and allows the religious fanatic to start in on how their Manual for Psychotic Destruction of Sanity, tells them how to feel.
All validity is lost when a person cannot base all responses on a book written by humans, but professed as the word of supernatural forces.....
paying attention to someone who goes on with with 'the bible says bla bla', or 'last night when i was talking to myself before i went to sleep, i heard a voice answer back, that voice said "tell other people you can hear me", opens the door for them to continue spouting nonsense.....
A new school crusade to oust the religious riech from society should start soon, got the fire burnin' from the ashes of 'witches' and all the other publicly executed non-sheep humans paying attention enough to see through the insanty that many people refer to as their self evidant right to be right, and rightfully so, force it upon everyone.
In the name of the crazy. - PleaseJustDie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9this is a comment field dude, not a graduate thesis field...
- daggah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2That tripe hardly could be counted as a graduate thesis...it's more like a poorly researched sermon.
- JoshReflek, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1ill limit my replies to short and more easily digested mindless sound bites that press hot button issues while relying on buzzwords in lieu of a thought out response that addresses the issue with hope for meaningful discourse for the benefit of your short attention span.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Bollocks, all of it.
- SamMcPhy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Is this a "Young Earth Creationists" website or an "Old Earth Creationists" website? Young Earth Creationists say the Earth and universe are 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Seems obvious Young Earth and Evolution views are incompatible. Posters need to be up front about their position if they are Young Earthers.
Not all believers in Jesus think the Earth is 6,00 to 10,000 years old. There are essentially two groups know as Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists.
The Young Earth view is the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old (although they won't usually come out and say this directly). The Old Earth view is science is correct and the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old + / - 500,000 years and the Universe is approximately 16 billion years old +/- 1.5 billion (the error delta is getting smaller with advances in measurement technology).
Note: another term often used is Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Design camp are actually Creationists except they say they can't identify the Designer. The Intelligent Design group is rather disingenuous in saying they can't identify the Designer because if you check who the proponents are they are all Christians or Jews, no Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Also, the Intelligent Design group tries to fence sit on the Young Earth versus Old Earth views.
Mainstream media is either unaware of or ignore the growing Old Earth Creationists group or only call on the Young Earth Creationists because their evidence is so scientifically weak it makes believers look foolish.
A good resource for the Old Earth Creationists view is "Reasons To Believe" http://www.reasons.org/- airforceteacher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Hear hear!
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I always thought intelligent design supporters believe the designer is Gd. I, however, think its Slartibartfast.
- daggah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean the nazi mod from HardOCP's forums??? That Slartibartfast?
- omikun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I don't understand how any Christians are not "Bible Literalist." If you believe your holy scripture could be fubared by the guys who wrote it down and the guys who later translated it, how can you trust anything in it? Can you honestly convince yourself that they only screwed up on minor details and not added in their own agendas? Why not stop there, how do you even know they were really from the word of God? If you doubt that, then how do you even know there is a God? What unambiguous fact that would support that? I leave this with unanswered questions and I hope you'll answer them unbiased.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2In recent times there have been more accurate translations.
- wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The simple answer is that something doesn't have to be 100% factual to be true. There are more philosophical elements at work here than you're allowing for, such as the difference between substance and essence, as well as the difference between fact and truth.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Ever heard of a parable? Allegory? Not taking something literally does not mean it was "fubared".
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Reasonable question. Here's my answer: communication is inherently an imperfect activity. Yes, it would be nice if there were some simple technique or formula you could apply to the Bible (or anything else) that always ensured you interpreted things correctly. If that existed, It would be very helpful and eliminate a lot of problems. However, just because such a technique or formula would be helpful does not mean it exists.
To make an analogy, wouldn't it be nice if there were an way of organizing the justice system you could put into law where the courts always arrived at the right verdict, and guilty people were always punished and innocent ones always went free? It would be FANTASTIC if such a completely-reliable justice system existed. But it doesn't.
I have always been a proponent of the idea that the Bible can be reliable without being inerrant. We have no problem whatsoever applying this idea to other books. For example, a dictionary might have a few mistakes here and there, as well as some definitions which aren't outright mistakes but just aren't nearly as detailed and insightful as you'd like. And it may have things in it that are phrased in ambiguous ways, so that it's possible to get the right meaning but also possible to get the wrong meaning. Yet, we would still consider such a dictionary a highly-reliable reference work if that didn't happen very often at all. Why can't we do the same thing with the Bible? Is there something special about the Bible that should make it an all-or-nothing thing?
Also, if the Bible is not perfect, does that let a believer off the hook? Is it fair to say "the Bible wasn't perfect in every way, so I felt free to ignore even the parts I knew to be dead-on if I didn't like them"? No, that's just an excuse. Even if the Bible is imperfect, as a believer you'd still be held to a good-faith effort to interpret it correctly. So, I don't see why it would be damaging to think the Bible isn't perfect.
- Thorkdin, on 10/10/2007, -25/+2Can't Evolution Be God's Creation Tool? -
- heynoop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I think it's great, too... Now, if only diggers would learn: http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7230/cvseww2.gif
- Yuo122986, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1So far about one in six people agree with you (104 / 639)
considering how many people don't even read the comments, I'd say that you're in the majority on this one. - Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7"Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive "
Damn I wish people would view it that it should be... - mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -13/+9Not to try and break up the fun and everything, but God cannot co-exist with evolution. I'm sorry, but it just isn't possible unless you make ridiculous logical leaps. It's nice to think that science and religion can get along, but they are fundamentally different. You're trying to make apple-orange juice, I think. There's a reason they probably don't sell that--it probably tastes bad.
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The existence of God and any other matters of faith (i.e. belief without evidence) are beyond the scope of science, and can be neither proven nor disproven). Therefore, you can believe whatever you want when it comes to unscientific questions, yet rely on science for scientific questions. Science is not all-knowing. It is somewhat narrowly defined. Don't try to make it a religion.
- mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I meant "exclusive" in the sense that you can't combine them, not in the sense that they both don't exist. Perhaps it's just me, but I'd rather be in the dark about something we don't know than make haphazard guesses that I could never prove to be true.
- stinkybrinker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1One part apple juice, two parts orange juice, a dash of cherry.....Yummy.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"God cannot co-exist with evolution"
Why not?
First, a God could create a universe in which evolution is possible.
Second, evolution depends on random mutation. Randomness is a theoretical concept. In practice, random events are empirically indistinguishable from events determined by the sheer will of an undetectable being (such as 'God').- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You are leaving out the Natural Selection part of evolution which doesn't require a God.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How does that relate to the question of whether God and evolution can coexist?
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even if natural selection doesn't *require* a god, does that mean that it's *incompatible* with a god? The human body does not require, say, yellowfin tuna in order to have proper nutrition, but yellowfin tuna is perfectly compatible with a healthy diet.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You are leaving out the Natural Selection part of evolution which doesn't require a God.
- Gareshra, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Okay, I'm going to use a very simplified comparison here. Let's try...television and monopoly. Both have a goal. They seek to entertain users. However, monopoly involves taking a logical course of action to a specified goal. Television involves listening and understanding a story through observation. They seek the same goal, but are completely different.
Same with religion and science. They seek to understand the world, but science deals in the material nature of the world, and religion deals in the metaphysical. They ARE apples to oranges, so why should liking or agreeing with one hinder your ability to like or agree with the other?
/end simplification
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The existence of God and any other matters of faith (i.e. belief without evidence) are beyond the scope of science, and can be neither proven nor disproven). Therefore, you can believe whatever you want when it comes to unscientific questions, yet rely on science for scientific questions. Science is not all-knowing. It is somewhat narrowly defined. Don't try to make it a religion.
- GR8Idea, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1 http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ This is all I have to say about the subject!
- CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Great documentary. Part 1 needs to be taught in High Schools.
- UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Part 1 has actually been proven to be full of inaccuracies and exaggerations. The religions in question are not nearly as similar as the movie makes them out to be.
The other parts of the movie are great and incredibly informative. The first part, however, is more like a religion hit piece.
Still my favorite (and least favorite because of how flipping scary it is) movie.- smthop3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I know, the part at the end where they talk about the ultimate goal was to have the world be one nation and get us all installed with RFID chips, I was so freaked out, I couldn't sleep for two days, it was all I could think about. Now I just suppress that movie in my thoughts because it was so freaky.
- GR8Idea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Nice to see a few of you have seen the movie. I am not surprised the more than 50% gave me a negative digg for my post. Likely most have not seen the movie and some probably gave the negative based on adding a movie link as my answer. Beyond all that full disclosure I am Irish Roman Catholic. What the pope said was a move in the right direction. But I must say with out an ounce of reservation that organized religion is based on power and control more than faith. This is not of course an absolute but damn close. After all there is some good in an interaction between a child and a stranger giving candy... The movie should be viewed by everyone weather they agree or disagree.
- supazio, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17Actually, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive.
- neonfunk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5science studies the empirical-- things. religion studies the unseen, unheard, and untouched-- nothing. they are in perfect accord.
"When I wanted to think of my God, I knew of no way of doing so except as a physical mass. Nor did I think anything existed which is not material. That was the principal and almost sole cause of my inevitable error."-- st. augustine- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Meaning that religion studies things that can never be proven and has no measurable effect in reality? Sure...
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I disagree. Science is fundamentally a subset of rational thinking. Rational thinking, in turn, is limited to taking available information and arriving at conclusions that are justified by sound reasoning. Religion, on the other hand, is all about a connection or relationship to something outside the physical universe. We are talking about information that is not observable, or even something that goes beyond simply information. Rational thought can do nothing with this.
The two don't even deal with the same questions. Science is all about detecting patterns in the past through the present, then making inferences about what is likely to happen in the future. Religion is about forming some sort of connection with something outside what you can observe empirically. Basically, the two don't even operate in the same arena.
There is one area where they could be perceived as being incompatible: if you think rational thought is the ONLY way to arrive at any form of truth, then you kinda can't be religious (although there are some theologians who would tell you that you still can, because maybe God has a soft spot for thinkers). If you believe that experience is the only way to arrive at truth, then you are, philosophically, an empiricist.
Here's the kicker: it's not necessary to be take an empirical-knowledge-only stance in order to be good at science. You can equally well be good at science if you merely believe that empirical pursuit of knowledge does indeed work. You don't have to believe that it is the *only* way that works. You just have to believe that it can be trusted as a means of gaining knowledge.
So let's suppose there's a universe where empirical pursuit of knowledge can answer some questions, but there is another set of questions which divine revelation can answer. And let's suppose that either the two sets of questions are disjoint or that, where they intersect, empiricism and divine revelation are in agreement. Then there is no conflict between the two ideas.
- neonfunk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5science studies the empirical-- things. religion studies the unseen, unheard, and untouched-- nothing. they are in perfect accord.
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Why do people believe this feel-good ***** like "science and religion are not mutually exclusive"? Religion is about believing things based on faith and personal feelings. The whole point of science is to eliminate those things from your conclusions. Scientific method, experiment design, and peer review are all in place to eliminate EVERYTHING except sound conclusions based on empirical evidence. Anybody who claims to take science seriously, and yet believes in a magical invisible man who watches over us and will condemn us to hell if we don't believe, deserves to be ridiculed.
Besides, the only reason the Pope would make such statements is because the evidence for evolution by natural selection is too strong to publicly deny. Doing so would make the Catholic church an even bigger joke than it is already.- Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Show me some scientific method experiments that show clearly that God does not exist. Thank you.
- AM6278, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Show me some scientific method experiments that show clearly that fairies do not exist. Thank you.
- smthop3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Burden of proof is on you buddy, don't try to switch it
- Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Show me some scientific method experiments that show clearly that God does not exist. Thank you.
- kmckanna, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2And I respect you for being one of the people that understand this now. I have been arguing this for as long as I can remember people arguing Evolution vs. Creation theory.
I believe that they can co-exist. I am glad that this statement was made-- and I am glad osme people are going to start agreeing with this. - asourapple, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Science and religion are absolutely mutually exclusive. That is provable, and has been proven again and again.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"Science and religion are absolutely mutually exclusive. That is provable, and has been proven again and again."
Anyone with a basic grasp of logic understands that one proof, one time, is sufficient.
Please provide an outline of a single valid proof.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"Science and religion are absolutely mutually exclusive. That is provable, and has been proven again and again."
- FalseSyllogism, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Science is in direct conflict with religion, actually. It's amazing that people think science and religion haven't been in constant conflict since the Enlightenment, for example. If you look at what science has done to religon (i.e., completely destroying the fundamental tenets of most religions and forcing them to "moderate" their stance on many issues), you will see just how badly they are in conflict with each other. The difference is, I have evidence to prove that science and religion are incompatible, and people who think science and religion can co-exist don't have any at all. There is a very clear historical basis for what I am saying. Then again, many of the people here aren't too bright, so why bother explaining it?
- AlienShe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your logic chain, below, is flawed--I think you mean "If science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive, then..." Assuming that's a typo, you're still missing the point. Several points, actually.
- FalseSyllogism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, it's obviously a typo/omission but it doesn't matter. Anyway, instead of explaining how I'm "missing the point" with religion, you claim that I am wrong and offer no evidence or substantive argument to show otherwise. Why even bother commenting at all then? I am going to respond in kind then -- "you are wrong, AlienShe and you have missed the point. I am not going to explain why or how you missed the point, but just trust me, okay?"
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You are equating "in conflict" and "incompatible". They are not the same thing. You correctly pointed out that science has forced change in religion over the last few hundred years. True, but science has also forced massive change in engineering. And in medicine. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that science has been "in conflict" with the current medical practice at any given time. But, this does not mean that medicine itself is fundamentally incompatible with science. It just means that the actual practice of medicine, at any given time, is imperfect. And so it is with religion as well.
Also, you are being slightly dramatic with "completely destroying the fundamental tenets". The fundamental tenets of Christianity, for example, are that you should love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself. (I based this on the fact that it is recorded that Jesus gave that answer to a very similar question.) I fail to see how science has destroyed those tenets. Now, science has forced a shift in dogma, but the fact is that dogma shifts over time, and did long before science was invented.- FalseSyllogism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That is a straw-man argument. Medicine has EVIDENCE and has been able to demonstrate its reliability. Did you seriously just compare religion with medicine? That is probably the worst analogy possible. "The fundamental tenets of Christianity, for example, are that you should love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself." -- that is definitely debatable, and you are obviously only selectively quoting parts of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm willing to bet you've never read the Bible cover to cover, have you? "Now, science has forced a shift in dogma, but the fact is that dogma shifts over time, and did long before science was invented."-- the only reason why dogma has shifted over time is due to the power of reason, and the fact that it is has been proven to be completely fabricated on literally thousands of different accounts. Your argument is worthless and completely full of holes.
- AlienShe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your logic chain, below, is flawed--I think you mean "If science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive, then..." Assuming that's a typo, you're still missing the point. Several points, actually.
- FalseSyllogism, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Just for fun, follow the logic chain:
1. If science and religion are mutually exclusive, they will not offer contradictory views on the same topics.
2. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of our origin.
3. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of our place in the universe in relation to other galaxies.
4. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of how we arrived, in this current bodily form, on earth.
5. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of why people get sick.
6. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of why people have bodily defects.
7. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of people being able to ascend into the upper stratosphere unaided by technology.
8. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of being able to transform one chemical compound into another without the use of technology.
9. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of being able to rapidly regenerate lost tissue by doing nothing but laying hands on someone.
10. Science has offered contradictory views on the topic of being able to cure blindness just by laying hands on someone.
11. Science has offered thousands upon thousands of contradictory views on topics that religion once fully explained.
12. Science is, therefore, in conflict with religion and has been in conflict with religion for MANY, MANY YEARS.- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Stories are how the first great apes passed down knowledge to offspring, first by oral tradition, then by crude drawings and symbols, eventually evolving into complex language. The stories were always of the first apes, the first tribe in africa that began communication, the beginning of the human ego and the origin of human nature. These evolved into the religions we know today as ***** sapiens spread out across the world. There was no science in the beginning, it only came after religion, after communication. Your mind is so closed, it's like you're whole philosophy in life is only based of what you hear and see right now. You have no perception of the human race as a whole, where we came from and where we are going. I hope you will think a little deeper about things in the future, there is much knowledge to be learned.
- Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1nice post man!!
- smthop3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0That's funny, how does religion evolve? Seems to me that it should be pretty much the same forever. Whatever religion they believed back then no one believes now and you don't either, you believe something different which means you by the teachings most likely of whatever you believe cannot accept their religion as true. We don't know where we came from and we don't know where we're going so stop living for the afterlife and start living this life.
- FalseSyllogism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your post has no substance at all. I am making a claim -- that religion is in conflict with science -- that has NOTHING to do with our ancestral past or our evolutionary/cultural history. "I hope you will think a little deeper about things in the future, there is much knowledge to be learned." -- ah, and there is the entire point of your "argument" -- you are a "God of the Gaps" moderate, who thinks that since we don't know a lot about how the universe works, then "god must've done it!" How pathetic.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Stories are how the first great apes passed down knowledge to offspring, first by oral tradition, then by crude drawings and symbols, eventually evolving into complex language. The stories were always of the first apes, the first tribe in africa that began communication, the beginning of the human ego and the origin of human nature. These evolved into the religions we know today as ***** sapiens spread out across the world. There was no science in the beginning, it only came after religion, after communication. Your mind is so closed, it's like you're whole philosophy in life is only based of what you hear and see right now. You have no perception of the human race as a whole, where we came from and where we are going. I hope you will think a little deeper about things in the future, there is much knowledge to be learned.
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6"Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive"
Sure they are.
First:
science - facts - reality
religion - magic - blind belief into anything you want ..FSM is equal to anything else you cannot prove (or 100% disprove)
Second:
science - big bang and evolution - from simple to more complicated (based on facts)
religion - unimaginably complex intelligent self-conscious being - ??? (fairy tales and delusion)
People saying "Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive" are just trying to combine their otherwise rational and intelligent opinions with their brainwashed part of the brain.- SgtBlue, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The only fairy tales and delusion I see in your post is your description of religion.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Religion is a faith based belief, a belief in something without or in contradiction with evidence. Replace miracle with magic and tell me how serious it sounds.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No, it is not something which is contradictory to evidence. I was a devout Christian for 20+ years, and I never even considered that God would ask me to believe anything that was contradictory to evidence. The general reasoning was that God created people with brains and would be insulted if you refused to use them.
Also, on the subject of miracles, tell me if this sounds like good reasoning to you: a computer program operates under a set of conditions that are well-defined enough that you can fully describe them and apply formal reasoning; therefore, it is philosophically inconceivable that a computer programmer could run a program under a debugger and change the value of variable here and there. If that sounds like a good argument to you, then you have a good argument against miracles.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No, it is not something which is contradictory to evidence. I was a devout Christian for 20+ years, and I never even considered that God would ask me to believe anything that was contradictory to evidence. The general reasoning was that God created people with brains and would be insulted if you refused to use them.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Religion is a faith based belief, a belief in something without or in contradiction with evidence. Replace miracle with magic and tell me how serious it sounds.
- Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well... if there was a God with powers to control everything... certainly he can control our perception of the universe and its features and laws... but why are we arguing? Whats the point?
Science is good for real life. Everyone should use it. Religion is good for people that want more substance in their life, give them something to believe in... help them get through this ***** that we call human society... - dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i dont necissarily believe or disbelieve godbecause i dont think it really matters. if your a good person karma will work itself out. but if you look at all intelligent religous people they will dive deeper into the religon and have their own personal opinions of it. you dont have to believe what the church believes.
- SgtBlue, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The only fairy tales and delusion I see in your post is your description of religion.
- mrhorseshoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Science requires evidence and religion requires faith. How can they be anything but mutually exclusive? The only reason people believe otherwise is because science hasn't (yet) been able to explain the existence of the universe to their satisfaction (the big bang isn't as romantic as God popping out of nowhere and farting out universes). Just because there's a gap in the explanation doesn't mean we have to resort to millennium-old myths to explain things. We're better than that.
- LogicBomB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just a reminder than in Christianity, the Pope is infallible when pertaining to religious interpretations and the like. Hopefully, this will shut SOME creationists up. Unless of course they disagree with the Pope (which sadly, many do, which is total hipocracy but whatever).
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -22/+10he's not as adamant about wvolution has John Paul II was though
- rberk72, on 10/10/2007, -21/+152Great article, the Pope has done a very important thing here. Science considered the idea that our universe had a beginning abhorrent until the evidence for the big bang became overwhelming. It's a shame that too many people on both sides are making the mistake of concluding that science and religion are coming into greater conflict, when in reality they are becoming much more harmonious.
- heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15Well said.
- Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -34/+22Hardly. Religion has contributed nothing towards our understanding of anything. Religion is the fundamental enemy of science. Because faith is the fundamental enemy of reason.
- lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Moron
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8No, faith is actually a need among humans. However you want to call it, karma, luck, etc, when you are believing in such thing you are having hope of some sort.
- DruSam, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3@coasters2k
But you do "hope" for good things right? In order to hope for something, you need to put some trust into it. Trust is a cornerstone of faith. We all have it.- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hope is the desire that an event will occur.
Faith is the belief that it will occur, based on some justification or rationale, generally without evidence. - CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Another word needs to be invented for the amount of trust you have in said scientific claim.
I can't tell you how many discussions I've had where some religious non-thinker goes "Well I have faith that my religion is true in the same way *you* have faith in your scientific beliefs." Faith has such a religious connotation that it does not even belong in the same phrase as science. Aggravates me to no end.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hope is the desire that an event will occur.
- DruSam, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3@coasters2k
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Religion and faith aren't the same thing. One could devise a religion around things which require no faith to believe.
- jeremyduffy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8No way. Dralha is totally right (digged your dig down :)
Faith as most people define it is belief without proof which is asinine. No one REALLY believes without proof, it's just that what they accept for proof isn't necessarily something someone else will accept. The quote I've heard that I like is "faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservations".
Can you actually name something that Religion has helped us to understand? Maybe things like fairness, kindness, and good, but I don't think that's what Dralha is talking about. I think he/she? is referring to things like whether the world is round (which religion said no, science proved them wrong). - lhnz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4"Because faith is the fundamental enemy of reason."
Back it up.
I say: when reason has left us (over something that can't yet be reasoned) all we have left is faith for support. Faith in Science isn't that different from faith in Religion.
I have faith and I have reason at the same time - would this be possible if they were "enemies"?- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Faith isn't our only weapon when science doesn't have the answers, though. We also have Philosophy, which is imminently more grounded in reason and logic than faith will ever be. Faith has it's place, but in my opinion, it is there mainly to serve as "glue" in a community. What makes all those different people similar? Their faith in the same things.
- ch33sehead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Back it up?
How about BY DEFINITION? - CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There is no such thing as faith in science. There's credibility and integrity for a fact, but that is in no way the same as faith, because faith requires there to be no actual evidence to back a claim.
The way religious nuts demand that you back-up claims when refuting their beliefs will never cease to amaze me as absurdly hypocritical.
- h0w412d, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8i agree. faith is nothing more than a euphemism for ignorance. both are reaching conclusions without proof.
@lhnz: you can't have "faith" in science. science doesn't need or allow faith, since science can only use observable evidence to reach conclusions. this is why the notion of "scientism" is fundamentally flawed.- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Right. People can have faith about non-scientific matters, and nothing can be done. It can't be proven or disproven, given the very nature that it's unscientififc. Of course, why bother believing it then?
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I would say somewhat to the contrary. Science is actually largely dependant on faith, just not in the framework you are used to seeing. The majority of information we perceive on a daily basis is based on faith of sensory information, referential information from 3rd parties, historical information from our own memories. All which have built in doubts of authenticity which can never be satisfied on moment by moment basis. So our consciousness allows us to take much of the world we live in on a limited faith just far smaller in scope than most religions espouse.
Now religion as a concept... well I'd have to agree for the most part. Assumption without reproach is a blueprint for ignorance.- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you are mainly splitting hairs.
If I hold a peach in my hand, several of my senses indicate it is there - smell, touch, sight, etc. The more input I have that indicates a peach is in my hand, the stronger the possibility that it is ACTUALLY there. If I taste it and gain nutrition from it, not only is a fourth sense verifying it's existence, the precise nutrients in that peach can be independently verified and measured by instruments far, far more accurate than our flawing organic ones. Logically, if nutrients are introduced into the system, then there is proof that the peach existed in real time and space, even if my flawed senses can't really "prove" that the peach is x colour or y taste because they are subjective. Sure, we can get into a philosophical argument about "what if this is all just electrical impulses being fed to you", a la The Matrix and it is a possibility, but sure isn't the most likely prospect, is it? If it was all fake, we'd eventually starve to death without food.
Besides, most science relies on instruments that are several orders of magnitude more accurate than any sense we humans can bring to bear. - CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're definitely splitting hairs and dragging metaphysics into an argument where it doesn't belong. This is the whole brain-in-a-vat scenario all over again.
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ok I admit my argument is probably leans more toward philosophy but none of those scenarios contradict the principle I stated already.
Many of the things that you assume are logically proved are just the most likely result not the only result. Your entire peach scenario can be invalidated when encapsulated, not in anything as extensive as a 'Matrix' scenario but by a simple dream. Don't confuse the concept of Ockams razor with scientific proof, it just leads to more pseudo-science for the likes of politicians and marketing managers.
And the concept of scientific instruments is only valid until the point where a human must interpret the result in some way. At which point our 'flawed senses' must be put into play to obtain external data.
To further a point. Assume you are an above average person and have a working knowledge of many scientific theories, principles and such. How many test can you say you personally performed to verify those theories? If you are even semi normal, the answer will be few to none. Then how do you know such things are true? You make the assumption that the source you learned the information from was valid. In some cases that is a very small assumption, some cases a much larger one. In all cases you have faith in the knowledge you obtained personally in the first person that you yourself obtained, or in the source you obtain knowledge which you cannot or would not obtain on your own.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you are mainly splitting hairs.
- Johncampbell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Amen!
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -19/+52I disagree. Science take evidence and attempts to understand it. Religion takes evidence and attempts to fit it into their already formed world view.
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Dugg your comment for truth, but the Pope is going against this view of religion with this quote about evolution - he's accepting science's explanations for life and evolution, instead of denying scientific theories in the face of overwhelming evidence. That's the point of the article.
- spwpi10, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Then why did you digg him? He is the one keeping a close dmind about religion. Personally I believe science and religion can live together I just hate to hear when people feel the need to argue entirely on one side or the other.
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think we're entitled to be close minded about religion at this point; we've had 2000+ years of observations of it. The book's closed. I hear this so often, about close-minded atheists, and I have to laugh. What, you have something NEW to add? Something religious that we've missed? Come on now. Be honest. Religion has been spouting the same pablum since the day I was born. There is NOTHING to recommend it. Being intelligent sometimes means deciding that the argument as far as one is concerned has been decided... at least until there is new evidence. And there hasn't been ANY new evidence to support religious convictions. There has been PLENTY against, however.
- spwpi10, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Then why did you digg him? He is the one keeping a close dmind about religion. Personally I believe science and religion can live together I just hate to hear when people feel the need to argue entirely on one side or the other.
- PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1how would you know?
- xdre, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8That's a nice pat response and all, but the reality is that science fares little better than religion in that respect. If there's an ego or power or reputation on the line, scientists can and will suppress or ignore evidence just as ruthlessly as their religious counterparts.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The scientific method is designed to detect and move on despite human flaws. Yes, surely scientists are just as human as anyone else. However, a scientist doesn't make a declaration that millions immediately accept as fact. It is analyzed, reviewed, criticized and rejected or accepted based on the evidence - not only a single study or paper - but all available data.
Conversely, if the Pope declares Hell doesn't exist, it stops existing for millions until a new pope claims the opposite. - omikun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Except there is this little thing called "peer review" in science that is lacking in religion.
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh, both have peer-review. Religion just doesn't have experimentation.
- Shadow503, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2@yutt
Do you believe that millions automatically accept what the pope says just because it's organized religion? You obviously are clueless on Vatican politics.- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Um... to Catholics he is God's representative on earth. If you don't accept what he says, I'm not sure you can call yourself a Catholic.
- xdre, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What part of "suppressed evidence" did you all not understand? If there's nothing to review or no experiment to repeat then neither of those are useful.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The scientific method is designed to detect and move on despite human flaws. Yes, surely scientists are just as human as anyone else. However, a scientist doesn't make a declaration that millions immediately accept as fact. It is analyzed, reviewed, criticized and rejected or accepted based on the evidence - not only a single study or paper - but all available data.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This is a narrow view of religion. Certainly it does happen a lot -- there are always people who oppose change, and religion has at least its fair share of people falling into the trap of trying to pack the perfect snowball of dogma. But it is not an essential part of religion, and not all religious people are that way. In fact, go read what Jesus is recorded to have said: he spends practically 90% of his time locking horns with people who think how you describe. If you really understand that about Jesus, you will be ahead of 90% of religious people. But not 100% of them.
I would submit to you that it is more human nature than religion that is at fault here. As humans, we have a need to be social, and one of the ways we traditionally do that is that we develop a set of beliefs, acceptance of which becomes a test of loyalty to the group. It's really much like boot camp in the army, where you are taught not to question orders, except that instead you are taught not to question the group's definition of truth.
But thinking like a tribe that shares one unquestioned communal truth is not an essential characteristic of religion. It's just something you see commonly intermingled with religion when religion becomes part of ethnic/cultural identity.
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Dugg your comment for truth, but the Pope is going against this view of religion with this quote about evolution - he's accepting science's explanations for life and evolution, instead of denying scientific theories in the face of overwhelming evidence. That's the point of the article.
- Veritate, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18Moral: As it has done before, and will do again, religion backs off -- eventually -- when presented with hard fact. It will retreat further and further into ideas that are completely untestable, and rest eventually in parable and nowhere else.
- njsbenson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it already has
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4*God-of-the-gaps shakes his fist in rage at Pope Benedict XVI.*
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It already rests in ideas that are untestable. That's the whole point of faith.
- beowulflee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10How in the world are science and religion (the Christian one) becoming more harmonious? The sentiment here at digg may be a truce between the two but it simply is not true from what I see of history. I'm sure we all know of Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin's, and many other's plights against the Church. But how about the Church also going around vehemently denouncing blood transfusions and organ transplants because "they interfered with God's work"? The analogous situation now would be the "morally" controversial stem cell research and cloning research; which could ultimately offer up a virtually unlimited supply of fresh transplant tissue.
The only thing that I can see the two becoming more and more "harmonious" is that the Church eventually does flip flop on the issue (after the general public sentiment is lost to the many benefits of scientific advancement) and begins lauding the sweat and hours of millions of scientists toiling in their labs as "God's gift".- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's a rule of rhetoric. Once an established argument reaches the point of losing, change sides and reinterpret.
- Duston, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Interesting view, so you are telling me there is some conspiracy were "the religious" (or was it just Christians, or Catholics?) to oppose something until there is a desirable positive effect it can some how take credit for?
Interesting idea, okay, how does the church benefit from this statement? Will it some how reap more money or power?
I don't know you but you sound bitter. - Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The church is just looking after its own interests. Its clear that religions that do not reconcile evolution with scripture are on the way out in most of the first world. If Catholicism wants to take root and compete, it needs to pick its battles.
- Devrdander, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Short of religions revising their infallible scriptures, how exactly are they more harmonious? Its a social evolution, those that do not adapt are left behind. New variants of Christianity are popping up that are more "accepting" of other lifestyles, and more agnostic or unitarian style churches are coming about... A stanch protestant from 1800 would disagree with you just as I am...
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not all religious people see scriptures as infallible. Some are satisfied merely with having a divine revelation in the first place and don't want to place extra requirements on it, like that it should be infallible, inerrant, incontrovertible, etc.
- duqit, on 10/10/2007, -18/+273Even the friggin Pope gets it. I hope every Evangelical nut job is listening....
- osirisothedead, on 10/10/2007, -6/+75Evangelical nuts already consider Catholicism to be heresy. This'll just bolster their position, unfortunately.
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9And do you happen to know why? Evangelicals consider Catholics to be pagans because of they pray to saints, and have other believes that are not compatible with the Bible.
Oh lord, the eternal battle between good and wrong, and who's right.- geometry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You should reword this "not compatible with the Bible" to "not compatible with their current interpretation of the Bible". Remember that at one time if you believed that the earth circled the sun rather than vice versa you would be considered a pagan and stoned to death (okay, maybe not stoned to death but you get the idea).
- chuck3330, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2(by the catholic church)
- Lynx34, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Actually it's not so much praying to saints so much as it is asking the saints to pray for us. Same goes for Mary. Catholics don't worship these people, they ask that prayers be made for them. From a purely Catholic standpoint, there's a large difference.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The trouble here (to me) is that people don't know what the word "pray" means. These days, people follow a request with the word "please" (which means "if it please you"). In the past, people used different terminology. In "Much Ado About Nothing", Leonato says, "I pray thee, cease thy counsel, / Which falls into mine ears as profitless / As water in a sieve". The word "pray" simply means "ask".
Yes, there is a special case of praying (prayer) that happens when you are talking to God. But to say you are praying to saints is perfectly fine. It doesn't mean you're worshiping them. It just means you're asking them for stuff.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The trouble here (to me) is that people don't know what the word "pray" means. These days, people follow a request with the word "please" (which means "if it please you"). In the past, people used different terminology. In "Much Ado About Nothing", Leonato says, "I pray thee, cease thy counsel, / Which falls into mine ears as profitless / As water in a sieve". The word "pray" simply means "ask".
- raitchison, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Praying to Jesus is not compatible with the bible, technically Christiantiy is a polytheistic religion.
- knelto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Polytheism = many Gods. Christianity believes in one God comprised of three parts, not three separate gods.
- raitchison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@knelto That's just semantics. The whole "trinity" concept was not even invented until years after Jesus death and it was invented to try to reconcile the exact discrepancy I am speaking of.
- Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2LOL specialk16, you poor poor fool. You're proof of evolution right there.
Still not exactly a human, still sort of a monkey remix.
- geometry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You should reword this "not compatible with the Bible" to "not compatible with their current interpretation of the Bible". Remember that at one time if you believed that the earth circled the sun rather than vice versa you would be considered a pagan and stoned to death (okay, maybe not stoned to death but you get the idea).
- SilenceBroken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm an evangelical who went to a Catholic university, and I respect the fact that Catholics can be our brothers & sisters in faith, although I disagree strongly with much of their theology.
And, yes, I also believe in evolution.
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9And do you happen to know why? Evangelicals consider Catholics to be pagans because of they pray to saints, and have other believes that are not compatible with the Bible.
- Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35Evangelical nut jobs do not consider the pope to be an authority figure, nor do they consider catholicism to be a valid form of christianity. They will dismiss the pope's writings in the same breath that they dismiss all the evidence for evolution.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Many evangelical nutjobs don't consider other evangelical denominations to be valid forms of Christianity!
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9@osirisothedead. I agree 100% with you. If you ever watched Jesus camp movie. They have programmed there kids to beleive that some churches are dead churches. Basically all catholicism. They are like if you are not singing or speaking in tongue you are not hearing the word go God or some other BS like that.
- phatt-matt, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Jesus Camp was so true. All Evangelicals must be crazy because it was in a movie. Diggers are so dumb!
- BoMEpsilon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Why are you being dugg down?
- jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually I grew up having to go to an evangelical church, I have an aunt who is an evangelical minister and many family members who are evangelical as well. And trust me, Jesus Camp was pretty ***** right on the money when it comes to evangelical churches and their teachings. I have cousins and childhood friends who are irreparably damaged and brainwashed to the point of being afraid to think for themselves because of their methods.
I agree fully that we can't believe everything we see in a movie, but we can't entirely disbelieve it without proof either.
edit: I am an atheist so fit that in however you want. I came out unscathed (matter of opinion, I guess) but I still vehemently oppose forcing religion on children. Or really anyone for that matter. - Szandor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Your sarcasm makes a valid point. Evangelical does not always equal fundamentalist .
- phatt-matt, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Jesus Camp was so true. All Evangelicals must be crazy because it was in a movie. Diggers are so dumb!
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Protestants dont listen to the pope, Catholics do
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Evangelicals don't give a damn about he Pope. That was the whole reason for the Protestant Reformation.
- cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah its not us Catholics that are ***** things up, its the Evangelicals+friends. They don't listen to reason or the Pope. He even said that Catholicism is the only true form of Christianity.
- osirisothedead, on 10/10/2007, -6/+75Evangelical nuts already consider Catholicism to be heresy. This'll just bolster their position, unfortunately.
- trghpy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+129Too bad many Evangelicals are protestant.
- jdc760, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48EVERY evangelical is protestant.
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not necessarily:
http://www.evangelicalcatholic.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Evangelical
- adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not necessarily:
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23All, actually. By definition.
- LosingTheFight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Despite not recognizing him as infallible or the only mediator between men and God, we do respect his thoughts and views. We don't automatically block him out simply because he is the Pope...
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Yeah, Evangelicals within the Catholic church are called Charismatics. Which really doesn't make any sense to this Catholic, considering that evangelists are rarely charismatic.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Didn't know that. Thanks.
- XHashmeerX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I'd say they're Charismatic. They talk a lot to strangers and try to force their views down my throat.
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That's not charismatic, that's called being a dick.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6Too bad many Evangelicals are still alive.
- Kratos76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Great call Trghpy! You would think that is an oxymoron. I guess they're just morons.
- faithhealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Some Catholics consider themselves evangelical.
http://www.evangelicalcatholic.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism (see first sentence "...and some Catholics.") - StingerMS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why is that a bad thing? I'm a Protestant and I support this.
- myeyesarered, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1oh my god: 73 diggs for "Too bad many Evangelicals are protestant."
Until a few seconds ago, I thought that Digg users are intelligent...- cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I believe it was meant as sarcasm.
- jdc760, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48EVERY evangelical is protestant.
- ckohler, on 10/10/2007, -55/+50“Above all it [evolution] does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
No it does not, but neither does some ***** story made up by some primitive sand dwelling people; one of many such stories, I might add.- aresef, on 10/10/2007, -19/+13Everything comes from some big bearded guy in the sky! See, I have this book that says so!
- tle105, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Amen
- Mullinator, on 10/10/2007, -12/+30As an atheist I really feel disgusted when I see other atheists look down and and insult other belief systems. It is extremely hypocritical to proclaim any belief system that persecutes others as a problem and then go ahead and do it yourselves. Religion breeds conflict when it involves people who believe without question that they are right. There is absolutely nothing stopping Atheists from doing the exact same thing. Just want people to understand that.
- mastercheif, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8No, it's ok, I am a equal opportunity fairy tall hater.
- DerGeist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The short fairies, however, are off limits.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15No belief is free from criticism even religious beliefs. I'm not tolerant of Scientologist and Islamic extremist. When you group all criticism of religion as 'persecution'(yeah...show me an atheist persecuting Christianity) or an insult, you artificially give their believes special treatment.
- Mullinator, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11There is a huge difference between criticism and outright insults. That is what I am getting at here. Describing another religion as being a belief system of nothing more than ***** series of stories thought up of by primitive peoples is not criticism.
In that sense yes, insulting is a form of persecution.- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Sometimes stating the facts in a blunt manner serves a purpose. The statement that "Creationism claims that the world was created by magic" or that "the belief in god is as valid as a belief in Santa Clause" are valid statements that can be used in making certain points especially during debates. Unfortunately, I see many atheist who pick unnecessary fights or who insult even liberal/moderate Christians who could be potential allies against the extremists.
- Mullinator, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11There is a huge difference between criticism and outright insults. That is what I am getting at here. Describing another religion as being a belief system of nothing more than ***** series of stories thought up of by primitive peoples is not criticism.
- Heathor, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Thank you, Mullinator.
My main problem with Atheists has always been the overwhelming attitude you just described, and it's nice to see an example of someone who knows its wrong.- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Personally, I think the statement should be revised to:
"My main problem with [people] has always been the overwhelming attitude you just described, and it's nice to see an example of someone who knows its wrong."
This is a HUMAN phenomenon, not just one group or another. - Heathor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I was replying to this specifically: "As an atheist I really feel disgusted when I see other atheists look down and and insult other belief systems. It is extremely hypocritical to proclaim any belief system that persecutes others as a problem and then go ahead and do it yourselves.
I wasn't saying Aethists are the only group that sometimes condemn other belief systems.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Personally, I think the statement should be revised to:
- ckohler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11So, now it's an insult to state my opinion? What exactly grants religion a reprieve from criticism?
- Heathor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8It's not. However, "some ***** story made up by some primitive sand dwelling people" is needlessly insulting.
- Mullinator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Most insults are opinions. Not sure why you can't realize that.
All I am saying is that atheists must understand that their belief in having the "right" answer CAN lead to atheists doing the exact same thing that many world religions do which is to insult and condemn and ridicule those of other beliefs. Which is what leads most to leave world religions and become atheists in the first place.- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes. Any ideology can be twisted to become intolerant, even supposedly tolerant religions or supposedly tolerant atheism.
- Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You a garbage eating whore... just my opinion
just kidding :P
- InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Religion, Nationalism, Racism, etc... all breed conflict. Maybe its the humans that are the source of conflict and they just use whatever is the common social thread as an excuse. Stop trying to blame things one a social construct. There will always be conflict and just removing yourself from what you think causes the conflict won't help. I am willing to bet you are ether conservative or liberal, and you thing the other side is wrong..... guess what politics breeds conflict! Lets then throw off the chains of politics, since without politics there would be no conflict.................... I am just getting really tired of this argument.
- Mullinator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7All I am trying to do is give a warning to other atheists. That warning is that in order to not be hypocritical and end up following many of the same routes of the religions they worked to escape they must not commit the same mistakes. One of those mistakes is the belief that all who do not believe them are automatically fools who either need to be converted or ridiculed.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some of what you ask for simply will not happen.
Any group larger than a certain small group of individuals always generates a leader. He or she may not be called such or officially titled at all, but they come to the fore because of force of will, good ideas, charisma, etc. Take a trip to see a commune sometime and you'll notice that there are always just a few people that act as public representatives of the group and who do most of the talking. Politics is simply the directing of social wealth and effort, so even in uber-democratic communes, there will be politics. - Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0DESTROY ALL HUMANS
LET THE LANDWALKING SHARKS TAKE OVER
ALL HAIL OUR NEW SHARK OVERLORDS...
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Atheists mainly responsd to the dogged certainty of Evangelicals, for one, and the utter lack of logic. Wouldn't you try to convince someone if you heard them speaking and realized that they had based their worldview on a blatant mistruth? If they consistently tried to fob this worldview on OTHER people in order to save their souls?
In other words, if THEY call it a war on sin, don't blame the Atheists for responding in kind.- AlienShe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah,Gaki, that makes a lot of sense... Let's respond to irrational ***** by being irrational ***** in return! That will fix everything!
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5@ AlienShe
I was just explaining the mindset, not stating my own personal opinion OR saying what *should* happen. People are tribal in mindset. If you attack their views (regardless of what they are), the wagons get circled and they fight back. The church has been attacking science since before the Middle Ages, so it is no surprise to me at all that science (and Atheism as a subset of that) is fighting back.- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, the whole idea of what science was supposed to be is down the tubes? Science is not supposed to be an irrational ideology that people believe in and then use as an excuse to attack others. It's not supposed to be religion. It's supposed to be a way of understanding the world through experimentation, observation, gathering evidence, and revising theories. It's not supposed to be forced on those who deny it. It's not supposed to take part in a "war" against religion.
- Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Nah, not saying what *should* happen, just what *is currently* happening by most anti-religious folk out there.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@ Xunnamius
LOL. I've seen the same in reverse. My Facebook group was "invaded" by a bunch of evangelicals intent on converting us all in order to save our souls. After some long debate with them, it was clear that they honestly thought we were going to hell and that inconveniencing us or causing our group to lose members was just a small price to pay in order to save a couple of souls ... if they could.
There are jerks on both sides, unfortunately, and I don't think we'll ever see true amity between the groups. Human nature and our mob mentality will guarantee conflict on some level. Let's just be glad it's only verbal at this point and you can ignore the posts you don't like. Last thing we need is bloodshed like there was in the past, right?
@ tech42er
You are right. SCIENCE shouldn't be, but not all scientists are Atheists and not all Atheists are scientists. The same mentality that has people fighting in the stands over a sports team or between schismatic breaks in a religion don't suddenly disappear when you come to Atheists. Atheism has it's own club mentality just like any other group, however much we want to deny it.
- Szandor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Once again, Evangelical does not automatically equal Fundamentalist.
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Well put, there are some real nut jobs on both sides on the fence (religious and athiest) - people forget that critizing someone else's belief system can be done in a mature way - not pointless personal attacks
- mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Persecutes? You're kidding me. Atheists simply don't have any inhibiting feelings that prohibit them from telling it like it is: religion is *****. ckohler is absolutely right, and he is being dugg down because he is "insensitive." Here's a newsflash for you: the fact that he's insensitive doesn't make them wrong. He's telling adults that their imaginary friend isn't real, and telling them that bitching about how evolution "does not answer the great philosophical question" (which it wasn't meant to do in the first place) is quite the arrogant thing to do when you believe in a damned fairy-tale.
And again, "persecutes?" Last time I checked, atheists weren't the ones who flew planes into buildings due to their extremism. Last time I checked, atheists haven't started any wars or killed anybody because they disagreed with their beliefs. Last time I checked, the big head atheist foundation that tells all atheists what to believe (that exists, by the way) didn't side with any war criminals, say Germany in World War II, like a certain religious figurehead did. It's really ***** annoying that atheists get bitched at for "persecuting" religious people when religious people are the ones who get violent about it. "Persecution" and "telling it like it is" are two very different things.- Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Here we go again, another wacko nut job. Take your head out the ground and look around.
If your response wasn't so long, I could switch around the "Atheists"'s and "religion"'s and make a statement that renders yours... well... retarded. Here's a few: Religions simply don't have any inhibiting feelings that prohibit them from telling it like it is: All Atheists and what they believe is *****. It's really ***** annoying that Religious folk get bitched at for "persecuting" atheists when atheist people are the ones who go to extreme lengths to get violent about it. "Persecution" and "telling it like it is" are two very different things.
"And again, 'persecutes?' Last time I checked, atheists weren't the ones who flew planes into buildings due to their extremism."- LOL, yeah, they just hold KKK cross burnings (usually with people on them) and run around in NAMBLA f*cking little boys.
- Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Here we go again, another wacko nut job. Take your head out the ground and look around.
- mastercheif, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8No, it's ok, I am a equal opportunity fairy tall hater.
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Actually. They both do.
- Duston, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6QUOTE
No it does not, but neither does some ***** story made up by some primitive sand dwelling people; one of many such stories, I might add.
/QUOTE
In your view, it obviously did for the primitive sand dwelling people. You are trying to answer a philosophical question with science? Why is the Universe here? Science may one day be able to tell exactly how it can to be, but never why.
Expand you mind, I am not advoacting any religion or a way of thinking but try to look past your belief system if just for a moment.- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm sorry but, there is no 'why.' For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Only -people- want a 'why.' That doesn't mean there is. Only the -how- is actually interesting anyway. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There could be a why. It's beyond the scope of science. People can believe whatever they want.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I believe that a giant demon monkey demand that I eat babies. You can't prove it otherwise "It's beyond the scope of science. People can believe whatever they want."
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm sorry but, there is no 'why.' For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
- mannaran, on 10/10/2007, -13/+0Tomorrow never dies!
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -15/+79as John paul II said. Truth cannot condradict truth. There is room for evolution and creationism. However Creationism must be taught in church or in a religion class at school. It cannot be taught alongside science in the classroom.
- TwistedRonin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23My thoughts exactly. Creationism just doesn't belong in a science classroom. Science is about reasoning, logic, experimentation, observation, and theories based on said scientific principles. Creationism is based on virtually no scientific principle, only faith.
- chuck3330, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5even though I'm a creationist, i agree completely that it shouldn't be in the classroom. I also don't think students should be forced to agree with, or act like they agree with, evolution. At the same time I believe it is necessary for all students to learn the theory. Whenever i look into an article on any creationist website it seems like it is full of lies about science so i guess I'm considering changing my beliefs on the issue though.
sorry about all grammatical errors as i wrote this very quickly
- chuck3330, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5even though I'm a creationist, i agree completely that it shouldn't be in the classroom. I also don't think students should be forced to agree with, or act like they agree with, evolution. At the same time I believe it is necessary for all students to learn the theory. Whenever i look into an article on any creationist website it seems like it is full of lies about science so i guess I'm considering changing my beliefs on the issue though.
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -20/+2There is ample scientific evidence for Creation, just as there is some scientific evidence for Evolution. I say present both, the pros and the cons of BOTH and let the students decide.
- asaturn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12so uh where is this scientific evidence for creationism that you speak of? because I've never seen it... I don't think anyone has actually... Jesus? is that you?
- SoulRebel23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10What scientific evidence is there for Creation. I know there are a lot of questions about the origin of the universe that we don't understand, but this is not eviden
- TwistedRonin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23My thoughts exactly. Creationism just doesn't belong in a science classroom. Science is about reasoning, logic, experimentation, observation, and theories based on said scientific principles. Creationism is based on virtually no scientific principle, only faith.
