-Trevor
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I wouldn't celebrate just yet. I believe in God but these things come in waves. One year athiesm is on the rise, the next it is at an all time low. Just like all religions its high times and low times fluctuate.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree, Jay. However I think the idea of "having religion" is at the same time changing. I know many people who when asked about their religion would not give it as atheism but would not name a specific religion, or if they did would have a "relgion with conditions".
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
HERE's ONE for our side, Jay. (you have to wait for it to load the "important announcement")
FG
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."
Now there an overstatement if I ever read one.
quote: As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.
So a philospher has declared what is possible in a hard science. Show me a respectable biologist who will declare this and maybe you'll have something worth reading.
quote: A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the United States – for example, at Harvard and Duke universities – showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources."
Another highly questionable claim presented as if it were now a settled fact. I'd need to see some hard data on this because the last time I looked into the subject the "experiments" used to show this were hopelessly without any real controls. Indeed the whole concept of a controlled study on the effects of prayers is pretty funny. How many children, and even adults go to bed at night petitioning "God bless those in need"?
But my favorite has to be this:
quote: Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively."
Athiesm is fatally flawed because it's just as capable of creating monsters as Christianity? If you're gonna throw a stone through the opposition's window, one might first want to open their own window. If you accept this as a valid point, it does as much damage to the religious viewpoint as the atheistic.
Basically a fluff article and not a very good one.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oh bloody hell. Thats all I'm going to say, as anything else would cuase this to quickly devolve into a flame war.
The subject is far to passion charged on all sides.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
What is that source, Jay - the World Tribune? I'm unfamiliar with it. Is it writing to a Christian audience?
I ask because sentiments like this between Christians confuse me. The way most sects view the years to come does not include a huge global acceptance of Christianity, at least if you follow the Book of Revelation. What, then, is the article aiming at? Are we supposed to be congratulating the fall of Atheism or being warned about the perils of this new pagan spirituality? And I'd wonder how they define pagan. They don't seem to have much trouble quoting a Muslim philosopher, but would his brand of theism be included in the list of frightening pagan beliefs the article later warns about?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief
Sweet jebus.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Karl's a little pointed, but his points are good ones.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, I found the article to be rather biased myself. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, wow. Jay, is this the kind of article you actually rely on for information, or do you just dig it up to reinforce your existing biases?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Sorry to be pointed. That article just really irks me.
And my comments are aimed at the article not any posters here.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
The worst proreligious biased thing I have ever seen was creation magazine, ever seen it? It was like a religious tabloid it was so bad and their is this one youth leader at my church who lives by it. I love pushing her buttons... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm kind of curious what's supposed to happen on Farmgirl's link. All I get is a black box, apparently affiliated with a mediocre metal band in some way.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Nobody said it was a bad thing Karl - I couldn't bring myself to read the article.
-Trevor
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I don’t know much about World Tribune really. Other then I see some of their articles referenced every now and then. I got the link off of Drudge. I did find this about section on their website: http://www.worldtribune.com/WorldTribune/owner.html Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The link mentions a member of a band who left the band and became a Christian (I think).
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmm... Tom. I think that page is Flash or something -- probably something you have blocked since I know how much you hate Flash
But yes, it is about a hard rock band. One of the major members of the band (it is one of these bands that has the word "explicit" by all their songs on Amazon) has chosen to accept Jesus Christ, and has left the band to pursue that alternative path....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I got the link off of Drudge."
Why the heck would Drudge link to this piece? It's not that I'm doubting he did -- I can clearly see that he did -- but rather that I'm curious about his motivations.
------
"One of the major members of the band (it is one of these bands that has the word 'explicit' by all their songs on Amazon) has chosen to accept Jesus Christ, and has left the band to pursue that alternative path...."
More power to 'im. Now if only the rest of the band would find Jesus, modern rock radio might become marginally more tolerable.
[ March 03, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Personally, I'd rather be associated with a religious group in the minority that was known for actively practicing our doctrine than have 82% of Americans claim they belonged. The number of people who identify with your religion says nothing about its veracity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a pretty active agnostic, I'd say. I struggle to live the lack of the Word each and every day, in every aspect of my life.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Maybe because it’s a good story about the hopeful future of our planet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Yes, Jay. I'm sure that's it. I wonder if you can buy little pennants with "Yay, God!" on them. I can think of many situations in which they would be useful, and I'm sure God would appreciate the gesture.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yes the world will be much better off when all the atheists turn to Satan. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Good luck!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. See, I don't need a "Go America" pennant. I need a "Go God" pennant. I couldn't care less whether God's on America's side, as long as God wins.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Maybe because it’s a good story about the hopeful future of our planet.
The flip side of that, is that it is a bad story about how our planet is now moving back into the dark ages when religion dominated people's lives. Please. Give me a break.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"that it is a bad story about how our planet is now moving back into the dark ages when religion dominated people's lives"
Nah. For one thing, we have Burger King and reality TV now. The church will never play as prominent a role in society ever again, if just for those two reasons.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
It's the best I could come up with on such short notice. Forgot about the anti American sentiment, sorry.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Just remember that a belief in no god is still a belief. So to speak of religion includes this belief just like it includes beliefs that include multiple gods.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ah, the smell of religious fervor in the morning.
Believe in God, Gods, no God(s) or any combination of the above if you like.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: For one thing, we have Burger King and reality TV now. The church will never play as prominent a role in society ever again, if just for those two reasons.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Crap article. It doesn't even have the usually biased poll, only vagaries such as "trends indicate" or "one leading scientist says".
My fav. part is that atheism is going downhill because it's losing its scientific underpinings. Huh ?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Do people actually spend money on God Bless America pennants? And anxiously await their arrival?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not actually accurate O7P (yeah you know me!). While people who frame their beliefs specifically in opposition to their being a god still have a belief in this domain, saying that all people have to is like saying that all people have a religious belief that there isn't a giant purple space panda that controls our destiny or that there aren't an infinite number of turtles standing on each other's backs holding up the world.
However, if you try, I have faith that you can reconstitute Pascal's Wager here. Because somebody's gotta.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: My fav. part is that atheism is going downhill because it's losing its scientific underpinings. Huh ?
Yeeeah, I went "Huh?" at that point too.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: atheism is going downhill because it's losing its scientific underpinnings
read up on scientific creationism
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Bah... Long live the atheists/agnostics! Long live science!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, they haven't released it yet, but I heard that some scientists at Los Alamos found an even smaller particle that makes up quarks and that carved into the side of each one is "God was here."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:read up on scientific creationism
O_o
I have never seen anything remotely convincing in scientific creationism. But I respect that if you take the Bible literally and believe it to be strong evidence for creationism, the facts can be interpreted according to that bias.
After all, we all interpret the facts according to our own biases. I have no problem with that.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sadly, unlike most campers, God didn't leave a date so we can't yet settle whether the Earth is a few thousand or billion years old.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"atheism is going downhill because it's losing its scientific underpinnings"
The logic here: Many stupid people confuse evolutionary theory with atheism. They often don't realize that it's possible to believe in one without believing in the other. The recent attempt by creationists to reposition Christian creationism under the broader umbrella of pseudoscientific "intelligent design" lets them pretend to themselves that there's somehow more science in their belief than there used to be.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:"The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world."
Oh yes... it all makes sense now. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Personal Saviour. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Sure you can say that and be correct. But the two hardly go together at all.
For one thing, find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: For one thing, find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution.
That is only because evolution is *incredibly* convincing and atheists have no biased reason not to believe in it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bev - I know you're a believer, but I want to ask about this comment:
quote: I have never seen anything remotely convincing in scientific creationism.
Have you read any of the more recent stuff in this area? Do you keep up on it?
Have you read the works of Wayne Frair or of Lee Strobel?
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For one thing, find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution."
What do you consider "evolution," Jay? If you're referring to Darwinian theories of natural selection, there are many atheists who think there are better models out there. Heck, I'd wager a handful of atheists even belong to the intelligent design camp, and believe that an alien seeded life on this planet.
-----
Farmgirl, please tell me you're not really citing those as convincing arguments. The site to which you've linked is so incredibly shameless that it suggests that scientists are driven to believe in evolution not because it's the best theory out there, but because most scientists are atheists and atheists need to believe in a non-divine creator.
*laugh* Which is, unfortunately, something that is only credible to someone who's ignorant enough to already believe it.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I'm just disappointed that us agnostics never get mentioned...it's always Christians this, Muslim's that, atheists there. Seriously though, this article isn't even worth the effort of taking seriously. I'm disappointed that I took the time to read it. That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The popular perception, HT, is that agnostics are either atheists without a backbone or Christians with a nit to pick. Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
Okay, be honest, Jay. You nabbed this article from the Onion one day and tried to make it look serious to fool us all, right??
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok, atheist doesn’t believe there is a God. You can’t believe in creation if you are an atheist. Alien seed planting is hardly an argument for atheist believing in creation. Still sounds like evolution with a twist to me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Pssst...Telp...which faith did you pick?
Evolution has become the rallying point, unfairly so in many instances, of the non-believer.
I don't believe in God, nor do I make a point to actively disbelieve in Him - but I make this choice based on the merits of arguments presented to me.
I don't, however, believe in Evolution as the de facto alternative to believing in God. Just like buying a handgun didn't earn me a membership in the NRA.
-Trevor
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote: I'm disappointed that I took the time to read it. That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
boo hoo
[ March 03, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Altáriël of Dorthonion ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:The popular perception, HT, is that agnostics are either atheists without a backbone or Christians with a nit to pick. [Smile]
Many of them are. But it is good to be aware of the exceptions. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Pssst...Telp...which faith did you pick?
Might as well go back to being a Catholic. Oh wait! The Catholics teach evolution in their schools!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Alien seed planting is hardly an argument for atheist believing in creation. Still sounds like evolution with a twist to me."
So I was right, and your issue is definitional. You define "evolution" as "anything not created by God." So by definition, anyone who doesn't believe in God must be an evolutionist.
Unfortunately, your definition is wrong.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And alien seeding is a third alternative - which doesn't interface with the concept of Evolution at all.
-Trevor
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Good one Tom. All I have to say to that though, is the believer is happy; the doubter is wise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I find that it often bothers the less intelligent adherents of "intelligent design" when I point out that ID theory could just as easily mean that we're all descendants of Martians. So many Creationists have jumped onto that liferaft -- calling it a yacht -- that they're capsizing it.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Farmgirl, I haven't made a huge study of it, but that is mostly because what I have seen has not impressed me or made me desire to read more.
I believe in God, and I believe that He is the creator of all we see. But I am fairly hands off about taking positions on how he accomplished that. I accept that there may be possiblities that we as humans simply aren't aware of. I accept it as a mystery. But the part of me that craves logic and sense finds evolutionary theory very compelling.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Altáriël, us agnostics are more concerned with the time we have. We're not sure what happens next. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sorry - I'm having a hard time keeping up due to interruptions
This is to Tom's post to me on previous page about my link:
That link was only to show his credentials - I knew you're probably blast the site. But I wasn't talking about that site, I was talking about his work, and wanted one site that showed all his credentials as a legitimate scientist.
Farmgirl
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively."
LOL! Then by this argument, considering all the horrible wars and murders committed in the name of God/religion, the author has thus nullified God/religion as a viable belief as well.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sure, I read those, and then I clicked on his little side links and read how he answered those questions. And that's when I started rolling my eyes.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Basically, I have nothing against creationism, really. But from what I have seen, it doesn't make as much factual sense as evolution. The facts to back it up tend to be exceptions, and usually are exceptions for good reason. If creationism convinced me on a factual basis, I have no inner bias that would feel threatened by that in any way. I really am open minded about the whole thing.
My only bias is that I *do* believe in a Creator. I don't think evolution (if it indeed was how all this came to be) happened accidentally.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Beverly, I rest my case.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What? Oh get real. Alien seed planting is still evolutionary. They don’t think the aliens stuck around. And if they did it’s still them using their own little evolutionary methods. Come on Tom, you can come up with better then “Alien seed planting” My statement is still 100% true. You still can’t find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Twinky:
While the article is an attack on atheism, I don't see much attack in this thread--except from Jay, which is to be expected.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Jay, I beg to differ. If I were a person who believed in alien seeding, I would probably imagine continuing guidance from such aliens to acheive a desired result. That is basically the roll I see God filling if evolution did, in fact, result in our ecosystem.
Edit: But yes, you are correct that evolution would still come into play.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:And if they did it’s still them using their own little evolutionary methods.
Oh.
My.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And if they did it’s still them using their own little evolutionary methods."
So, um, how are you defining "evolution," then? What I mean by "evolution" in this case is natural selection.
To you, it's apparently anything that isn't "magic."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Now, now, any technology beyond the reaches of our understanding is going to appear to be "magic".
[ March 03, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va.
For although in every major European city except Paris spirituality is booming, according to Zulehner, this only proves the emergence of a diffuse belief system, Pannenberg said, but not the revitalization of traditional Christian religious faith.
Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism."
Cool... I've always wanted to worship the Valar.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Twinky, I'd like to point out that the line in this discussion does not run between believer and non-believer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, remember, science beyond our understanding is still, according to Jay, a "little evolutionary method." So anything scientific has to be evolution, by his definition.
Which is rather amazing, actually, because I'd wager that most of the Intelligent Design advocates out there would not share his opinion. In fact, most Intelligent Designers -- as opposed to outright and unabashed Creationists -- I know are far closer to beverly's position.
-----
"I've always wanted to worship the Valar."
Until Lucas screwed up the prequels, I wouldn't've minded being a Jedi. But I draw the line at wearing a stupid hair extension.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Anything that doesn’t create is evolutionary.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: If I were a person who believed in alien seeding, I would probably imagine continuing guidance from such aliens to acheive a desired result. That is basically the roll I see God filling if evolution did, in fact, result in our ecosystem
Then wouldn't this be a type of faith - or belief - in an alien God? I mean, like the Oversoul, to some extent.? If an alien-believer feels like there is "guidance" from said alien, then it becomes a belief structure.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So to you anything that is not completely ex nihilo is evolution?
Well, heck, Jay, that's going to make this argument rather difficult, because you're not using words correctly. If we got into a debate about whether or not chocolate were tasty, and you defined chocolate as "anything that isn't a nut," I'd have to ask you to reconsider your selection of terms.
--------
"Then wouldn't this be a type of faith - or belief - in an alien God?"
Excellent question. I've asked it before. If an alien being came down to Earth, Farmgirl, and said his name was Yahweh, and said he'd created the human race and sent down messengers to give us a code of laws that become our Bible, and then produced proof thereof, would you bow down and worship him? What if Yahweh lived on a planet named Zorquon in another universe and made this universe by, say, seeding a black hole? And as a being of pure energy, was technically immortal? And knew secrets of time travel and the like?
At what point does Yahweh stop being an alien and become a god? Would you worship ANY alien who created the human race, or only an alien who exactly matched the criteria of the hypothetical Christian God?
[ March 03, 2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Careful Bev - you're going to have God wearing a pair of Spock ears next.
However, I find the notion of neo-Paganism rather attractive - if only because I've always had a secret desire to prance around in the woods under a full moon in nothing but Good Intentions.
-Trevor
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom I said nothing of the sort. Why don’t you try to read once in a while. I said find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution. And you gave some stupid alien seed planting thing. Where on earth do you come up with this to the whole science of the world?
all I'm saying is that "alien seed planting" still uses evloution
[ March 03, 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I said find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution. And you gave some stupid alien seed planting thing."
Yes. Which would be a perfect example of an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution.
Your problem, Jay, is that you don't know what evolution is. If you would like me to define it for you, ask.
"Alien seed planting" would use evolution as a mechanism if the aliens did not meddle. Someone who believed that aliens meddled in the process in order to achieve a desired result would not be an evolutionist, insofar as "evolutionist" in this case indicates a belief in natural selection. All that's required to believe this is a belief in the mechanisms of genetic drift, which are pretty well documented; even the most blinkered of Creationists do not generally dispute them, given our ability to do things like breed for selected traits.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He's certainly got some degrees, but afaik he's never published any scientific paper (not even saying peer reviewed) which refutes evolution in his field(s) of expertise. I searched around for a bit, but its all popular. If he's a scientist looking at this scientifically, why isn't he writing scientific papers on the subject?
Take particular note that the very most important criteria he wishes to use for "scientifically" separating kinds out is:
quote:Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations.
<sarcasm>Clearly his position doesn't arise from his religious beliefs and is instead based on scientific inquiry.</sarcasm>
Not to mention that the many pages of the paper could be written far more effectively in maybe two pages by someone not trying to sound fancy.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
No thank you. I don't need your biased view point defining anything for me.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom, I think your frist post referencing "magic" worked better.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
With the loss of Communism as a source of all evil satanic influence to scare and rally the troops some Christian leaders seem to be trying to create an evil empire for them to fight--Aethiest as evolutionary loving, anti-Christs organized with the sole purpose of destroying Christianity by brainwashing the innocent open minded people of earth, and Homosexuals as perverted or deranged anti-Christs secretly organized into some gay cabal who's sole purpose is to convert others to their unnatural lifestyle by destroying families and Christianity.
This has caught the Aethiests, Agnostics, Scientists, and Homosexuals I know completely by surprise because none of them belong to such organization nor do they wish to implament such devious plots.
Still, it gathers the troops together for these leaders, who are usually more interested in their collection plates, political power, or private empires than they are about spreading true Christian doctrine.
It is easier to appear Christ-like by battling Satan--even Satan's you manufacture, than it is to live a life as Christ asked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Great. We'll use Wikipedia, then. Let me point you to this phrase: "The word 'evolution' is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection..."
I rest my case. Someone who believes that aliens seeded life on this planet does not believe in the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. Do you dispute this, Jay, or should I explain those two theories to you?
[ March 03, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Then wouldn't this be a type of faith - or belief - in an alien God? I mean, like the Oversoul, to some extent.? If an alien-believer feels like there is "guidance" from said alien, then it becomes a belief structure.
Possibly, possibly....
quote:But, remember, science beyond our understanding is still, according to Jay, a "little evolutionary method." So anything scientific has to be evolution, by his definition.
Yup, I noticed.
quote:Careful Bev - you're going to have God wearing a pair of Spock ears next. [Taunt]
Well, but here is where *my* bias comes in. I believe that God did literally create us in His image, and that if he had "Spock ears" we would have them too.
Pity, we have a fair amount of genetic diversity amongs humans on the planet, but elf-ears has never really come to be a main player in the dance.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Barney Frank (D-NY)
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
To the best of my knowledge, there is not an openly homosexual representative currently serving in Congress.
-Trevor
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
READ Tom. Try it you might like it! Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Some of them are even out of the closet.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Cause, ya know, the views you're presenting are incredibly unbiased.
Play nice. Everyone!
*staggers* thread moving too fast...post...no longer...relevant...
(P.S. Trevor, check your email!)
[ March 03, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I stand corrected.
Pfft Bev - you're ruining my God as Aliens joke.
-Trevor
PS Will do.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
quote: Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time.
Oh my God! The socks on my feet have evolved since yesterday! Wait. And I caused this. Ooh! Am I a goddess now ilke the TV ads for razors tell me I am??
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Excellent question. I've asked it before. If an alien being came down to Earth, Farmgirl, and said his name was Yahweh, and said he'd created the human race and sent down messengers to give us a code of laws that become our Bible, and then produced proof thereof, would you bow down and worship him? What if Yahweh lived on a planet named Zorquon in another universe and made this universe by, say, seeding a black hole? And as a being of pure energy, was technically immortal? And knew secrets of time travel and the like?
At what point does Yahweh stop being an alien and become a god? Would you worship ANY alien who created the human race, or only an alien who exactly matched the criteria of the hypothetical Christian God?
This is amusing, Tom -- only because my family has had this very debate at home (I don't think you can be a lover of good sci-fi and not actuallly have this pass through your mind at some point)
So -- My belief is based on what I currently know about Jesus/God/Yahweh, which doesn't at any point indicate that he is an alien life form from another planet.
If in the future, it turns out - after I die or the world is blowing itself up or something - that all along he was indeed an alien, and my idea of "God" was erroneous -- while that might shake me to find that out -- would that it make it any less true that he (the alien) was a creator and that I believed in him? Would I be any worse off for it? No. The only thing in that equation that was "wrong" would be my perception of "him" and that perception was based on exactly what he designed for me to believe.
But I would still be a believer, as opposed to a non-believer. So to me, this just goes around in circles because we won't know the answer to that until the time has come for us to meet our Creator..
I guess in a truly very very literal sense of the word "alien" meaning "not of this earth" you could say even my current interpretation of God is that he is alien.
But of course, it is always fun arguing hypotheticals. I want to make clear that I do not believe that our God/Creator is just another type of life from another planet. I'm just amusing Tom here because it is a fun discussion.
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time."
In the same way that "abortion" within the framework of a debate over its legality generally refers to the killing of unborn children rather than just stopping something before it's finished, "evolution" in the context of a debate about the theory of evolution refers specifically to the theory of the evolution of species.
----------
quote:If in the future, it turns out - after I die or the world is blowing itself up or something - that all along he was indeed an alien, and my idea of "God" was erroneous -- while that might shake me to find that out -- would that it make it any less true that he (the alien) was a creator and that I believed in him? Would I be any worse off for it? No. The only thing in that equation that was "wrong" would be my perception of "him" and that perception was based on exactly what he designed for me to believe.
It sounds to me, Farmgirl, like the specific element you require of godhood is an afterlife. An alien with an afterlife may as well be god; an alien without an afterlife has gypped you.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, Jay, clearly people who believe traffic patterns change over time are evil evolutionists out to steal your soul by turning you from God. *rolls eyes*
That is, after all, change over time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What I find odd is that the Bible doesn't say anything that negates the idea of evolution ("evolution" as Jay defined it). It does say that life reproduces after its own kind, but we can see for ourselves amongst humans how genetic diversity has come to be. And if one "variety" of human rose up and annihilated the others, those others would not pass on their genetic traits and the genetic pool of humans would evolve (read: change over time) to be something other than it was.
I don't see how any creationist can actually have a problem with such a lose definition of "evolution" being applied to life on the planet.
I need a bumper sticker that says "Evolution Happens".
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As I noted before, Evolution is the imagined rallying point for all non-believers.
Just be glad they've weighed us with Evolution and not Gravity as something to oppose.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: It sounds to me, Farmgirl, like the specific element you require of godhood is an afterlife. An alien with an afterlife may as well be god; an alien without an afterlife has gypped you.
If there is nothing after this life, Tom.... then none of this matters at all, does it? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And Farmgirl, if there's nothing after this life, then every single thing we do right now matters as much as anything ever will.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I said find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution. I did not say anything about Christians who believe in evolution. Please stop accusing me of things I didn’t say.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
We don't have to Jay - the things you do say are far too funny without embellishment.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I said find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution."
And I gave you a specific example: an atheist who believes that aliens oversaw the creation of life on this planet. There are actually plenty of such people out there.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, I missed where you said created last time. Sounded to me like you were talking about planting life on Earth and helping it to evolve along.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor: Ooo! Someone beat me to it.
I guess I feel that if believers--Christian believers in particular, would not feel threatened by evolution, that would be a good thing. And so, I try to be a good example of that myself--a Christian believer not threatened by evolution. The way I see it, you can be a Bible-believing Christian and still at least be open to the idea of evolution. There really doesn't need to be a conflict there.
Again, I have no issues with Creationism. I am open to that idea as well. But I wish there weren't so many Christians out there who feel if Creationism is proved wrong, it destroys their faith.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom, I hate to take Jay's side here because he's being particularly whacky today, but I don't think the "pan-sperma" theory works here.
A Pan-spermist believes, yes, that life was seeded (deliberately or through accident) from life on other planets. It does NOT address how the life came to be in the first place.
Thus, a pan-spermist would have to belief either in evolution or creation on a cosmic rather than local scale.
Pix
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Or they could just leave the question unresolved due to lack of evidence either way, easily enough.
Plus there's the its been happening forever approach, also known as the "its turtles all the way down" approach.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Flag on the play! No fair muddying the waters any more than absolutely necessary Pix!
Seriously, I love it - I have never considered that spin before.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I stand by my statement that if you don't believe in God, for whatever reason, evolution makes a lot of sense. And it can conceivably exist (in the opinion of some) without an intelligent Creator.
There is no agenda here.
OK, except maybe logic.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not threatened by evolution. I just know it’s wrong. I don’t like that the theory of it is taught as fact in our schools. I don’t like that it is used by atheists as a tool to say that religion is false for their own beliefs, which in itself is a form of a religion (humanism).
I don’t understand why I’m the one being wacky? If you really want to say that an atheist thinks some alien beamed a human into creation on Earth as support that of an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution, fine. But that is really a far fetched stretch and I really think you got the point of my statement about atheists believing in evolution and are being petty. But that seems to be a typical way of arguing of discussing facts.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I actually agree with bev--in the absence of an intelligent creator, evolution makes a great deal of sense. I think the difference is that if another theory that made more sense was presented, atheists (and agnostics) would be just as likely to believe that as anything else.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You move immediately from one conspiracy to another without pausing. I'm honestly impressed.
To the best of my knowledge, evolution is not taught as a means of weakening or diluting belief in God. As Bev has been so kind to point out, belief in one does not invalidate belief in the other.
But it is taught in Science class because it is Science, not Religious Theory.
For much the same reason we don't teach "Because God Wills It" along with the notion of Gravity in Physics class or because "Allah deems it so" along with exothermic chemical reactions in Chem class.
-Trevor
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Jay, you can't "know" You have to have faith. If you knew you wouldn't have faith.
(don't get me started on my opinion of that bit of dogma)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Two thing:
1.) Evolution says nothing about how life began, right? That's a different theory.
2.) The theory that aliens "seeded" the earth with the beginnings of life requires evolution as a part of the theory also, doesn't it?
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I do know. I have faith in God. But yes, I do know.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Provided they "seeded" and didn't just beam down Adam and Eve fresh and whole-grown from a test tube, sure.
-Trevor
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It is hard to find an Aethiest who does not believe in Evolution.
Its harder to find one that doesn't believe in the theory of Gravity.
Its harder to find one that believes Pi does not equal exactly 3.0
The problem with believing in Creationism is who's theory of Creation should I believe in? If all we go on is faith, and I have not found that faith, then who do I believe? The Protestant or the Catholic, the LDS or the Muslim? The Buddhist or the Wiccan or the little green men?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Jay, do you have FAITH creation happened or do you KNOW creation happened?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I’m not threatened by evolution. I just know it’s wrong.
Sounds like you'd feel threatened by creationism being proved false, then.
You know, I wouldn't mind if teachers touched on creationism in schools--or at least intelligent design. I know that bothers some people. Wouldn't bother me. The children are bright--they can decide for themselves. If the child doesn't believe in God and they think creationism sounds hokey, they aren't going to be twisted or polluted by hearing that some people believe in creationism.
I think school should be about presenting ideas and letting the students decide what they think for themselves--not establishing them as fact. Evolution happens--that is a fact. Anything we can currently observe is a fact. But I don't understand why theories of any sort, big bang or what have you, need to be put forth as anything but theories. While scientists feel they have every evidence and every reason to believe that life on this planet evolved from a single celled organims, there is no reason to put this forth as fact. It is extrapolation based on what we know.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: 2.) The theory that aliens "seeded" the earth with the beginnings of life requires evolution as a part of the theory also, doesn't it?
I am with you there, Dag.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:"For one thing, find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution."
I don't believe in any particular scientific theory. I believe in the scientific method. And right now, logic and science favor evolution over intelligent design. If logical evidence prove that life on human earth were designed by a higher being, I would accept that too.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Congrats Dan - you hit my major objection to organized religion in general and my objection to trying to include Creationism in Science class.
-Trevor
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Its harder to find one that believes Pi does not equal exactly 3.0
No, that's pretty easy.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Here is why I would be OK with Creationism being touched on in classes.
I think that education should reflect the culture one lives in. We should learn about other cultures, true, but, in America at least, the Bible and Christian beliefs are a pretty large part of the local culture. In areas where there are many Jewish, I think the education in those areas should reflect that.
Basically, I am a person who believes the separation of Church and State is not compromised by relevant mentions of God in the classroom amongst a culture where those who believe in God are high in number.
Just to clarify, though, I don't think schools should be used to proselytize any religion. But I think mentioning those religions where relevant is fine.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
beverly - in my personal, soundly agostic opinion, I'd have no problem with that.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You stated a bunch of facts except for the first one. The theory of evolution. I don’t think we should teach specific religions in school. But I don’t think we should teach theories as facts and try hard to ruin any kind of idea of creation in children as religious dogma.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, Chris. I know that there are plenty of people who rabidly disagree with me on this. I think we are way too uptight about religion just as we tend to be too uptight about sex. It is an emotional subject, and I think that addressing it in a level-headed, respectful, rational way can help diffuse any emotionally-laiden subject in a society. Especially with the young minds of our children.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oh no, now Science Teachers are out to undermine our solid, Christian morals and values!
Burn them all at the stake before they can paint our beliefs with the brush of religious dogma and forever warp the minds of future generations!
I always knew teachers were sneaky, but who ever suspects the geeky little Science teacher in glasses?
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: You stated a bunch of facts except for the first one. The theory of evolution.
Do you mean me? I wasn't saying the "theory of evolution" is a fact. In fact, I believe it is not. I believe it is a logical extrapolation of facts. But that evolution on a small scale happens *is* an observable fact, and there is strong evidence that this is true across species also. I don't know if that "strong evidence" is enough to claim it as fact or not. It may be, I just don't know enough about it.
[ March 03, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, calm down. Please. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya know what would be interesting... What if creationism was taught regularly in school...
How long before the same parents that are complaining about evolution showed up at school to argue dogmatic minutia? And how long before they just decide that religious things should be taught in church rather than school?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry, I haven't been getting my daily allotment of snarky lately.
Unless you count rush hour traffic.
I usually don't rise to the troll bait, but he's just so good at it.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I know, I know, you've been away from Hatrack too long. Shame on you.
While Jay says some wacky things sometimes, he is still becoming a decent member of Hatrack. He is KoM's inverse.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This was such a nice topic an hour ago. Now we have people who don't read <jk> and people who can't argue a point without being rude Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
No no Beverly, I like what you are saying. I was responding to Dan’s list of stuff.
Wacky? Why am I wacky....
[ March 03, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Jay: Oh, OK. I wasn't sure.
As for the "wacky", I find you to be irrational in many of the same ways as King of Men, only with the bias leaning in the opposite direction. But I do like both of you. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Just to be annoying, I'm diving in.
quote:There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble.
Because one famous atheist repudiated it? He must be a big fella.
quote:"Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.
Numbers, please. Polls? Surveys? Anything?
quote:His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today.
I wasn't aware that atheism ever regarded the world as its habitat. Atheists have always been aware they're in the minority. That's why they fight so hard.
quote:Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."
In what ways? Describe them, please.
quote:As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.
Why?
quote:The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe makes Yahya's prediction sound probable: "The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world."
He's right. Next year we might have the stunning desertion of two former ambassadors of secular humanism, and that kind of thing can only snowball.
quote:A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the United States – for example, at Harvard and Duke universities – showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources."
Over 25 years ago, Dr. Norman Cousins in his book "Anatomy of an Illness" described how watching Marx Brother movies helped him recover from a life-threatening tissue disease. Studies performed by many groups since then, and the American Heart Association even advised that laughing helps keep your heart healthy. Can I worship Groucho?
quote:Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively."
Which proves that people will find ways to act selfishly, no matter what words they use to wrap it in. This doesn't speak poorly of atheism or theism (although it tries to).
quote:John Updike's observation, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been is drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position," appears to become common currency throughout much of the West.
People don't want to be atheists because it's boring?
quote:The only exceptions to this rule, Zulehner said, are the former East Germany and the Czech Republic, where, as the saying goes, de-Christianization has been the only proven success of these regions' former communist rulers.
As the saying goes?
While I don't have data to back it up, I suspect that dictators seek to remove religious belief because it can bind communities together and make them stronger, more difficult to abuse. Religion can give weak people hope, and brutal leaders fear that if they're smart enough. Note that this doesn't mean the religion has to be true.
quote:Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va.
Oh, OK. We're losing the atheists but we're gaining more witches. Cool.
quote:Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism."
Actually this happened back in the 60's. You need to catch up a little, here.
quote:Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion.
Which might have something to do with the loss of its followers. Or maybe not, I dunno.
quote:In a similar vain, Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable quests of contemporary humanity - the quest for freedom and truth. "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked."
I have no idea what this means.
quote:As for the "peril of spirituality," Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. He concluded from his research that in the long run the survival of worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup:
What research? On whom? For how long?
quote:"The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he insisted, will come in at the tail end.
Probably, but not because of any innate inferiority. Hire 100 employees for your business, and give them a rule book. Watch how many follow it to the letter, how many follow it for the most part, how many know about it but break the rules anyway, and how many work just fine without it because they can see what needs to be done and how to do it without guidance. I'll bet you the percentages break about the same way, and the self-starters will always be the smallest number.
Edited to add: actually I do believe that atheism is irrational. That's why I'm agnostic
[ March 03, 2005, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Evolution says nothing about how life began, right? That's a different theory.
Yes, it is a different theory, but one strongly connected with evolution.
It is also one that has a fair amount of proof. Namely, several scientists have recreated what we think the environment was at the time life began on Earth and given it an electrical shock treatment (lightening). The result was simple versions of many of the basic molecules of life. DNA bases, RNA bases, protiens, so on and so forth.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Maybe because it’s a good story about the hopeful future of our planet.
But then again, as an amillenialist, I don't believe there IS a hopeful future for our planet.
In fact, my theological beliefs are that things will get much, much worse, not better.
Just thought I'd throw some other wrench into the discussion. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I'm just disappointed that us agnostics never get mentioned...it's always Christians this, Muslim's that, atheists there.
::nods::
Yep. We're considered clueless and are entirely disrespected by true believers and true nonbelievers alike. Sheesh.
quote:The popular perception, HT, is that agnostics are either atheists without a backbone or Christians with a nit to pick.
Those are just vicious lies spread by atheists hoping to inflate their numbers artificially. And also by Christians who will never give up on us. Never.
[ March 03, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
WrenchCon!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: For much the same reason we don't teach "Because God Wills It" along with the notion of Gravity in Physics class or because "Allah deems it so" along with exothermic chemical reactions in Chem class.
Oh. So you're saying I should stop doing that?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Plus there's the its been happening forever approach, also known as the "its turtles all the way down" approach.
Hey, those are good eating.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Storm: I believe the properly pronounced southern phrase is "THEMS good eatin'"
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Yep. We're considered clueless and are entirely disrespected by true believers and true nonbelievers alike. Sheesh.
Hey, I have respect for agnostics. But then I tend to group you guys in with Athiests. As long as you don't have a strong belief, s'all good
That said, I may as well dive in with what I've refrained from saying earlier:
I'm atheist. Why? Becuase there is absolutely no evidense what so ever for the existance of a god aside from the fact that people say there is one and use the lack of evidense in some things as evidense of god being there.
There is however, plenty of historical evidense that religion is a human creation used to explain what we don't know, to hold people together, and to validate governments. Added to that, our penchant for story telling and fiction is well expressed in it.
Do I, as an atheist want the world to become more atheist? On some levels yes, and on others no. I think the world might be a better place with out religion in a lot of ways. People will be dicks with or with out religion. However, remove religion and in the case of religious dicks you remove their easy fall back rationalization for their actions. "God willed it so." is pretty all encompassing and "they are godless heathens" has done a ton of damage. The amount of slaughter perpetrated in the name of this supposedly loving god is appalling, and the amount that the congregations of it have supported it is equally apalling.
On the other hand, it can also do a lot of good. It does hold people together and give them somewhere to go. So how do I feel? People can practice their religion however they want, however much they want, and however vervently they want, I don't care. Just so long as they don't mess with science (removing evolution from schools), don't use those beliefs to remove/prevent other peoples rights(gay marrige), and don't try and force those beliefs on me or anyone else(all too common).
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Wow, Alcon, that was a great post! I've been refraining from saying something like that all along, but I was afraid I was going to sound too snarky... Thanks for writing that. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Hey, I have respect for agnostics. But then I tend to group you guys in with Athiests.
*Thinks someone missed my point*
Other than that, pretty good post.
But these threads always remind me of a role play I did with two buddies of mine prior to fully embracing doubt and uncertainty. It really annoyed the youth minister. We were supposed to role play a discussion of an atheist, a believer of some sort, and an agnostic. This is what we did:
(Agnostic in the middle) Atheist: "There is no God" Agnostic, facing atheist: "You might be right." Believer: "There is a God." Agnostic, turning to believer: "You might be right."
Then we all sat down. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
sndrake, I had a problem with that part, but I noticed the at the end of that line and decided that he's not entirely serious about it.
As for the discussion....... Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Great post Alcon =)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote: Anything that doesn’t create is evolutionary.
Oh and gravity isn't that much more of a fact than evolution... At least in the way you describe it, Jay.
We're still not sure how gravity works at really tiny distances, with really tiny particles.
Which is why you get the quantum/relativity breakdown, and all the ongoing work towards a single unified theory that explains both without contradicting itself.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I dunno why, but I find "quantum foam" extra 'specially fun to say.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, I like it's name too
Not unlike "Punctuated Equilibrium", or "triskaidekaphobia".
But NOT like antidisestablishmentarianism. That's just silly.
-Bok
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I observe that some people have been comparing me to Jay. Now, snarkiness is one thing, but I'd like to point out that I am irrational on subjects that concern values and ethics, where there isn't a right answer. Comrade Jay, on the other hand, is irrational on scientific subjects where there exists proof, and the proof is overwhelmingly in evolution's favour.
I mean, just three points : Any origins theory needs to account for carbon (and other isotope) dating, far-away stars, and layering of fossils. Evolution/cosmology does so very neatly. What is the creationist answer? Until Jay can answer this, he has absolutely no business 'knowing' that evolution is false and pretending that this is scientific evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pix raises an excellent point with the whole "Okay, if life was brought here from another planet, was it created or did it evolve?" And oddly, the few atheists I know who believe this are split on that question. Some believe that life spontaneously arose in a quasi-Mormon way, as beings of pure light and knowledge decided to develop shells of matter; some believe that life did in fact evolve somewhere else; and some believe that life has always existed in this universe, moving from universe to universe as each ended (although I don't know where they think that life came from in its original universe, or even if it had an original universe at all.) Two separate British humorists, both atheists, have speculated that life on this planet began as a consequence of humans meddling with time machines, thus producing ourselves. So YMMV. *grin*
-----
"I think that education should reflect the culture one lives in. We should learn about other cultures, true, but, in America at least, the Bible and Christian beliefs are a pretty large part of the local culture."
Great. In a sociology or theology or current affairs classroom, that's a great idea. But until Creationism resembles science, which even Intelligent Design has yet to do despite its desperate attempts, it has no place in a science classroom. I don't insist that people teach English in my Math classes, or Home Ec. in my French classes, or put chocolate in my peanut butter. When the Christians come up with actual science, they can teach it.
"What is the creationist answer? Until Jay can answer this, he has absolutely no business 'knowing' that evolution is false..."
Based on links that both Jay and Farmgirl have provided, KoM, I believe that they believe that they do have answers to those questions. Now, you and I may disagree, but they don't feel like other proofs are necessary.
[ March 03, 2005, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well this has really expanded into everything under the sun. Since nothing I will show you will make a lick of difference I’m not really sure it’s worth my time. Especially since I can’t even say a blatantly obvious statement like find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution. We’ve discussed far away stars to great lengths in another thread. And yes, I agree with you on the layering of fossils, since they show billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth is a huge problem for evolutionary thinking since it points to a global flood. And yes What about carbon dating? I’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research. It is totally unfair to promote one theory over the other in supposedly unbiased state run schools.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Carbon dating?
Tried it once, wasn't much fun.
-Trevor
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wrong allotrope.
Try diamond instead of graphite.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Jay, what you just said shows that you have no idea how science works. Or about the evolutionary theory. This is the problem with creationary "theory" and the people who support it. It isn't a scientific theory backed by research and hard evidense with a hypothesis. And all those attacks on evolution make no sense.
quote:And yes, I agree with you on the layering of fossils, since they show billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth is a huge problem for evolutionary thinking since it points to a global flood.
Bullshit. They show many layers, spread out over millions, upon millions of years. If it was a single global flood it would be one layer, if any. Whats more is, the contients shift over time. Its called plate tectonics. This is what creates mountains and allows us to see the fossil layers. It also means, that at one point or another many parts of the world that are now above ground were once under water. Places that have never been under water, don't have nearly as many fossils, if they have any. Thats why fossils are hard to find. If you wanna know more about how it works check this out: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question609.htm
quote:’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research. It is totally unfair to promote one theory over the other in supposedly unbiased state run schools.
Its not a matter of promoting one theory over another in schools. Its a matter of one being actual scientific theory, supported by piles of evidense and researched using the scientific method and the other being bullox supported by those who are religious. Just look at its hypothesis: that god created the world (basically). This is not a hypothesis that can be disproven. An essential part of the scientific method is that there be a hypothesis that can be disproven through observation and analysis. That cannot be. The fact that you believe it has just as much validity as evolution shows you have absolutely no understanding of science. If you want to argue science go take a couple of science classes, basic high school level will do, and come back. Then we can argue science.
quote:Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.
Carbon dating is often used as an all encompassing term for radioisotope dating.
[ March 03, 2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Especially since I can’t even say a blatantly obvious statement like find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution."
Will you concede, Jay, that I have done so? Specifically, an atheist who believes that life always existed as pure energy before taking form and seeding itself across the universe does not believe in evolution as it is commonly understood. Am I right?
And note that I'm being wacky, here. If you're just looking for atheists who believe in some form of evolution but not specifically Darwinian evolution, which is what's commonly meant, there are thousands of 'em out there. Frankly, I think this is a very important point; there are lots of atheists who believe in different ways life was created, even if -- by definition -- they don't believe that God did it.
Since the whole point of your "show me an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution" challenge was to suggest that atheists make up this monolithic "religion" with a belief in Darwinian evolution, the obvious fact that not all atheists are evolutionists and not all evolutionists are Darwinian evolutionists should put the lie to that pretty quickly.
"I’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research."
Jay, there is not a scientist in the world who'd be willing to make this claim. When the scientists in the field list as one of their fundamental organizing principles a belief in scripture -- meaning that all evidence collected must be interpreted according to that scripture -- then you aren't engaging in science.
I know we've discussed the importance of peer review on this board before. Were you here for any of those discussions?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Alcon said it pretty well, but I can't resist.
quote:Since nothing I will show you will make a lick of difference I’m not really sure it’s worth my time.
That's fine, you don't have to. In fact, I do wish you'd keep your silliness to yourself and not corrupt the innocent young people who may read this thread.
quote:Especially since I can’t even say a blatantly obvious statement like find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution.
Well, how about Lysenko, the Soviet biologist? Certainly an atheist, but not a believer in Darwinian evolution.
quote:We’ve discussed far away stars to great lengths in another thread.
No, we didn't. There were precisely three posts on the subject. Yours being a mere link to an AiG page full of the usual claims that 'we have shown this, that and the next thing' without a word on how it was shown.
quote:And yes, I agree with you on the layering of fossils, since they show billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth is a huge problem for evolutionary thinking since it points to a global flood.
Dear me. How did the global flood manage to sort the fossils so nicely into strata, so that we never find T. rex next to Smilodon? That's a pretty good accomplishment for water.
quote:And yes What about carbon dating?
The usual exaggerations and half-truths.
quote:I’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research. It is totally unfair to promote one theory over the other in supposedly unbiased state run schools.
Not to mention those poor Flat-Earthers, who don't get equal time for their views due to the religious conspiracy of Round-Earth Scientists.
Here's a further point for you to consider : How did evolutionary theory get to this point? There was a time when everybody believed in creationism. You can't very well postulate that the Liberal Media Conspiracy (tm) was pushing evolution in the nineteenth century, since it didn't exist. So how did the Evil Atheists convince the world population their theory was good? Could it be - gasp! - that it fits the evidence?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Well, they haven't released it yet, but I heard that some scientists at Los Alamos found an even smaller particle that makes up quarks and that carved into the side of each one is "God was here."
I just have to say that this made me laugh pretty hard.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Great. In a sociology or theology or current affairs classroom, that's a great idea. But until Creationism resembles science, which even Intelligent Design has yet to do despite its desperate attempts, it has no place in a science classroom. I don't insist that people teach English in my Math classes, or Home Ec. in my French classes, or put chocolate in my peanut butter. When the Christians come up with actual science, they can teach it.
You make a good point, Tom. Note that I always said "touch on" rather than "teach" because the biggest "evidence" for creationism appears to be a literal interpretation of Genesis. Everything else seems to be grasping at straws to support that. I just think it would be a respectful thing considering the number of people in this nation who believe thusly, to touch on it in a respectful, unmocking way. Addressing that it exists rather than "teaching" it.
KoM's concern about "polluting" the young, impressionable minds is silly, since it appears that a strong belief in the literal translation of Genesis is necessary to accept creationism to begin with. There just isn't enough evidence for it on science alone to convince. Whether or not kids have this strong belief is a private matter having to do with how they were taught in their families and churches. Fearing that religious beliefs are some dangerous poison that must be kept from the minds of our young is as silly as believing evolution will keep people from God.
[ March 04, 2005, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I like what someone said about one of the tenets of LDS: "Anything that is true is part of our religion".
I dig that.
Religion should not fear truth. Evolution is truth...thus part of God.
[ March 04, 2005, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
That was Brigham Young, IIRC.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)