Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Creationist survey


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#1 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 10 November 2004 - 05:33 PM

Here is a pretty cool example of how not to put together a survey.

Science & Religion Survey
http://michaelacorey...rvey/survey.cgi

It is a Creationist quiz in disguise. Notice how it is impossibe to complete it if you do not think miracles are real (because you can't answer question number 6 without accepting that you believe in miracles).

Some of the questions are so blindingly obvious in how they show you what sort of answer they want.

But anyway - try it and check the results (just ignore question 6). It turns out the site author has less support than he must be hoping for.

#2 Stargazer

Stargazer

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 11 November 2004 - 02:55 AM

If your life depended on it, would you say that God exists?
If my life depended on it, of course I would say it. I wouldn't believe it - which I think is what he actually means. So I said "No," just because I think he means "would you believe in god."

Is there any logical reason for being hopeful in today's increasingly "hopeless" world?
Yes, I believe so. Obviously it's not easy, with all the people running around working towards making this world worse than it already is.

Do you think the horror of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States can be counteracted by belief in God?
No. Also keep in mind that it was carried out by some of the most fanatical believers. To counteract fundamentalism with another brand of it is not too smart.

Can the fact of evil possibly be reconciled with the existence of a perfectly good and all-powerful Deity?
In short: No.

Do you believe miracles are real?
A miracle doesn't have to be caused by divine intervention and so on; according to Webster online it can simply be an extremely outstanding or unusual event. But since I know what he means by "miracle," I had to say "No."

If you do believe miracles are real, do you think miracles can be reconciled with the hard core facts of modern science?
With the definition I suppose he's using, then no.

Do you think the founding fathers of modern science believed in a Creator?
Yes. Isaac Newton was also interested in alchemy if I remember correctly. Galileo Galilei supposedly said that a god wouldn't want to stop humans from doing scientific research (as the church suggested during that time).

Do you think the Big Bang theory of the universe has anything to do with the activity of a Divine Being?
The theory? Of course not. The event itself? There's always the possibility, but still, no.

Do you think that the concept of evolution necessarily contradicts, or otherwise conflicts with, the theological concept of creation?
No. After all, it's perfectly possible to invent a new religion that embraces the theory of evolution as part of their mythology. That doesn't make that particular religion true, though.

Do you think it is possible for evolution and creation to BOTH be valid simultaneously?
Yes, it depends on exactly how this creation happened.

Do you believe there could be a major cover-up in modern science as far as empirical evidence for the existence of God is concerned?
No.

#3 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 11 November 2004 - 11:15 AM

Originally posted by: Stargazer
Is there any logical reason for being hopeful in today's increasingly "hopeless" world?

Boy I caught a lot of **** the last time I discussed this!

But there is an obvious connection between the Christian POV, esp the more Fundy/ Creationist's and a very pessimistic view of life.

#4 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 09:29 AM

FT, it seems you will soon have your own congregation here. Posted Image

#5 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 10:50 AM

Do I get to pass the collection plate?

Or at least take my property off of the tax rolls and not pay taxes on my income?

As long as I promise to not marry two guys and a dog together?

#6 Stargazer

Stargazer

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 13 November 2004 - 03:35 AM

Originally posted by: Freethinker


Originally posted by: Stargazer
Is there any logical reason for being hopeful in today's increasingly "hopeless" world?

Boy I caught a lot of **** the last time I discussed this!

But there is an obvious connection between the Christian POV, esp the more Fundy/ Creationist's and a very pessimistic view of life.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess I can see a connection too. It seems to them that if their beliefs are wrong, then life has no meaning. It does seem sad that only a religious belief (no matter if it's not true) can give meaning to life, which seems to suggest that we lived meaningless lives until christianity came along.

#7 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 01:02 PM

Originally posted by: Stargazer
It seems to them that if their beliefs are wrong, then life has no meaning. It does seem sad that only a religious belief (no matter if it's not true) can give meaning to life, which seems to suggest that we lived meaningless lives until christianity came along.

It goes beyond this. There seems to be a direct, inversly proportional relationship between Christian religious belief and the person's view of the current moral tone and direction of the world.

Those I meet that have a positive outlook (even after the 2nd stolen election) in general and a philosophy of humans being able to make positive decisions themselves tend to be less religious.

Those that express deep concern with the shape the world is in and it's continued decline are almost always more Fundy Christian.

I made that specific observation here when a newer member made a few comments about how relatively bad things are. Even though I was 100% on target, it was not appreciated.

#8 Tim_Lou

Tim_Lou

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts

Posted 17 November 2004 - 06:30 PM

Christian=hope?

yeah, for the poor people! (got some nice food in the church)
but not for the rich!

(dont mean any offend, i dont mean that christian is bad...its neither good nor bad.)

#9 Tim_Lou

Tim_Lou

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts

Posted 17 November 2004 - 06:57 PM

"in general and a philosophy of humans being able to make positive decisions themselves tend to be less religious."

what do you mean?
less religious people tend to be more positive?
or positive people do not tend to be religious?

one can argue that people with negative attutide tend to be in religion to seek help, while people with positive attutide do not need a religion at all.

overall, i think that religion is a trait of us, we have the tendency to gather people with similar attitude and beliefs. humans tend to create agreements and to share knowledge. not only is religion a form of this unity, so are music, arts, languages, math concepts...

almost all civilization have some form of religions, it is a way to share idea, to express and drive emotion, and to unite a group of people.
it is similar to the concept of nationalism.

#10 alxian

alxian

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 14 December 2004 - 09:46 PM

Be it and end all?

read my last one?.. thank you.. 12k=long read.

ID is bunk, the universe is ancient and far more vast (supposedly infinite) than we can/will ever comprehend.

given that the universe is relatively homogeneous, all the necessary chemicals for life exist everywhere, whether or not they exist in ideal conditions and sufficient quantities is also no longer to be debated since science keeps expanding the limits of life to the point where only the most toxic environment designed by man himself do not support at least the simplest forms of life. i.e. animals immune to UV gamma x-ray.. basically radiation and the lack of the most basic elements is lethal to life.. i'd like to believe there are creatures out there that feed on radioactive isotopes. maybe as with most impossible creatures they'll be discovered to be extant here on earth right under our noses.

also there is metal in abundance in the universe. this alone is proof enough for me of the incalculable age of the universe but more importantly our own little corner of it, stars have to live and die for unimaginable lengths of time to create tangible amounts of metal (i exaggerate for levity) given that there is so much metal everywhere one should realize it had to have come from somewhere and took a very long time to create within stars and billions of years for our known supply. but definitely more than a week i bet. and probably even more complex elements and processes that we have not yet discovered and thus don't understand cannot understand at this time (the acceleration of the universe or at least our visible nook of it, and the inner workings of the atom and the oddness of the quantum scale and beyond). i mean we know so much already about our local universe but much of it is still incomprehensible by 'modern' science in time we will understand and master them and we'll become as powerful as the creators so many of us already so blithely attribute the existence and the origins of life to (i wonder if ID has balls enough to admit that the universe and other planets were never mentioned in the bible because they have always been there, god/the creator only made earth not heaven as in the stars but heaven as in the atmosphere.. (if you examine pre Christian mythology aliens and similar concepts account for much of the evolution in culture and knowledge and if some of the myths are to be believed man himself was actually constructed as a slave to these supreme beings.. they weren't ethereal gods/angels/energy beings (from another dimension), they were simply very advanced life forms looking for scarce elements they required if only symbolically for the purposes of ritual or whatever but enough to have come to earth to seek it out (gold is the element that most commonly seduced these alien Spaniards)

i wonder why there hasn't been a movie made to glorify the planet x nemesis myths, about the Anasazi, snake people, the missing American copper, basic myths that anyone curious enough would have read about on the net independently or absorbed from watching way too many discovery channel documentaries...

the governments of the world don't which for their sheep to know why ancient civilizations suddenly began to worshiped gods? (at about the time ID swears creation began, i wonder if Jewish people support ID?) because to them the gods not only existed but did come to earth and aren't very far away (relatively).. supposedly they live in hibernation on a missing planet that takes thousands of years to make an orbit and come close enough to the sun for any meaningful interactions to occur.. interactions like the rise and fall of civilization.. (allowing for their culture to benefit from the evolution of humanity here on the highly volatile earth, while they slumber, we evolve, they come periodically and absorbed they pillage and leave again to slumber but with the promise to return.. lets assume that the myth of man being on earth for a very long time, much long that the still extant fossils (those that haven't been erased purposely or destroyed by nature) we dig up will attest too is true.. if man evolved over and over but earth with her ice ages and furious natural disasters kept wiping us out, such an interchange with an alien species is very possible, what if they decided to interbreed.. creating man from whatever animal amused them and/or out of their sheer genetic brilliance.. Neanderthal and no doubt dozens of other would be human like species no doubt could not compete against a genetic super animal such as ourselves.... remember its a myth though, and science up until the current popularity of ID has been politely urged to ignore god and research hard fact...

but the fact is ancient civilizations did rise and fall seemingly without any apparent catalyst, as well there is a Kuiper belt object screwing up stuff outside of the orbit of Pluto, until either it comes in or we go out we won't know for sure what it is (some say its sols binary sibling (a failed star probably more star than Jupiter but not star enough to emit light enough for us to see it with all the solar glare..) also some say planet a huge one (not just for a Kuiper belt object but huge like Jupiter huge.. (ancients says its responsible for the moon and earths pacific deformation.. while others say its also to be held accountable for the asteroid belt (which if ever Microsoft decides to claim ownership of mars and become a mining concern thus getting humans economically closer to the belt... if it can be proven that the asteroid belt was one planet (victim of the first hit and run...) smashed to smithereens during the settling of the planets into there current orbits.. well some more of the ancient myths will be validated, never the less the fact is that something is out there in the Kuiper belt and ancient cultures gave it names and worshiped it plotted its orbits and would have if they were still i power now still be anticipating its return (maybe where Christianity stole the idea of Christ’s return. which BTW was scheduled for a few years ago and never happened.. wait does that mean everyone was wrong? not really the next and most decisive date carved in stone i believe is next may.. don't plan anything for next summer.. lol but i think we'd have seen a planet the size of Jupiter by now if it was only months away from re-entering sols domain..).

do i digress? nah..

(if god created the universe AND earth)
i mean how stupid would the creator be for creating an infinite supply of raw ingredients only to create one planet to make life (life coincidentally that they would have us believe has only existed for a few tens of thousands of years (disputing revolution till they are blue in the face ignoring all life forms that exhibit irrefutably the process of environmental adaptations.. evolution, Darwin’s Madagascar..) 'like one and a small fraction'x10k years. with that perspective the math just doesn't make sense why an Everest worth of raw materials to build a cake called earth which in that example is so tiny it belongs in the quantum scale, so the is no real measure (again i exaggerate.. but this time i should have said Everest is the universe earth is so far beyond quantum it virtually wouldn't exist at all.. but again i digress and thank you for still reading on).. telescopes are tools of the devils they'd say, they don't function as you think they do.. the universe is far smaller than science would have you believe... uh huh sure i still don't buy it (ID).

metals have been scientifically proven to have originated inside massive objects like stars and planets... fact

everything in existence was created 10 thousand or something like that years ago. like the bible lets assume 10 thousand is not a valid metric. still nope.. metals would suggest billions, and then more mathematically correct billions of billions and then some of years of stellar evolution. we view but a fraction of the whole (which is infinite and homogenous and expanding until further notice). mind bender.. is it expanding or are we just becoming more and more aware of its complexity? lets assume that the barrier we have limiting our view to a few billion light years (15 or so) is the real edge of the universe (its not this is an example.. and lets assume that the further back in history you go the less complex the universe would seem.. given a scale, at some point people must have thought that the earth would have been the center of the universe.. it was the universe.. given that innate inescapable logic of course science would say that the universe must have a center and of course as we see further and further away the further and further away everything seems to be from that center.. add a little universal redshift and people think the universe is moving away.. ever thought maybe the earth might be imploding? lol.. i don't mean to deride honest irrefutable scientific theory but aren't there other explanations for near universal redshift than everything is accelerating away from everything else? wouldn't that equate to gravity being a push or something like that?? no.. all it means is that either the local big bang event is still pushing stuff away (not answering the acceleration) or something like gravity outside of our field of view is pulling this away.. what could cause that? if the universe is matter and whatever was around before the big bang was anti matter if ubiquitous anti matter preceded the big matter creating bang event then at some point all matter will be annihilated by colliding the with anti matter all the big bang wave front.. which would now be outside of our field of vision.. and perhaps since opposites attract this anti matter boundary may be suck matter in.. who knows but even if they knew how could they prove it?

unless god/the creator(s) was/were omnipotent it is impossible for ID to ignore that metals had to come from somewhere.. how vast is the universe beyond our field of vision? and what is beyond that current limit? infinite anti matter?. even ID can't answer that, they'll just say nothing or ask god.. or something vague like that... isn't it even just a little bit possible that life was not born here (earth)/life does exist everywhere but everywhere is such a big place that we'll probably never meet our neighbors in tau ceti.. in the same way metal was not created by god and is also ancient and everywhere.. ID is just far too simple to explain much of anything at all but surprisingly enough people are willing to swallow this ultra shallow post Christian ideal since it is so simple it must be true.. anything more complex is a tool of the devil to corrupt the one faith in the one true god. whoever that my be given the patchwork quilt of nature of the Christian faith god could be anybody..

yes they'll say god made it all. in one week some ten thousand years ago. and how fantastic he is but there is just far too much evidence to show that even conventional science is wrong in some of the fundamental things like the big crunch which is now universal expansion, that atom being the smallest possible particle which is now vibrating string theory and probably something even more exotic if a string can be isolated and strung and unraveled ..lol and maybe it will be proven that the big bang itself (essentially a creationist event that started it all) turns out to be a local spatial event still observable today that’s part of an even more grandiose model of the universe where masses as great as the observable universe can crunch and expand and when they do look out because the explosions that occur are pretty friggin big.

with this view.. one where the universe is exponentially older than science can prove without a doubt.. with accurate metrics.. and that the chemistry for life exists everywhere and no doubt in very conducive conditions, conditions that would allow for the evolution of super civilizations able to travel through interstellar space, in a fair fraction of the infinite that is the universe outside of what we can see....

i would believe two things, (neither of which is as simple as ID

the big bang was just a local explosion of an object so incredibly massive that time and space etc were so warped in its vicinity that as it exploded (from some unknown internal catalyst/process) space and time (achieved normalcy?) (balanced out with everything outside of its influence?) (dark or anti matter?) as we now very late in the event can observe it doesn't really compute with the nearly infinitesimal size all that matter must have been packed into.. or whatever

and two that given the amount of metal science would have us believe is everywhere that not only is the universe far older than we can even imagine, but seeing how homogeneous everything seems to be that the accelerating expansion implies that there are forces (natural ones not divine), that are as ubiquitous and fundamental in the universe as atoms and galaxies and perhaps other life forms, but that just go way over our heads.. at least for now...

#11 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 14 December 2004 - 10:01 PM

are you saying that there is no way to reconcile science with religion? I don't agree with all of the stupid creationist theories that try to ignore science and uphold time-honored crap that scared people need to believe for reassurance, but I do believe that there is a God, and I do believe that science is merely the study of how he engineered this universe.

I can't explain it well, but the best logical argument for a god comes from C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity. Even those of you (freethinker) who are steadfast atheists, as I once was, would benefit from reading it. It is short, only a quick one day read, but it is good and should satisfy the most devout atheists.

#12 alxian

alxian

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 14 December 2004 - 11:41 PM

pgrm dave.. RE: reconciliation of science and religion and faith (don't forget faith)

one aims to free the people one aims to control the people and one cannot be much of anything without faith even if its misguided.

a world of faith
you can have faith without science or religion.. humans must have lived this way for eons as hunters and gatherers then came agriculture and the dude who owned the farm, thus was repartriated the food as was always done from the most fit to the most needy, should there not be enough food harvested someone goes hungry, in a society based on faith the hungry have faith that they'd eventually be fed.. rather than going out and hunting for food.. which they easily could do (i suppose this applies to the early hunters and gatherers who'd just started cultivating in south america/china (?) but i was talking about todays society and the expectation of handouts) (and no.. i'm not calling the average north american a dirt stupid lazy pig dog atheist, that would be wrong, because i know north americans believe very strongly in religion.. god anyway.. and not every american lusts for personal gain). for instance some people have faith in BUSH.. but that was a cheap shot. most bush supporters want peace.. (trully perplexing.. but that kind of explains why they have faith, their faith.. a belief that bush can bring peace to the world, by ignoring the UN (i mean what are they for anyway?),(they are just a stupid puppet show doing very little because they can't allow themselves to do what needs to be done in order to bring about world peace) and doing what needs to be done. (one faith one creed, faith in science under a democratic responsible government where no man has more power or more importance than any other, the total abolishment of the individual while empowering the individual who must in turn sacrifice himself willingly for the good of the whole, the greater good).. wait a sec i might just have faith in bush my self afterall)

a world of religion
lets take the muslims for a second, as far as my culturally limited knowledge of this culture goes they value science as much as religion thus they prosper and have faith in their continued successful future, but they are at war because of their faith.. is it because of their own supremist views? no i believe any form of religion engenders a supremist view and thus any other religion than my own is the devil.. (remember the crusades, and that he earliest christians were jews who were burned by romans (catholics? *sigh) so a world with religion especially when there are so many cannot have peace and is not the ideal either. even with science as a temper religion takes over when the people are concerned .. no nation prides itself for scientific accomplishments before boasting about its main religion as far as i know. you can't really count north america because you'd be acosted in the street if you claimed either the states or canada had only one main religion that was better than any other and should be followed.. i.e. the forced reliquishing of religious faith in minorities is a BAD idea.

a world of science
do i even need to say what absolute horrors of a world of pure scientific hubris? ok so B-movies aside lets give science a chance and add responsible government (i am canadian. w00t) you still run into issues of the exploitation of science that will no doubt corrupt the 'soul'(dna and ability to think about your humanity as something precious) and then eventually would lead to catastrophic destruction of civilization, and trust me you aren't likely to persuad me to join any cults or get me to admit without the use of powerful hypnonsis that the world is flat.. but i will admit the blind pursuit of science without very strict and focused planning is stupid.. oops i just created a virulent retrovirus containing a dna marker thats known to be linked with <add horrible congenital disease here> that normally would be recessive... 'maybe i should have carried the gatcttcag instead of adding atttagggaccc' .. i'm all for science, i believe a heatly respectful approach to science will set us free of religious wars and man on man violence. but as long as you have corrupt gov't a lust for person gain and a society where so many foster such a dark contempt for their fellow man.. no.. a society based pure science is doomed. peeps of atlantis may speak on their own behalf.. oh wait.. nap they cannot. lol

while even the most worthless has faith, the most corrupt will feel it (the pinch of fear hubris comming to bite him in the ***) when the market fluctuates..

also

however well intentioned thepowers that be migth seem to the people, neither science(whoever commissioned the study usually won't publish results if they are not to his liking, especially not if they are spanish, she's a flat etc) nor religion (whoever controls religion controls the people) is ever down with the greater good in mind if it conflicts power. when either is a tool used by those in power both are used to control.

i can't for the life of me understand christianity.. whether its purpose is to grow popuplations to a planet crushing size or what there seems to be something foul and corrupt at the heart of a faith were most of its current offspring wish to be atheist/anarchists or commit suicide or become criminals.. maybe i'm overly critical since i believe christianity lost hold of the reigns of power to gov't when we left england and a monarch.. but then i'd be alienating all of the other faiths that have blended with NA and democracy.. there would have been no other way to control such a varied church than to allow each individual the choice to run around 'free' but unable to do much without stepping on someone elses toes... lol people govern themselves and like the school yard teachers only step in when real trouble starts.. all the while collecting taxes and not teaching them a damn thing to lift them out of their stupor..

thus exploiting what we know for the benefit of the individual seems to be the only solution that will allow at least some of us to achieve true happiness..

#13 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 12:05 AM

i believe any form of religion engenders a supremist view and thus any other religion than my own is the devil..


Few religions preach hatred of others, only people preach that. Look at the great spiritual leaders - Jesus, Muhammad, Budda - they all taught similar things. None of them wanted violence, but later, followers of them became violent (except for Buddists, I don't think they ever really fought).

People distort their teachings, wanting to be "right" more than "good". What happens then is interesting, you end up with a devout people devoid of morals. That is when the problems occur, people fail to look back and see what they are doing.

But can religion be held accountable for a person's actions?

No more than television, or video games. Ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.

i can't for the life of me understand christianity.. whether its purpose is to grow popuplations to a planet crushing size or what there seems to be something foul and corrupt at the heart of a faith were most of its current offspring wish to be atheist/anarchists or commit suicide or become criminals


The problem with chrisitianity is more of a problem with the catholic church. More modern churches don't have as much of a problem with this. The problem stems from an unwillingness to accept a changing world. The catholic church is slow to change, which makes them unacceptable to modern people, who are used to things being unstable. More progressive churches are not experiancing nearly as much trouble.


Religion is important culturally and cannot be abandoned, but it must change. Hundreds of years ago, the church supported science, but then it began to have trouble with the information. I believe that once the church again embraces science, we will see the dawning of a new era of acceptance.

#14 alxian

alxian

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 12:35 AM

But can religion be held accountable for a person's actions?
.



yes especially when that religoin has peeps going on crusades..

i meant of course when peeps aren't punished by their religion for their transgressions, they get a frowning and a you're forgiven because its only for god to judge the quick and the dead.

once religion itself is accountable i think i'll sleep snuggly.. which i should have been doing instead of that monster post..

#15 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 08:33 AM

How is blaming religion any different than blaming music, or video games? If someone kills, it isn't because of their religion, although that may be their reasoning. In truth, their religion (most likely) preaches nonviolence, but they choose to focus on an aspect of it that will support their own views.

#16 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 01:29 PM

are you saying that there is no way to reconcile science with religion?

OK, Tormod enticed me into taking a few moments to jump back in. Seems like a good spot (made for me actually!)

No Science and Religion can NEVER be reconciled. Ever. The two take diametrically opposed directions towards gathering knowledge. Religion basis its dogma on faith and belief. Things that you use for "knowledge" when you lack facts and evidentially supported proofs. Which are of coorse the ONLY things Science uses. Religion makes claims and requires blanket acceptance and adhenrance. Science rejects "claims" and acceptance of ANY of the knowledge base it develops is constantly under review with specific attempts to disprove it with new data. Add to this that the most popular religions are based on written sources of knowledge from at times thousands of years ago. Where any Science "book" is suspect if it is more than a few years old.

Each and every time Science helps us learn something new, it replaces some old dogmatic claim of some religion. Science will continue to allow us to discard the false superstitions each religion is based on one claim at a time. As we go along this process, each religious group attempts to salvage what they can by continuing to grasp desperately to the gaps (in factual science knwoledge) left. At each turn those that pretend to be religious believers, once forced to accept the factual info developed thru science, will lie about what their religion used to teach and pretend their religion had actually accepted, rather than fought, these newly understood facts. The earth is flat, 6000 years old, in the center of the universe and disease is caused by demons. Oh, I guess it's not flat, but it is 6000 years old, the center and demons make you sick. OH? OK, it isn't the center, and we never claimed it was flat, but....


I don't agree with all of the stupid creationist theories that try to ignore science and uphold time-honored crap that scared people need to believe for reassurance, but I do believe that there is a God, and I do believe that science is merely the study of how he engineered this universe.

Yes and each of you believers will draw this arbitrary line someplace. Always desperate to find some gap to cling to. Lest you be forced to accept reality completely. There are still the flat earthers. The only difference is where each of you draw the line.

I can't explain it well, but the best logical argument for a god comes from C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity.

The only REASON you "can't explain it well" is that it lacks REASON.

#17 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 01:47 PM

Few religions preach hatred of others, only people preach that. Look at the great spiritual leaders - Jesus, Muhammad, Budda - they all taught similar things. None of them wanted violence, but later, followers of them became violent (except for Buddists, I don't think they ever really fought).

I have no idea where you get your facts about religion from, but it is obviously not from the religions themselves. Both the bible and the koran are filled with positively promoted examples of and direct admonissions to hate and kill others. And the people that preach it do so as required by the dogma their sources of revelation require. In fact both have almost the same passage as far as direct instructions to slay or slaughter those that will not accept that religion.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27).

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

But can religion be held accountable for a person's actions?

Let's see, they are specifically told by their religion to kill, they do so.... Hmmm, boy that's a tough call!

NOT!

The problem with chrisitianity is more of a problem with the catholic church.

Ah yes, once more it's the "other" Christians.... Once more we find that this person is the ONLY Christian and the others just don't get it!

Religion is important culturally and cannot be abandoned, but it must change. Hundreds of years ago, the church supported science, but then it began to have trouble with the information. I believe that once the church again embraces science, we will see the dawning of a new era of acceptance.

While I admit that religion is required to explain much of human history. It serves best to explain the attrocities and ignorace. Yes at one time "the church" tried to embrace reason and science. But it became obvious very quickly to church authorities that continuing down this path would eliminate the religion itself and wound up suppressing science and until SECULAR culture forced it to stop, would outright KILL those trying to bring science and reason into human society.